NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

General Discussion => New Physics for Space Technology => Topic started by: Chris Bergin on 05/19/2017 11:29 pm

Title: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chris Bergin on 05/19/2017 11:29 pm
This is a thread - Thread 10 in the series - focused on objective analysis of whether the EM Drive (a cavity resonating at microwave frequencies) reported "thrust force" is an experimental artifact or whether it is a real propulsion effect  that can be used for space applications, and if so, in discussing those possible space propulsion applications.

Objective skeptical inquiry is strongly welcome.   Disagreements should be expressed politely, concentrating on the technical, engineering and scientific aspects, instead of focusing on people.   As such, the use of experimental data, mathematics, physics, engineering, drawings, spreadsheets and computer simulations are strongly encouraged, while subjective wordy statements are discouraged. Peer-reviewed information from reputable journals is strongly encouraged.  Please acknowledge the authors and respect copyrights.

Commercial advertisement is discouraged.

In order to minimize bandwidth and maximize information content, when quoting, one can use an ellipsis (...) to indicate the clipped material.

Only use the embed [img ]http://code when the image is small enough to fit within the page. Anything wider than the width of the page makes the page unreadable as it stretches it (we're working on auto reduction, but different browsers work different ways, etc.)

This link

http://math.typeit.org/

enables typing of mathematical symbols, including differentiation and integration, Greek letters, etc.

--

Links to previous threads:

Thread 1:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.0

Thread 2:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.0

Thread 3:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.0

Thread 4:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.0

Thread 5:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.0

Thread 6:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.0

Thread 7:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.0

Thread 8:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.0

Thread 9:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.0
--

Entry level thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37438.0

Baseline NSF Article:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/evaluating-nasas-futuristic-em-drive/

This is the link to the EM Drive wiki that users are encouraged to contribute to, edit for accuracy, and build as a knowledge resource for the EM Drive:

http://emdrive.wiki
http://rfdriven.com

Chris note: Please note all posts need to be useful and worthwhile or they will be removed via moderation. This subject has large interest, with over 5 million thread reads and 900,000 article reads. Most people are reading and not posting, so when you post it is in front of a very large audience.

Also, and it should go without saying, amateur experiments are discouraged unless you have gained educated and/or professional advice for safety reasons.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: R.W. Keyes on 05/20/2017 03:37 am
Regarding Vector Network Analyzers; What are some affordable units that fit the bill for emdrive purposes at around 2.4 ghz? This http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?&_nkw=282376642705 (http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?&_nkw=282376642705) seems inexpensive but my Chinese language skills are non-existent. Or would some big heavy Agilent 8753 series be better? I saw the post on the http://www.megiq.com/products/vna-0440 (http://www.megiq.com/products/vna-0440) but I don't want to buy more than I'd need.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/20/2017 11:56 am
Regarding Vector Network Analyzers; What are some affordable units that fit the bill for emdrive purposes at around 2.4 ghz? This http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?&_nkw=282376642705 (http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?&_nkw=282376642705) seems inexpensive but my Chinese language skills are non-existent. Or would some big heavy Agilent 8753 series be better? I saw the post on the http://www.megiq.com/products/vna-0440 (http://www.megiq.com/products/vna-0440) but I don't want to buy more than I'd need.

The miniVNA Tiny works very well for return loss sweeps. It also has a smith chart for impedance matching the antenna. http://miniradiosolutions.com/54-2/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 05/20/2017 12:55 pm
Uh... not the windfreak synthnv ? Why?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/20/2017 01:09 pm
Uh... not the windfreak synthnv ? Why?

I use the windfreak as a signal generator and RF power detector. Then I use the miniTiny VNA for VNA and impedance tuning.  The miniTinyVNA is not permanently attached to the torsional pendulum.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 05/20/2017 01:13 pm
Oh I see now, I wasn't aware of that setup, thanks for the clarification !
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: rfmwguy on 05/20/2017 01:41 pm
NBC News

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/the-big-questions/will-impossible-motor-take-people-other-planets-n761101
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: R.W. Keyes on 05/20/2017 03:52 pm
According to the referenced website, production of this unit ended in December 2014 and no new products seem to be available from the company. While some may be available used, it's disconcerting that it's been discontinued. But then again, the HP 8753 I mentioned is discontinued and over thirty years old. However I have a great trust in classic HP equipment.

EDIT: I did find a knock-off of this unit available from China, but I wonder how good it is and true to the original. It sure is cheap in comparison to other units ($330) https://www.aliexpress.com/store/product/3G-miniVNA-Tiny-Vector-Network-Analyzer-Frequency-1-3000-Mhz-RF-Antenna-Analyzer-VNA-Signal-Generator/1939783_32717858518.html (https://www.aliexpress.com/store/product/3G-miniVNA-Tiny-Vector-Network-Analyzer-Frequency-1-3000-Mhz-RF-Antenna-Analyzer-VNA-Signal-Generator/1939783_32717858518.html)

Regarding Vector Network Analyzers; What are some affordable units that fit the bill for emdrive purposes at around 2.4 ghz? This http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?&_nkw=282376642705 (http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?&_nkw=282376642705) seems inexpensive but my Chinese language skills are non-existent. Or would some big heavy Agilent 8753 series be better? I saw the post on the http://www.megiq.com/products/vna-0440 (http://www.megiq.com/products/vna-0440) but I don't want to buy more than I'd need.

The miniVNA Tiny works very well for return loss sweeps. It also has a smith chart for impedance matching the antenna. http://miniradiosolutions.com/54-2/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: R.W. Keyes on 05/20/2017 04:37 pm
Uh... not the windfreak synthnv ? Why?

For those needs I will be using the LimeSDR, two of which are supposed to be arriving next week (after almost a year wait).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: xyzzy on 05/20/2017 05:43 pm
Regarding Vector Network Analyzers; What are some affordable units that fit the bill for emdrive purposes at around 2.4 ghz? This http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?&_nkw=282376642705 (http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?&_nkw=282376642705) seems inexpensive but my Chinese language skills are non-existent. ...

What you found there is the KC901S, one of a series of handheld network analyzers that are becoming very popular in the amateur radio community around the world. The previous models have been available in China for a couple of years now and people were already buying them directly from China through Taobao agents when the manufacturer did not have official overseas distributors.

The series initially became popular around 2014 with the KC901H model, followed by the slightly updated KC901E. Both were scalar-only instruments, now discontinued predecessors of the model you saw.

Then they released the KC901S and also began to more actively market it overseas. The KC901S was redesigned for higher battery capacity (4 instead of 2 cells) and for the first time it included some basic vector network analysis functions (S11 was vector, but S21 scalar only).

The newest model is now the KC901V. It works to 6.8 GHz (compared to 3 GHz for the -S model), goes down to 9 kHz, performs vector measurements for both S11 and S21. They also redesigned the amplitude detector to a digital design, resulting in noise floor improvements and the more options for resolution bandwidths in spectrum analysis mode. They call it an "RF Multimeter" because it includes the functions of a network analyzer, a spectrum analyzer, two signal generator configurations for RF and LF, and a frequency selective RF level meter (like a basic measurement receiver).

You can find a summary here: http://www.deepace.net/kc901v-6-8ghz-handheld-network-analyzer-rf-multimeter/

A datasheet in English is available (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_sPOt4-zQd8RWlVbGZLUld4bDQ/view) and it also includes a block diagram with a short description of the instrument's measurement principles.

Some people have reviewed various models from the "KC901" series and posted their reviews on the net. Here you can find a very detailed review of the latest -V model: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LN9PKKdFibo
 
P.S. Both the -S and the -V models are currently sold. Since I own neither one myself, I don't have direct experience with them. From the published specs and from what radio enthusiasts have posted in public forums, the newer -V one appears to be clearly superior in its abilities and technical characteristics, but of course it is also more expensive. When compared to "traditional" RF instruments however, both seem to have relatively benign price tags.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/20/2017 07:10 pm
According to the referenced website, production of this unit ended in December 2014 and no new products seem to be available from the company.

Where does it say the miniVNA Tiny has been discontinued? I see a new unit available from Ham Radio Outlet now.  I think you are mistaking, "The production of the "EXTENDER" ended in December 2014" - which is another product: http://miniradiosolutions.com/extender/ 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 05/21/2017 08:18 am
You may even build your VNA :)

http://hforsten.com/cheap-homemade-30-mhz-6-ghz-vector-network-analyzer.html#

The site carries full infos, pcb blueprints and cad files and full sw on github

[edit]

The problem with DIY is mainly calibration and stability; while the first one may be solved, the second one mainly depends from circuit and pcb design and could be critical since when it comes to measurements, once the VNA is calibrated, you should have always the same error/deviation, but sometimes this may not be the case, components stability (also due to heat) may cause variations and while this may be ok for some amateur radio or similar applications, I doubt it may be suitable for a test rig trying to measure and understand an experimental device like the EMdrive; in such a case one usually wants some good (enough) and stable measurement system, otherwise, well, one won't even know what gets measured, be it a signal, noise or some measurement device error. Not saying that one must pick professional and costly devices (at least not as a start), but having some commercial one, whose problems have already been solved, will for sure be of help :)

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: R.W. Keyes on 05/21/2017 10:45 am
You are correct. I misread. My humble apologies. I believe that is the responsibility of every scientist to read closely, and in this case, I gave it no more than a simple cursory scan before reporting its discontinuance. I could blame too much caffeine,which may be a cause, but not an excuse.


According to the referenced website, production of this unit ended in December 2014 and no new products seem to be available from the company.

Where does it say the miniVNA Tiny has been discontinued? I see a new unit available from Ham Radio Outlet now.  I think you are mistaking, "The production of the "EXTENDER" ended in December 2014" - which is another product: http://miniradiosolutions.com/extender/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: R.W. Keyes on 05/21/2017 11:44 am
There are so many options to choose from. I just discovered that I can use the LimeSDR itself as a VNA, though it may still have some rough edges at this point.

I am trying to figure out the best price/performance point. I know this is subjective based upon my budget for building n EMdrive, which is currently not very well defined but I am giving priority to an adequate testing and verification rig, as well as a time budget for documentation to enable others to reproduce any encouraging design.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 05/22/2017 02:30 am
Is that magnetic charge physical or not… Is an electron really made of "two magnetic charges" or is the magnetic field just a description of the electrodynamic interaction of two charged particles in motion relatively to each other, due to their spin?

Physically speaking, it depends of how you answer the question what is the magnetic field.

Simplistic view: when you cut a magnet in half, you don't get two separate North pole and South pole, you get two dipole magnets. You can cut the magnet again and again and again down to the atomic level: finally you'll reach the electron which is still a magnetic dipole. It's like saying you want to slice a window glass so thin because you want a window with only one side.

So according to this view, the magnetic field is something that comes out from an electric flow (current) and not the other way around, and it is always a dipole. And the magnetic monopole cannot exist.

But is an electron made of two magnetic charges? When explaining the origin of mass and inertia, some people including the media tell it is due to a particle, the Higgs boson. Although they omit to say it is just a hypothesis, and others hypotheses for the origin of inertia do exist, like the Mach-Einstein-Sciama-Woodward hypothesis, or quantized inertia (MiHsC). But at this point choosing between them is rather a matter of belief.

Dirac's equations plead in favor of the existence of discrete magnetic charges and magnetic monopoles. Observation does not. What is reality?

My understanding of the magnetic field is incomplete, since there is no electric charge in movement in the propagation of an electromagnetic wave in a vacuum, although there is a magnetic and electric fields associated with the wave. I admit I don't understand the physical meaning of an EM wave, I have always seen this as a mathematical trick and not a true description of reality, especially as there is no æther as a medium for the propagation of the wave and its EM field. Except EM waves are really propagating in vacuum, so… I'll stop there, because I can't add more to the debate. But you get the idea.

Thank you flux_capacitor,

this is exactly why I have developed a conceptual explanation for 'action at a distance' which allows a moment of complex time to be that place where quantum exchange requires no intermediary particle and no fields. The electric field is, in my opinion, a broken description of how electrical force acts upon a charge which is separated from an emission by light speed. The magnetic field is a broken description of how combinations of positive and negative electric fields act upon remote charges. All electromagnetic action being completely absorbed. Inertia and gravity being similar interactions partially absorbed by all charges.

This must sound like broken record but if it did not make more sense to me than collapsing fields at an absorption, I would happily shut up and go away.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 05/22/2017 03:40 am
I always considered magnetic and electrical "waves" to be distortions in the space-time continuum, much like gravity, not as something physical that moves through space.  Clearly it is a different sort of distortion, but the ways in which electrical and magnetic fields interact with solid objects are not entirely different from the way gravitation interacts with mass.  Somewhere in there lurks the Unified Field theory.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 05/22/2017 06:19 am
ERASynth: something to check out

 https://myriadrf.org/blog/tag/erasynth/

 https://www.crowdsupply.com/era-instruments/erasynth

A quite interesting signal generator :)

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 05/22/2017 07:36 am
Magnetic monopoles

I thought I already posted this, but probably I didn't

http://www.sciencealert.com/our-quest-to-find-the-truest-north-in-the-universe-just-took-an-unexpected-turn

given the latest discussions about monopoles, I suppose the above (and the original paper (https://journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevX.7.021023) linked at bottom) may be of interest
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Stormbringer on 05/22/2017 07:49 am
Magnetic monopoles

I thought I already posted this, but probably I didn't

http://www.sciencealert.com/our-quest-to-find-the-truest-north-in-the-universe-just-took-an-unexpected-turn

given the latest discussions about monopoles, I suppose the above (and the original paper (https://journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevX.7.021023) linked at bottom) may be of interest
I think what happened is a lot of people were posting stuff in the old thread after Mr Bergin posted the closing and requesting all further posts to be in the new thread. thus a few monopole related posts got banished into the aether -a shame because they were good though they were tangential to the topic.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 05/22/2017 07:54 am
Magnetic monopoles

I thought I already posted this, but probably I didn't

http://www.sciencealert.com/our-quest-to-find-the-truest-north-in-the-universe-just-took-an-unexpected-turn

given the latest discussions about monopoles, I suppose the above (and the original paper (https://journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevX.7.021023) linked at bottom) may be of interest
That is another article based on the same research that started the recent discussions.

It has some good information in it including a description of the 2 types of pseudo-monopoles. Neither is an actual monopole, and I don't think this direction of research can lead to a real monopole, which would be a new particle and discovered at the LHC or some similar experiment. It still is interesting, and could lead to something useful in the future.
Quote
"Whereas the Dirac monopole experiment simulates the motion of a charged particle in the vicinity of a monopolar magnetic field, the quantum monopole has a point-like structure in its own field resembling that of the magnetic monopole particle itself."
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 05/22/2017 09:25 am
There are so many options to choose from. I just discovered that I can use the LimeSDR itself as a VNA, though it may still have some rough edges at this point.

I am trying to figure out the best price/performance point. I know this is subjective based upon my budget for building n EMdrive, which is currently not very well defined but I am giving priority to an adequate testing and verification rig, as well as a time budget for documentation to enable others to reproduce any encouraging design.

Had a look at LimeSDR (here (https://myriadrf.org/projects/limesdr/) and here (https://wiki.myriadrf.org/LimeSDR_Quick_Start)) and, for sure, it's an interesting board; I just have some doubt about the accuracy of its measurements and the cleanliness of its signal (harmonics and so on); also, when it comes to measurements, other critters, like the SynthNV or the MiniVNA allow to setup a sweep and let the device do the job, storing the data in the device's internal RAM and then returning them, this speeds up things quite a lot, but the LimeSDR doesn't seem capable of doing so, I mean, apparently to sweep you'll need to send a flow of commands to the device... am I wrong ?

Also, and since we're at instruments and tools, I think that adding some pointers to VNA devices, signal generators, (pre)amplificators, attenuators and the like to the wiki (e.g. here (http://emdrive.wiki/Useful_EMDrive_Design_and_Test_Tools)) may be a good thing ;)


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 05/22/2017 09:36 am
All,

A update on the shop.

Got paint on the walls, lights bought and hung and will start moving in the other machines, band saw, lathe, English wheel, buffers, grinders, tool boxes, extra doodads for the shop like hardware bins, racks etc.

Hope to maybe have enough room for my work bench area, but will see. If not then I have another workshop that's a 18'x20' that needs most everything from floors to insulation, walls and power.

My Very Best,
Shell

Nice setup, Shells; just curious, are you planning to setup your test rig as for the design published in the wiki (http://emdrive.wiki/images/b/bb/Warp_Shell-Lift_testEMDrive_%282%29.png) or did you change your mind and decided to go for a different test rig (e.g. like Jamie's one) ?

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 05/22/2017 10:57 am
I always considered magnetic and electrical "waves" to be distortions in the space-time continuum, much like gravity, not as something physical that moves through space.  Clearly it is a different sort of distortion, but the ways in which electrical and magnetic fields interact with solid objects are not entirely different from the way gravitation interacts with mass.  Somewhere in there lurks the Unified Field theory.

What if spacetime was quantized? Imagine spacetime not as a continuum but as a multidimensional map of successive discrete "tiny squares" each described by an unknown "quantum entity" (don't know how to call such thing surely equal or below the Planck length). Then an electromagnetic wave would be the physical interpretation of a step by step propagation through one "case" to the next one, of the "activation" and "deactivation" of such a quantum entity through spacetime. As for the associated particle (a photon, but why not also any particle composing matter) would be the physical local interpretation of an "activated case" (or the average of a group of activated cases, if one wants to include Heisenberg's uncertainty principle in that very rough idea).

Following that idea, nothing really "propagates" physically, only the information, which triggers the apparent movement of the wave and of its associated particle. A moving particle would then be like those light arrays on top of a wall in the dark, sequentially switched on and off rapidly with a little delay with respect to the previous one, giving the impression of a luminous object quickly propagating through space, whereas in fact there is only an apparent propagation and no movement at all… :P

Another way to express such a view: considering the atomic orbital of an electron in an atom. With the appropriate amount of energy, an electron can "jump" from an orbital to the other. This is a quantum leap, a discrete atomic electron transition. The wave function changes. But fundamentally, is it really the same electron which jumped from one orbital to the other, or is the higher energy electron a different one than the previous one described on a lower energy orbital…
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 05/22/2017 11:58 am
At this point one may guess everything ranging from entanglement to whatever other simple or exotic theory, even something like

http://www.sciencealert.com/increasing-entropy-could-signal-that-a-mysterious-quantum-flip-is-about-to-occur

may fit, better being over-cautious and going on step after step
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: R.W. Keyes on 05/22/2017 02:09 pm
The LimeSDR is built around the LMS7002D FPRF http://www.limemicro.com/products/field-programmable-rf-ics-lms7002m/ (http://www.limemicro.com/products/field-programmable-rf-ics-lms7002m/) which has built-in calibration features which I hope will be adequate for VNE calibration. It's got a build-in microcontroller and the LimeSDR has 256MB of RAM, so I think it likely that the VNE program is uploaded to the onboard RAM, run by the microcontroller, and results stored in that RAM. A user program would later download these to a PC via the USB3 port. Does the 12 bit DAC/ADC create a sufficiently clean signal? I don't know. I'll look at the resolution of what the SynthNV and MiniVNA have in their DAC and see how they compare, and may ask on some other forums as well.

I think you are absolutely correct about posting test equipment on the Wiki. That's what it is ideal for. 

There are so many options to choose from. I just discovered that I can use the LimeSDR itself as a VNA, though it may still have some rough edges at this point.

I am trying to figure out the best price/performance point. I know this is subjective based upon my budget for building n EMdrive, which is currently not very well defined but I am giving priority to an adequate testing and verification rig, as well as a time budget for documentation to enable others to reproduce any encouraging design.

Had a look at LimeSDR (here (https://myriadrf.org/projects/limesdr/) and here (https://wiki.myriadrf.org/LimeSDR_Quick_Start)) and, for sure, it's an interesting board; I just have some doubt about the accuracy of its measurements and the cleanliness of its signal (harmonics and so on); also, when it comes to measurements, other critters, like the SynthNV or the MiniVNA allow to setup a sweep and let the device do the job, storing the data in the device's internal RAM and then returning them, this speeds up things quite a lot, but the LimeSDR doesn't seem capable of doing so, I mean, apparently to sweep you'll need to send a flow of commands to the device... am I wrong ?

Also, and since we're at instruments and tools, I think that adding some pointers to VNA devices, signal generators, (pre)amplificators, attenuators and the like to the wiki (e.g. here (http://emdrive.wiki/Useful_EMDrive_Design_and_Test_Tools)) may be a good thing ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 05/22/2017 02:16 pm
All,

A update on the shop.

Got paint on the walls, lights bought and hung and will start moving in the other machines, band saw, lathe, English wheel, buffers, grinders, tool boxes, extra doodads for the shop like hardware bins, racks etc.

Hope to maybe have enough room for my work bench area, but will see. If not then I have another workshop that's a 18'x20' that needs most everything from floors to insulation, walls and power.

My Very Best,
Shell

Nice setup, Shells; just curious, are you planning to setup your test rig as for the design published in the wiki (http://emdrive.wiki/images/b/bb/Warp_Shell-Lift_testEMDrive_%282%29.png) or did you change your mind and decided to go for a different test rig (e.g. like Jamie's one) ?
Thanks.
Oh my no. I'm currently in the build of the 4th layout.

This was my very first hack at doing something and just getting it down on paper. My first real build in my shop was this. http://s1039.photobucket.com/user/shells2bells2002/library/CE%20Electromagnetic%20Reaction%20Thruster?sort=2&page=1

Winter came ... and at 8700 foot in the Rockies it can be brutal. Just couldn't keep it warm. I moved it into a "kind of unused" room in my home. I built 2 different test stands after that, using modified torsion pendulum style designs. http://imgur.com/a/LSwQN

Currently I'm redoing it again as the house is not stable enough and I'm getting too many ambient vibrations. I needed a place for my tools and metal working machines for this next build as it's become more than a simple copper can.

The test stands have improved (thanks Dr. Rodal, Paul March and so many others for help).  The drive designs have also improved.

Thanks for asking, sorry guys I promised I'd post more but sometimes I get very busy for a old lady. ;)

My Very Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 05/22/2017 03:05 pm
Winter came ... and at 8700 foot in the Rockies it can be brutal. Just couldn't keep it warm. I moved it into a "kind of unused" room in my home. I built 2 different test stands after that, using modified torsion pendulum style designs. http://imgur.com/a/LSwQN

I see, did you consider covering the whole building with a "thermal coat" ? That would help quite a lot, I think ;)

Thanks for asking, sorry guys I promised I'd post more but sometimes I get very busy for a old lady. ;)

Don't worry, Shells, take your time, again, there's no hurry, I was just curious, nothing else :) !

Oh and please stop writing "old" otherwise you'll make me feel as old as "methuselah" :)


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 05/22/2017 09:45 pm
What if spacetime was quantized?

Thank you for resurrecting my post  I don't see why spacetime would not be quantized.

As for waves that move through a medium, consider ocean waves.  The water goes up and down, but the water does not move laterally.  Even in an electric current in a wire, the electrons do not flow from one end to the other like water through a pipe.  Instead one electron nudges another electron, which nudges the next one, and so on.  The wave of nudges propagates through the crystaline structure of the metallic wire, but the electrons hardly move at all. [Edit: the electrons do eventually get to the other end, but slowly.  You can walk faster.]

In the case of EM waves moving through 'empty' space it is not quite so obvious how it works.  The Michelson-Morely experiment did not prove that there is no transmission medium as some think, but as Einstein showed, various relativity factors make it impossible to directly detect such a medium even if it did exist!

There is something there, and we know it has a characteristic impedance of about 377 ohms.  :)  [Amazing that I remember that number after 45 years...]
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 05/23/2017 02:52 am
(...) a few monopole related posts got banished into the aether -a shame because they were good though they were tangential to the topic.
Thanks Stormbringer, but I consider the fundamentals of particle interaction to be central to any argument about the origin of emdrive thrust. What if all photons are quantum leaps, then a Machian universe would make a great deal of sense and there would be something very real for the emdrive to gain momentum in reaction to. Quantum mechanics makes no claim to make sense but our universe should make sense, otherwise we really are trapped in Brama's dream. Not that I would mind if it were so, I just don't think it is so. Anyone who believes in logic has a duty to work toward an explanation for interaction which is seamless, preferably true, not reliant upon the logical gap that QM offers.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Augmentor on 05/23/2017 06:12 am
Quote from: ThereIWas3 on: 05/22/2017 09:45 PM
"There is something there, and we know it has a characteristic impedance of about 377 ohms."

Quote from: flux_capacitor on 05/22/2017 10:57 AM
"What if spacetime was quantized?"

In the quest to quantize spacetime, has to start with the elementary particles, particularly the electron and photon and work their way down through small particles like gluons and the neutrino, and perhaps identify a sub particle zoo before one can claim spacetime.

The vacuum is not a void. We might have difficulty with measuring particles like the neutrinos let alone preventing or removing neutrinos from the vacuum. Until then, we only have a vacuum.

Quantizing space? Resonance is a sign of quantization. Perhaps spacetime itself resonant?  Wheeler-Feynman suggests that resonance might be across time, not just space. The future and past may participate in present forms of energy density such as mass and perhaps define charge.

One has to determine if the characteristic impedance of vacuum space can be reduced.  Can we drop the vacuum temperature to 0 degrees K and obtain 0 ohm resistance? We simply don't have a good grasp of how to engineer the vacuum just yet especially wrt the emDrive.

Then there is this pesky thing called charge. The electron represents charged mass although a ±1/3 charge quark might be more fundamental. The photon appears to represent uncharged massless energy until we look a bit closer. The photon appears to interact with spacetime.

Is the electron built from photon(s)?  That question leads to the photon and whatever that is made of. Could it be the photon is constructed from sub elementary particles. Some electron models suggest a quanta is the building block for the photon, and furthermore, the photon is the building block to an electron. So  a sub elementary particle set of {quanta} may be the fundamental building block.

Could the monopole be a missing particle we simply don't see? And what is the role of a magnetic monopole in quantizing spacetime, and with entanglement and action-at-a-distance.

The emdirve embraces the fundamentals of physics we know while pushing out the boundaries of physics.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 05/23/2017 07:25 am
Shells -

4 builds! Give us a clue - are you still looking for a signal outside the noise, do you have a signal and are optimising your design, are you characterising the effect in detail with a view to publishing, or something else?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 05/23/2017 09:42 am
The LimeSDR is built around the LMS7002D FPRF http://www.limemicro.com/products/field-programmable-rf-ics-lms7002m/ (http://www.limemicro.com/products/field-programmable-rf-ics-lms7002m/) which has built-in calibration features which I hope will be adequate for VNE calibration. It's got a build-in microcontroller and the LimeSDR has 256MB of RAM, so I think it likely that the VNE program is uploaded to the onboard RAM, run by the microcontroller, and results stored in that RAM. A user program would later download these to a PC via the USB3 port. Does the 12 bit DAC/ADC create a sufficiently clean signal? I don't know. I'll look at the resolution of what the SynthNV and MiniVNA have in their DAC and see how they compare, and may ask on some other forums as well.

I think you are absolutely correct about posting test equipment on the Wiki. That's what it is ideal for. 

As for VNAs, the PocketVNA (http://pocketvna.com/) is another interesting one; costs slightly more than the MiniVNA Tiny (around 430 USD) but its specifications (http://pocketvna.com/product/) are quite interesting; my only doubt about the device is related to sweep speed, the documents (http://pocketvna.com/help/hardware/) say that "A normal scan takes about 10 ms per data point plus communication. As an example a 1001 points scan takes 12 seconds." and also that "A 10001 steps scan take about 2 minutes", not sure how this compares with MiniVNA Tiny speeds

[edit]

Found a couple of pics of the PocketVNA board (here (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/rf-microwave/pocketvna-any-idea-what-its-like/?action=dlattach;attach=248659;PHPSESSID=g62cbm2jsur7inbnapfqagokn5) and here (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/rf-microwave/pocketvna-any-idea-what-its-like/?action=dlattach;attach=248661;PHPSESSID=g62cbm2jsur7inbnapfqagokn5)) in case someone is curious and there's a forum discussion about PocketVNA and TinyVNA mini here (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/rf-microwave/pocketvna-any-idea-what-its-like/)





Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 05/23/2017 01:27 pm
Quote from: ThereIWas3 on: 05/22/2017 09:45 PM
"There is something there, and we know it has a characteristic impedance of about 377 ohms."

Quote from: flux_capacitor on 05/22/2017 10:57 AM
"What if spacetime was quantized?"

In the quest to quantize spacetime, has to start with the elementary particles, particularly the electron and photon and work their way down through small particles like gluons and the neutrino, and perhaps identify a sub particle zoo before one can claim spacetime.

The vacuum is not a void. We might have difficulty with measuring particles like the neutrinos let alone preventing or removing neutrinos from the vacuum. Until then, we only have a vacuum.

Quantizing space? Resonance is a sign of quantization. Perhaps spacetime itself resonant?  Wheeler-Feynman suggests that resonance might be across time, not just space. The future and past may participate in present forms of energy density such as mass and perhaps define charge.

One has to determine if the characteristic impedance of vacuum space can be reduced.  Can we drop the vacuum temperature to 0 degrees K and obtain 0 ohm resistance? We simply don't have a good grasp of how to engineer the vacuum just yet especially wrt the emDrive.

Then there is this pesky thing called charge. The electron represents charged mass although a ±1/3 charge quark might be more fundamental. The photon appears to represent uncharged massless energy until we look a bit closer. The photon appears to interact with spacetime.

Is the electron built from photon(s)?  That question leads to the photon and whatever that is made of. Could it be the photon is constructed from sub elementary particles. Some electron models suggest a quanta is the building block for the photon, and furthermore, the photon is the building block to an electron. So  a sub elementary particle set of {quanta} may be the fundamental building block.

Could the monopole be a missing particle we simply don't see? And what is the role of a magnetic monopole in quantizing spacetime, and with entanglement and action-at-a-distance.

The emdirve embraces the fundamentals of physics we know while pushing out the boundaries of physics.

Good ideas :) As for me I don't even think particles and subparticles are the most fundamental "objects" of the universe: they are rather the apparent consequence of more fundamental multidimensional "quantum entities" which compose spacetime (which are spacetime) and are the generator of all particles and their motion within our 4D+ space. Maybe we could use a quantum effect to macroscopically create any kind of particle from the "vacuum" and transform any particle into any other. Very speculative I know.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/23/2017 01:32 pm
Folks:

With Shell's latest updates on her lab build in CO as a reminder, I realized that I had not updated the build status of my new home lab here in Friendswood, TX.  I last gave a status back in February per the below post:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1639119#msg1639119

Well, my new lab is now completed and I'm in the process of moving my old lab gear from the house to the new facility, which I'm thinking about calling either the Gravity Reaction Lab or The Sorcerer's Apprentice Lab.  Either way I hope to be back in the testing business by the end of the year at the latest, for right now I'm supporting Jim Woodward's and Heidi Fearn's NASA/NIAC Phase-1 study on increasing their MEGA-drive thrust output and applying their MEGA-drive to an interstellar probe mission to the nearest stars from Earth.

Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 05/23/2017 02:06 pm
I always considered magnetic and electrical "waves" to be distortions in the space-time continuum, much like gravity, not as something physical that moves through space.  Clearly it is a different sort of distortion, but the ways in which electrical and magnetic fields interact with solid objects are not entirely different from the way gravitation interacts with mass.  Somewhere in there lurks the Unified Field theory.

What if spacetime was quantized? Imagine spacetime not as a continuum but as a multidimensional map of successive discrete "tiny squares" each described by an unknown "quantum entity" (don't know how to call such thing surely equal or below the Planck length). Then an electromagnetic wave would be the physical interpretation of a step by step propagation through one "case" to the next one, of the "activation" and "deactivation" of such a quantum entity through spacetime. As for the associated particle (a photon, but why not also any particle composing matter) would be the physical local interpretation of an "activated case" (or the average of a group of activated cases, if one wants to include Heisenberg's uncertainty principle in that very rough idea).

Following that idea, nothing really "propagates" physically, only the information, which triggers the apparent movement of the wave and of its associated particle. A moving particle would then be like those light arrays on top of a wall in the dark, sequentially switched on and off rapidly with a little delay with respect to the previous one, giving the impression of a luminous object quickly propagating through space, whereas in fact there is only an apparent propagation and no movement at all… :P

Another way to express such a view: considering the atomic orbital of an electron in an atom. With the appropriate amount of energy, an electron can "jump" from an orbital to the other. This is a quantum leap, a discrete atomic electron transition. The wave function changes. But fundamentally, is it really the same electron which jumped from one orbital to the other, or is the higher energy electron a different one than the previous one described on a lower energy orbital…

There are fundamental differences between gravitation and electromagnetism, even considering the field theory without any quantization.

One very interesting thing about gravitation is that in 4 spacetime (3 D space + time) (*) one can have a zero stress-energy tensor, and still have non-zero energy and momentum in the gravitational field.

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/d51754f1786e31a82722156d1b0a4a3a9805e4ec)

This follows  from the fact that zero right hand side of the gravitational field equation (zero stress-energy tensor), means zero left hand side (zero Einstein's tensor). But zero Einstein tensor in 4 spacetime does not necessarily mean a flat spacetime. The equality is between the Einstein tensor and the stress-energy tensor.  Zero Einstein tensor does not equal a flat spacetime geometry.  The Einstein tensor is equal to the difference between the Ricci tensor and the scalar curvature (times the metric tensor). 

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/e0b88f62759f482819c27c1ccfe795e8f2341acc)

Both can add up to zero, and yet have non-zero components.  ADDED IN EDIT: In 4 dimensions the Ricci tensor can be zero and yet the space be curved: non-flat.  Since Ricci tensor equal zero does not necessarily mean flat spacetime, therefore one can have zero stress-energy tensor in 4 spacetime and still have non-zero energy and momentum in the gravitational field !  One can have gravitational wave disturbances with zero source: zero stress-energy density tensor. 

This is very different from electromagnetism where the electromagnetic fields (photons) do not carry any charge. In a gravitational field one can have a zero energy density, and still have gravitational waves. Thus we have self-interaction in gravitation due to the nonlinearity of the gravitational equations.  A gravitational wave with a small energy relative to the curvature will travel along a null geodesic in the curved spacetime geometry. This is a different path than it would travel in the absence of the spacetime curvature. Thus one can have self-interaction: the gravitational field interacting with itself.

This issue involves energy conservation and self-interaction in 4D spacetime, something that many posters discussing "overunity" really struggle with.  In General Relativity you can have energy and momentum on the left hand side of the equation, unlike charges in electromagnetism (electromagnetic waves in vacuum or in space without charges do not carry any charge: photons have no charge).

(*) This is only possible in 4 spacetime (3 D space + time) and higher.  In 3 spacetime (2 D space + time) a zero stress-energy tensor necessarily implies a zero curvature of spacetime (because in 3 dimensions or less zero Ricci tensor means flatness) and hence in 3 spacetime (2 D space + time)  the gravitational field would not be able to carry energy and momentum.  In 4 spacetime electromagnetism, the electromagnetic fields (photons) do not carry any charge.   

ADDED IN EDIT:
The issue has to do with the number of components of the tensor that specifies curvature of space: the number of independent components of the Riemann curvature tensor.  The Riemann curvature tensor has 4 indices:(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/97f07269279b9e67d9b28123e5d830f0463b7976)

But the curvature tensor that appears in Einstein's equation is not the Riemann curvature tensor, but is instead the Ricci tensor which has only two indices:

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/9681025a71ae5fa9b77d49d378bd425b5fba12e9)

 In 3 D the Ricci tensor has 6 independent components, exactly the same number of independent components as the Riemann curvature tensor has in 3 D: also 6.
 
Therefore, in 3 D, vanishing of the Ricci tensor implies also vanishing of the Riemann curvature.  In 3 D, vanishing of the stress-energy tensor implies vanishing of the Ricci tensor, and vanishing of the Ricci tensor implies vanishing of the Riemann curvature.  Hence in 3 D vanishing of the stress-energy tensor implies a flat geometry.
 
However in 4 D, the Ricci tensor has 10 independent components and the Riemann curvature tensor has 20 independent components.  For 4 dimensions or greater, there will be fewer components of the Ricci tensor than components of the Riemann tensor.
 
Hence for 4 dimensions or greater, the Ricci tensor can vanish, and yet the Riemann curvature tensor may not vanish. Therefore for 4 dimensions or greater vanishing of the stress-energy tensor does not imply flatness of spacetime.


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 05/23/2017 02:07 pm
Well, my new lab is now completed and I'm in the process of moving my old lab gear from the house to the new facility, which I'm thinking about calling either the Gravity Reaction Lab or The Sorcerer's Apprentice Lab. 

Apprentice Sorcerer Gravity Appliances Reaction ....hmmm help me find something for the D, so that the acronym will be ASGARD :D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 05/23/2017 02:14 pm
Shells -

4 builds! Give us a clue - are you still looking for a signal outside the noise, do you have a signal and are optimising your design, are you characterising the effect in detail with a view to publishing, or something else?
I am looking to publish results of my testing as I promised here. That said, it needs to be known that I have seen something and I even stated here I did. The thrust signatures have been large jerks although highly sporadic. With the limits being my lab equipment.

My goal hasn't changed in the almost 2 years I've been working on this and I said it on my go fund page in the first paragraph. (link bottom of page)

Quote
Because I choose to dream.

I believe we are at a cusp of our growth on this ball of mud and if we don't evolve from this tiny seed called earth we may perish and never know the glorious heights that await us, or the true challenges of a universe that has no bounds. Yes, I dream, for humanity. -Michelle Broyles

Whatever I can do to make that happen I'll do.

While Paul March Dr. Fern, Dr. Woodward, Dr. Rodal and many talented others work on the MEGA Mach effect drive. https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2017_Phase_I_Phase_II/Mach_Effects_for_In_Space_Propulsion_Interstellar_Mission
I'm pursuing another way to do about the same thing.  I believe that the Mach effect can be realized within the EM Drive functions. Paul March has said and others as well that it's different sides of the same coin. That's not to say that the EM Drive is only using the Mach effect as I believe other theories are coming into effect.

My Very Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Slyver on 05/23/2017 02:20 pm
Well, my new lab is now completed and I'm in the process of moving my old lab gear from the house to the new facility, which I'm thinking about calling either the Gravity Reaction Lab or The Sorcerer's Apprentice Lab. 

Apprentice Sorcerer Gravity Appliances Reaction ....hmmm help me find something for the D, so that the acronym will be ASGARD :D

Domain, Domicile, Delve, Digs, Den, Department, Division
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: D_Dom on 05/23/2017 02:37 pm
Development, as in R&D.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Slyver on 05/23/2017 03:09 pm
Apprentice Sorcerer's Gravitational Advances -- Research Division

 ;D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 05/23/2017 04:18 pm
Paul, Michelle:

Just to mention that I find the Galilean do-the-experiment approach to science you follow most commendable and aligned with a sort of Renaissance spirit.

The world would be a very different place, if more people regarded truth and empiricism so highly as you do.

I have a lot of respect for good scientists in general, but to spend significant personal resources in the quest of finding the truth in a topic many don't believe is worth the effort, requires something else in terms of personal commitment and courage.

People like you are an example to others, and the reason why we should keep some faith in the human race, no matter what we see and live around ourselves.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 05/23/2017 06:38 pm
So, Paul now you have quite a number of ideas and ... although I'd leave ASGARD to shells (due to height) it"s up to you ... and we'll probably have more ideas (e.g. EPOS ;D)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Stormbringer on 05/23/2017 06:41 pm
I always considered magnetic and electrical "waves" to be distortions in the space-time continuum, much like gravity, not as something physical that moves through space.  Clearly it is a different sort of distortion, but the ways in which electrical and magnetic fields interact with solid objects are not entirely different from the way gravitation interacts with mass.  Somewhere in there lurks the Unified Field theory.

What if spacetime was quantized? Imagine spacetime not as a continuum but as a multidimensional map of successive discrete "tiny squares" each described by an unknown "quantum entity" (don't know how to call such thing surely equal or below the Planck length). Then an electromagnetic wave would be the physical interpretation of a step by step propagation through one "case" to the next one, of the "activation" and "deactivation" of such a quantum entity through spacetime. As for the associated particle (a photon, but why not also any particle composing matter) would be the physical local interpretation of an "activated case" (or the average of a group of activated cases, if one wants to include Heisenberg's uncertainty principle in that very rough idea).

Following that idea, nothing really "propagates" physically, only the information, which triggers the apparent movement of the wave and of its associated particle. A moving particle would then be like those light arrays on top of a wall in the dark, sequentially switched on and off rapidly with a little delay with respect to the previous one, giving the impression of a luminous object quickly propagating through space, whereas in fact there is only an apparent propagation and no movement at all… :P

Another way to express such a view: considering the atomic orbital of an electron in an atom. With the appropriate amount of energy, an electron can "jump" from an orbital to the other. This is a quantum leap, a discrete atomic electron transition. The wave function changes. But fundamentally, is it really the same electron which jumped from one orbital to the other, or is the higher energy electron a different one than the previous one described on a lower energy orbital…

There are fundamental differences between gravitation and electromagnetism, even considering the field theory without any quantization.

One very interesting thing about gravitation is that in 4 spacetime (3 D space + time) (*) one can have a zero stress-energy tensor, and still have non-zero energy and momentum in the gravitational field.

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/d51754f1786e31a82722156d1b0a4a3a9805e4ec)

This follows immediately from the fact that zero right hand side of the gravitational field equation (zero stress-energy tensor), means zero left hand side (zero Einstein's tensor). But zero Einstein tensor in 4 spacetime does not necessarily mean a flat spacetime. The equality is between the Einstein tensor and the stress-energy tensor.  Zero Einstein tensor does not equal a flat spacetime geometry.  The Einstein tensor is not equal to the Ricci tensor.  The Einstein tensor is equal to the difference between the Ricci tensor and the scalar curvature (times the metric tensor). 

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/e0b88f62759f482819c27c1ccfe795e8f2341acc)




Both can add up to zero, and yet have non-zero components.  One can have zero stress-energy tensor in 4 spacetime and still have non-zero energy and momentum in the gravitational field !  One can have gravitational wave disturbances with zero source: zero stress-energy density tensor. 

This is very different from electromagnetism where the electromagnetic fields (photons) do not carry any charge. In a gravitational field one can have a zero energy density, and still have gravitational waves. Thus we have self-interaction in gravitation due to the nonlinearity of the gravitational equations.  A gravitational wave with a small energy relative to the curvature will travel along a null geodesic in the curved spacetime geometry. This is a different path than it would travel in the absence of the spacetime curvature. Thus one can have self-interaction: the gravitational field interacting with itself.

This issue involves energy conservation and self-interaction in 4D spacetime, something that many posters discussing "overunity" really struggle with.  In General Relativity you can have energy and momentum on the left hand side of the equation, unlike charges in electromagnetism (electromagnetic waves in vacuum or in space without charges do not carry any charge: photons have no charge).

(*) This is only possible in 4 spacetime (3 D space + time) and higher.  In 3 spacetime (2 D space + time) a zero stress-energy tensor necessarily implies a zero curvature of spacetime and hence in 3 spacetime (2 D space + time)  the gravitational field would not be able to carry energy and momentum.  In 4 spacetime electromagnetism, the electromagnetic fields (photons) do not carry any charge.

Have you read this:  http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/10/03/guest-post-lance-dixon-on-calculating-amplitudes/

for N=8 a graviton's feynman diagram is the same as a double copy of a gluon valid to the fifth loop order and counting.

Quote
Along the way, Zvi, John Joseph and Henrik, thanks to the time-honored method of “just staring at” the loop integrand provided by unitarity, also stumbled on a new property of gauge theory amplitudes, which tightly couples them to gravity. They found that gauge theory amplitudes can be written in such a way that their kinematic part obeys relations that are structurally identical to the Jacobi identities known to fans of Lie algebras. This so-called color-kinematics duality, when achieved, leads to a simple “double copy” prescription for computing amplitudes in suitable theories of gravity: Take the gauge theory amplitude, remove the color factors and square the kinematic numerator factors. Crudely, a graviton looks very much like two gluons laid on top of each other. If you’ve ever looked at the Feynman rules for gravity, you’d be shocked that such a simple prescription could ever work, but it does. Although these relations could in principle have been discovered without unitarity-based methods, the power of the methods to provide very simple expressions, led people to find initial patterns, and then easily test the patterns in many other examples to gain confidence.

Not for nothing but there is a certain fringe kook (with the initials B.( or R. ) L. )who has claimed for decades that gravity and the strong force are the same force operating at different scales in relation to UFO conspiracy stuff.

He might be a kook but the folks mentioned in the article most certainly aren't kooks. Because:

Quote
This year’s Sakurai Prize of the American Physical Society, one of the most prestigious awards in theoretical particle physics, has been awarded to Zvi Bern, Lance Dixon, and David Kosower “for pathbreaking contributions to the calculation of perturbative scattering amplitudes, which led to a deeper understanding of quantum field theory and to powerful new tools for computing QCD processes.”
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/23/2017 06:43 pm
Paul, Michelle:

Just to mention that I find the Galilean do-the-experiment approach to science you follow most commendable and aligned with a sort of Renaissance spirit.

The world would be a very different place, if more people regarded truth and empiricism so highly as you do.

I have a lot of respect for good scientists in general, but to spend significant personal resources in the quest of finding the truth in a topic many don't believe is worth the effort, requires something else in terms of personal commitment and courage.

People like you are an example to others, and the reason why we should keep some faith in the human race, no matter what we see and live around ourselves.

All: "Apprentice Sorcerer Gravity Appliances Reaction Devices (ASGARD) works for me!  :)  I just hope Thor doesn't mind...

tchernik:

"...and the reason why we should keep some faith in the human race, no matter what we see and live around ourselves."

Please remember that the past and present news media around the world continue to push the "if it bleeds, it leads" headlines to sell "their" copy and their editor's and publishers political agenda on all sides.  What gets lost in the daily news grind is the fact that most humans are good, law abiding folks that just want to make a living and get along with their family, friends and neighbors, with as little fuss as possible.  So take heart that we will find a collective way to make our civilization work and work well for most of us, as we navigate our way into the future.

Ad Astra my friends!  Paul M.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star-Drive on 05/23/2017 06:49 pm
All:

I ran across a paper on the unification of GRT and QM this morning that IMO we all need to consider in regards to what is real and what is mathematics devoid of physical content.

Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 05/23/2017 07:07 pm
All:

I ran across a paper on the unification of GRT and QM this morning that IMO we all need to consider in regards to what is real and what is mathematics devoid of physical content.

Best, Paul M.

I gave it a skim... the ratio of essay to data and math doesn't bode well.  ;D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Stormbringer on 05/23/2017 08:21 pm
More delicious stuff:

https://phys.org/news/2017-05-blackbody-spacetime-geometry-topology.html

Synopsis:  Gravity like force in blackbody radiation related to topology.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/23/2017 09:22 pm
I haven't had much to share lately as I recently returned from vacation.   :-[  I am heading to Cashiers, NC this weekend so I don't expect much to happen until after I get back. 

I am reworking the main power leads yet again. I noticed that any twisted pairs running in the same direction as the piano wire that suspends the torsional pendulum seem to induce more displacement noise. This necessitated moving the pre-amp back to its original location.

Seeing Paul and Shell's new lab lights made me realize just how poor my lighting was. Since I have a dropped ceiling with insulating tiles I was able to find these flush mounted 2'x2' LED light tiles that were very simple to install. So no more poor lighting.  ;D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 05/23/2017 09:33 pm
All labs need a comfy chair, for all the waiting while things stabilize.  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 05/24/2017 12:50 am

All: "Apprentice Sorcerer Gravity Appliances Reaction Devices (ASGARD) works for me!  :)  I just hope Thor doesn't mind...

Boy, be busy and you miss the fun. What about "Paul's Texas Quantum Bar and Boson BBQ"
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 05/24/2017 01:41 am
(...)
I'm thinking about calling either the Gravity Reaction Lab or The Sorcerer's Apprentice Lab.
(...)
The problem with magical references is that they undermine credibility, which is not really what we need right now!
I received a well deserved slap on the wrist when I described Shawyer as having pulled a rabbit out of his hat. I vote for 'Gravity Reaction Lab'   :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 05/24/2017 03:31 am
...

There are fundamental differences between gravitation and electromagnetism, even considering the field theory without any quantization.

One very interesting thing about gravitation is that in 4 spacetime (3 D space + time) (*) one can have a zero stress-energy tensor, and still have non-zero energy and momentum in the gravitational field.

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/d51754f1786e31a82722156d1b0a4a3a9805e4ec)

This follows  from the fact that zero right hand side of the gravitational field equation (zero stress-energy tensor), means zero left hand side (zero Einstein's tensor). But zero Einstein tensor in 4 spacetime does not necessarily mean a flat spacetime. The equality is between the Einstein tensor and the stress-energy tensor.  Zero Einstein tensor does not equal a flat spacetime geometry.  The Einstein tensor is equal to the difference between the Ricci tensor and the scalar curvature (times the metric tensor). 

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/e0b88f62759f482819c27c1ccfe795e8f2341acc)

Both can add up to zero, and yet have non-zero components.  ADDED IN EDIT: In 4 dimensions the Ricci tensor can be zero and yet the space be curved: non-flat.  Since Ricci tensor equal zero does not necessarily mean flat spacetime, therefore one can have zero stress-energy tensor in 4 spacetime and still have non-zero energy and momentum in the gravitational field !  One can have gravitational wave disturbances with zero source: zero stress-energy density tensor. 

This is very different from electromagnetism where the electromagnetic fields (photons) do not carry any charge. In a gravitational field one can have a zero energy density, and still have gravitational waves. Thus we have self-interaction in gravitation due to the nonlinearity of the gravitational equations.  A gravitational wave with a small energy relative to the curvature will travel along a null geodesic in the curved spacetime geometry. This is a different path than it would travel in the absence of the spacetime curvature. Thus one can have self-interaction: the gravitational field interacting with itself.

This issue involves energy conservation and self-interaction in 4D spacetime, something that many posters discussing "overunity" really struggle with.  In General Relativity you can have energy and momentum on the left hand side of the equation, unlike charges in electromagnetism (electromagnetic waves in vacuum or in space without charges do not carry any charge: photons have no charge).

(*) This is only possible in 4 spacetime (3 D space + time) and higher.  In 3 spacetime (2 D space + time) a zero stress-energy tensor necessarily implies a zero curvature of spacetime (because in 3 dimensions or less zero Ricci tensor means flatness) and hence in 3 spacetime (2 D space + time)  the gravitational field would not be able to carry energy and momentum.  In 4 spacetime electromagnetism, the electromagnetic fields (photons) do not carry any charge.   

ADDED IN EDIT:
The issue has to do with the number of components of the tensor that specifies curvature of space: the number of independent components of the Riemann curvature tensor.  The Riemann curvature tensor has 4 indices:(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/97f07269279b9e67d9b28123e5d830f0463b7976)

But the curvature tensor that appears in Einstein's equation is not the Riemann curvature tensor, but is instead the Ricci tensor which has only two indices:

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/9681025a71ae5fa9b77d49d378bd425b5fba12e9)

 In 3 D the Ricci tensor has 6 independent components, exactly the same number of independent components as the Riemann curvature tensor has in 3 D: also 6.
 
Therefore, in 3 D, vanishing of the Ricci tensor implies also vanishing of the Riemann curvature.  In 3 D, vanishing of the stress-energy tensor implies vanishing of the Ricci tensor, and vanishing of the Ricci tensor implies vanishing of the Riemann curvature.  Hence in 3 D vanishing of the stress-energy tensor implies a flat geometry.
 
However in 4 D, the Ricci tensor has 10 independent components and the Riemann curvature tensor has 20 independent components.  For 4 dimensions or greater, there will be fewer components of the Ricci tensor than components of the Riemann tensor.
 
Hence for 4 dimensions or greater, the Ricci tensor can vanish, and yet the Riemann curvature tensor may not vanish. Therefore for 4 dimensions or greater vanishing of the stress-energy tensor does not imply flatness of spacetime.

Example: in 4 D spacetime gravitational plane waves have zero Ricci curvature tensor but non-zero Riemannian curvature.  In the region of the gravitational wave disturbance spacetime is not flat, even though the RIcci tensor is zero.
 
The energy and momentum of these gravitational plane waves is not in the energy-stress tensor, but the energy and momentum are in the gravitational field itself. 
 
The stress-energy tensor represents the energy due to matter, but stress-energy tensor includes NO contribution from gravitational energy or momentum in the field itself.
 
When a binary pulsar emits gravitational waves, these waves will carry away energy away and therefore its orbital period should change.  The energy and momentum are in the gravitational wave itself.
 
Thus, in general relativity you can have energy and momentum in gravitational waves, on the left hand side of the equation, on the field itself.  And these wave can interact nonlinearly. 

All very interesting from an energy conservation point of view :-)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: JonathanD on 05/24/2017 03:51 am
I haven't had much to share lately as I recently returned from vacation.   :-[  I am heading to Cashiers, NC this weekend so I don't expect much to happen until after I get back. 

I am reworking the main power leads yet again. I noticed that any twisted pairs running in the same direction as the piano wire that suspends the torsional pendulum seem to induce more displacement noise. This necessitated moving the pre-amp back to its original location.

Seeing Paul and Shell's new lab lights made me realize just how poor my lighting was. Since I have a dropped ceiling with insulating tiles I was able to find these flush mounted 2'x2' LED light tiles that were very simple to install. So no more poor lighting.  ;D

I appreciate the strategic positioning of the fire extinguisher!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: 1 on 05/24/2017 04:16 am
I haven't had much to share lately as I recently returned from vacation.   :-[  I am heading to Cashiers, NC this weekend so I don't expect much to happen until after I get back. 

I am reworking the main power leads yet again. I noticed that any twisted pairs running in the same direction as the piano wire that suspends the torsional pendulum seem to induce more displacement noise. This necessitated moving the pre-amp back to its original location.

Seeing Paul and Shell's new lab lights made me realize just how poor my lighting was. Since I have a dropped ceiling with insulating tiles I was able to find these flush mounted 2'x2' LED light tiles that were very simple to install. So no more poor lighting.  ;D

I appreciate the strategic positioning of the fire extinguisher!

And that rug really ties the room together.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tleach on 05/24/2017 06:23 am

All: "Apprentice Sorcerer Gravity Appliances Reaction Devices (ASGARD) works for me!  :)  I just hope Thor doesn't mind...


Nope, don't mind in the slightest!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 05/24/2017 08:47 am

All: "Apprentice Sorcerer Gravity Appliances Reaction Devices (ASGARD) works for me!  :)  I just hope Thor doesn't mind...

Boy, be busy and you miss the fun. What about "Paul's Texas Quantum Bar and Boson BBQ"

I think that the "Boson BBQ" may be more appropriate for Shells since, apparently, she likes roasting antennas  ;D ;D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 05/24/2017 06:12 pm
Probably OT but eyeballing it, the document seems interesting so ... here we go

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1209/0295-5075/117/60001

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 05/24/2017 07:03 pm
Paul, Michelle:

Just to mention that I find the Galilean do-the-experiment approach to science you follow most commendable and aligned with a sort of Renaissance spirit.

The world would be a very different place, if more people regarded truth and empiricism so highly as you do.

I have a lot of respect for good scientists in general, but to spend significant personal resources in the quest of finding the truth in a topic many don't believe is worth the effort, requires something else in terms of personal commitment and courage.

People like you are an example to others, and the reason why we should keep some faith in the human race, no matter what we see and live around ourselves.

All: "Apprentice Sorcerer Gravity Appliances Reaction Devices (ASGARD) works for me!  :)  I just hope Thor doesn't mind...

tchernik:

"...and the reason why we should keep some faith in the human race, no matter what we see and live around ourselves."

Please remember that the past and present news media around the world continue to push the "if it bleeds, it leads" headlines to sell "their" copy and their editor's and publishers political agenda on all sides.  What gets lost in the daily news grind is the fact that most humans are good, law abiding folks that just want to make a living and get along with their family, friends and neighbors, with as little fuss as possible.  So take heart that we will find a collective way to make our civilization work and work well for most of us, as we navigate our way into the future.

Ad Astra my friends!  Paul M.
I've started calling my lab  "High Frontier Labs"

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 05/24/2017 07:07 pm
Shell, please don't take offense, I was just kidding !
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 05/24/2017 07:23 pm
Shell, please don't take offense, I was just kidding !
I was calling my lab this for quite some time... no offense. OK?
Hugs,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 05/24/2017 07:30 pm
...

There are fundamental differences between gravitation and electromagnetism, even considering the field theory without any quantization.

One very interesting thing about gravitation is that in 4 spacetime (3 D space + time) (*) one can have a zero stress-energy tensor, and still have non-zero energy and momentum in the gravitational field.

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/d51754f1786e31a82722156d1b0a4a3a9805e4ec)

This follows  from the fact that zero right hand side of the gravitational field equation (zero stress-energy tensor), means zero left hand side (zero Einstein's tensor). But zero Einstein tensor in 4 spacetime does not necessarily mean a flat spacetime. The equality is between the Einstein tensor and the stress-energy tensor.  Zero Einstein tensor does not equal a flat spacetime geometry.  The Einstein tensor is equal to the difference between the Ricci tensor and the scalar curvature (times the metric tensor). 

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/e0b88f62759f482819c27c1ccfe795e8f2341acc)

Both can add up to zero, and yet have non-zero components.  ADDED IN EDIT: In 4 dimensions the Ricci tensor can be zero and yet the space be curved: non-flat.  Since Ricci tensor equal zero does not necessarily mean flat spacetime, therefore one can have zero stress-energy tensor in 4 spacetime and still have non-zero energy and momentum in the gravitational field !  One can have gravitational wave disturbances with zero source: zero stress-energy density tensor. 

This is very different from electromagnetism where the electromagnetic fields (photons) do not carry any charge. In a gravitational field one can have a zero energy density, and still have gravitational waves. Thus we have self-interaction in gravitation due to the nonlinearity of the gravitational equations.  A gravitational wave with a small energy relative to the curvature will travel along a null geodesic in the curved spacetime geometry. This is a different path than it would travel in the absence of the spacetime curvature. Thus one can have self-interaction: the gravitational field interacting with itself.

This issue involves energy conservation and self-interaction in 4D spacetime, something that many posters discussing "overunity" really struggle with.  In General Relativity you can have energy and momentum on the left hand side of the equation, unlike charges in electromagnetism (electromagnetic waves in vacuum or in space without charges do not carry any charge: photons have no charge).

(*) This is only possible in 4 spacetime (3 D space + time) and higher.  In 3 spacetime (2 D space + time) a zero stress-energy tensor necessarily implies a zero curvature of spacetime (because in 3 dimensions or less zero Ricci tensor means flatness) and hence in 3 spacetime (2 D space + time)  the gravitational field would not be able to carry energy and momentum.  In 4 spacetime electromagnetism, the electromagnetic fields (photons) do not carry any charge.   

ADDED IN EDIT:
The issue has to do with the number of components of the tensor that specifies curvature of space: the number of independent components of the Riemann curvature tensor.  The Riemann curvature tensor has 4 indices:(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/97f07269279b9e67d9b28123e5d830f0463b7976)

But the curvature tensor that appears in Einstein's equation is not the Riemann curvature tensor, but is instead the Ricci tensor which has only two indices:

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/9681025a71ae5fa9b77d49d378bd425b5fba12e9)

 In 3 D the Ricci tensor has 6 independent components, exactly the same number of independent components as the Riemann curvature tensor has in 3 D: also 6.
 
Therefore, in 3 D, vanishing of the Ricci tensor implies also vanishing of the Riemann curvature.  In 3 D, vanishing of the stress-energy tensor implies vanishing of the Ricci tensor, and vanishing of the Ricci tensor implies vanishing of the Riemann curvature.  Hence in 3 D vanishing of the stress-energy tensor implies a flat geometry.
 
However in 4 D, the Ricci tensor has 10 independent components and the Riemann curvature tensor has 20 independent components.  For 4 dimensions or greater, there will be fewer components of the Ricci tensor than components of the Riemann tensor.
 
Hence for 4 dimensions or greater, the Ricci tensor can vanish, and yet the Riemann curvature tensor may not vanish. Therefore for 4 dimensions or greater vanishing of the stress-energy tensor does not imply flatness of spacetime.

Example: in 4 D spacetime gravitational plane waves have zero Ricci curvature tensor but non-zero Riemannian curvature.  In the region of the gravitational wave disturbance spacetime is not flat, even though the RIcci tensor is zero.
 
The energy and momentum of these gravitational plane waves is not in the energy-stress tensor, but the energy and momentum are in the gravitational field itself. 
 
The stress-energy tensor represents the energy due to matter, but stress-energy tensor includes NO contribution from gravitational energy or momentum in the field itself.
 
When a binary pulsar emits gravitational waves, these waves will carry away energy away and therefore its orbital period should change.  The energy and momentum are in the gravitational wave itself.
 
Thus, in general relativity you can have energy and momentum in gravitational waves, on the left hand side of the equation, on the field itself.  And these wave can interact nonlinearly. 

All very interesting from an energy conservation point of view :-)
Very interesting Dr. Rodal. You're way beyond my pay grade, although I think I can see what you're trying to convey. If a drive is done right and you're inciting a gravitational 4D effect (like the Mach effect) you will not have the issue of over unity and violate conservation laws.

My Best,
Shell

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 05/24/2017 08:06 pm
Example: in 4 D spacetime gravitational plane waves have zero Ricci curvature tensor but non-zero Riemannian curvature.  In the region of the gravitational wave disturbance spacetime is not flat, even though the RIcci tensor is zero.
 
The energy and momentum of these gravitational plane waves is not in the energy-stress tensor, but the energy and momentum are in the gravitational field itself. 
 
The stress-energy tensor represents the energy due to matter, but stress-energy tensor includes NO contribution from gravitational energy or momentum in the field itself.
 
When a binary pulsar emits gravitational waves, these waves will carry away energy away and therefore its orbital period should change.  The energy and momentum are in the gravitational wave itself.
 
Thus, in general relativity you can have energy and momentum in gravitational waves, on the left hand side of the equation, on the field itself.  And these wave can interact nonlinearly. 

All very interesting from an energy conservation point of view :-)
Very interesting Dr. Rodal. You're way beyond my pay grade, although I think I can see what you're trying to convey. If a drive is done right and you're inciting a gravitational 4D effect (like the Mach effect) you will not have the issue of over unity and violate conservation laws.

My Best,
Shell
Hi Shell,

Yes,  but we need further theoretical and experimental work  :). 

Notsosureofit was working on it, a lot of this is tied with entropy.

The curvature of space can also be measured with entropy measures

(K.-T. Sturm, On the geometry of metric measure spaces, Acta Math. 196 (2006), n 1, 65–177. https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.acta/1485891805 
https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.acta/1485891806   )
 
The idea is that, in positive Ricci curvature (like the curvature of a sphere), “midpoints spread out”: if we take two geometrical measures in the curved 4 D spacetime surface, and consider the set of points that lie “halfway” between the two sets then the set of midpoints is wider than expected from the Euclidean (flat) case. (For example, on a sphere, the set of midpoints of the two poles will be the whole equator.)
 
The reverse is true for negative Ricci curvature (like the curvature of a saddle).
 
In the entropy approach one uses probability measures instead of geometrical measures in the  4 D spacetime surface. The extent to which they are spread can be evaluated using the relative entropy (the Kullback–Leibler divergence  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kullback%E2%80%93Leibler_divergence ).
 
I wonder whether Notsosureofit did any further work?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 05/24/2017 08:32 pm
Shell, please don't take offense, I was just kidding !
I was calling my lab this for quite some time... no offense. OK?
Hugs,
Shell

Fine, lady, I just wanted to be sure ... language barriers (on my side) sometimes play bad jokes hugs from me too :) !
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 05/24/2017 08:37 pm
Maybe I'm totally off target but ... what if one modulates the signal injected into the cavity? I mean ... using different waveforms

Was this already experimented?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 05/24/2017 08:47 pm
Maybe I'm totally off target but ... what if one modulates the signal injected into the cavity? I mean ... using different waveforms

Was this already experimented?
Not intentionally (not with the intention to achieve an express purpose) to my knowledge, except that magnetrons by their nature already contain amplitude, frequency and phase modulation
(http://198.74.50.173/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Magic-ChefMagnetronOven2.45GHzSpectra-1.jpg)(http://file.scirp.org/Html/8-9801080%5C7aa0f806-9c62-4bf5-ae30-1c09e7756ab9.jpg)


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 05/24/2017 09:00 pm
Jose ... yes, but I was thinking to less random waveforms, some regular ones (as simple or complex as you want)

[edit]

corrected the post, swapped Paul and Jose  ::)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 05/25/2017 02:52 am
Paul ... yes, but I was thinking to less random waveforms, some regular ones (as simple ir complex you want)
Good question. I have been thinking about interference and propagation.
 
If you have two diametrically opposed identical injection points pumping out square waves with peak and trough perfectly matched and coherent then you could increase the average density of the resulting wave packets through constructive interference (some people argue it is already occurring in the cavity). Also this assumes minimal splatter and noise. Ultimately, such an interference pattern would just increase the efficiency of the energy input as each injection point uses half (or less) of the wattage, together they produce areas with a combined higher amplitude wave perhaps proving useful if energy requirements are insufficiently met by say solar panels in deep space.

Other waveforms you could consider are using a (or multiple superimposed) chirped pulses to change the shape of the power (and loading) graph or perhaps test whether pulsing the cavity with energy is the only factor in thrust. The time dependent average of the input should be a relatively flat net positive oscillating sinusoidal shape though choosing chirp length or the quantity of superimposed chirps can change the shape of the wave considerably, allowing for on-the-go adjustments or periodic oscillations to waveform (and eigenmodes!). You could get creative with it. Which makes me wonder what would happen if you took a metallic toroid and excited a series of chirped waves in it. Would it still act as a time crystal even if the amplitude of the wave in the interference pattern periodically changed? I mean to say the pattern would result in a constant positive but changing superposition of the two waves. I know it has to do with the quantum system correlation and the time-evolution is not dependent on a particular wave-function but rather their superposition, but different superpositions should result in different time evolutions and clock rate peaks, shouldn't it*? This hasn't been empirically tested before. If the negative wave component is unnecessary to keep the differently wound phases coherent in a metallic ring then what does that imply for metallic and symmetric resonant cavities? Controversial thought: is the EM Drive thrust simply the decay of a coherent system and the phase of the system briefly exceeds the physical motion creating a time translation symmetry breaking event. I don't think it is currently, but once we make higher quality super-cooled less noisy cavities, then suddenly we have to consider these quantum effects, especially when interference patterns occur due to multiple inputs. Might also be interesting for nanocavity research. Not implying any FTL=phase velocity=group velocity fallacies, just curious about the behaviour of particles in closed metallic paths under multiple simultaneous inputs. Likely, this is all unrealistic, as the cavity is far too messy and imperfect - not to mention the numerous possibilities for diffraction, etc - but even if it decoheres quickly, there must be a short window in which such symmetry breaking occurs periodically and/or randomly.       

Among other papers you should know this one on time crystals... https://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.08001v4.pdf
Also see this paper regarding the stability of minkowski space... https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0408073v1.pdf

It is wise to accept the strange reality of gravitational waves and negative energy creating anisotropic energy dispersion. Especially curious how the above linked theory "disproves" negative energy. It is very interesting to spend time thinking about small wave packets which are 'isolated' from the rest of the phase and which carry a negative density. Would they induce time lag, decohere systems, interact with the system or would the system mostly 'ignore' it like a bug on a windscreen or an unwelcome rogue ion? Imagine 4 Chlorine ions in a n-sized-ring of Aluminum for example. I am curious about a wave form which, for example, has null points at those parts of the molecular chain. See the attached paper for an example of huge bond variations and consider what sort of interesting effects you could achieve if you repeated rings such as this throughout a hypothetical cavity. Surely a stack of such rings would result in a metamaterial with different charged regions. Put one of the negatively charged regions next to a modal peak and instant faster thrusting (or less thrusting due to less, in terms of total #, though stronger gravity gradients)??? Perhaps somebody could venture a guess.   

Just some thoughts, hopefully they make sense.

*Also, what if the superimposed waves were negative as discussed towards the end, as far as I understand it shouldn't matter for symmetry breaking. Even if that is the case wouldn't the gravity tensor alter the electron density at the outer skin, destabilizing the flow and decohering the entire system? Even if this is wrong, at the very least I'm surprised I haven't seen any discussion on this anywhere.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: masterharper1082 on 05/25/2017 03:55 am
All:

I ran across a paper on the unification of GRT and QM this morning that IMO we all need to consider in regards to what is real and what is mathematics devoid of physical content.

Best, Paul M.

I gave it a skim... the ratio of essay to data and math doesn't bode well.  ;D
spupeng7, a lot of similarities to concepts you have proposed, due to a 5D model, whether it is truly complex time or ?? Perhaps there is good food for thought there.

As a non-physicist, his historical/narrative style helped me to visualize where he is trying to go. Of course, in the end, only experiments and correct math matter. He does claim that his theory is falsifiable.

Not sure if his other papers include derivations, or just more talk... more than enough reading already tonight.

mh
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 05/25/2017 10:17 am
Paul ... yes, but I was thinking to less random waveforms, some regular ones (as simple ir complex you want)
Good question. I have been thinking about interference and propagation.

same line of thought here, I was thinking about interferences as well
 
If you have two diametrically opposed identical injection points pumping out square waves with peak and trough perfectly matched and coherent then you could increase the average density of the resulting wave packets through constructive interference (some people argue it is already occurring in the cavity).

not just square waves, by the way, for example an overposition of square and sine waves may be interesting, but then it will be needed to experiment to find out if and how different waveforms alter the EMdrive cavity behavior

Also this assumes minimal splatter and noise. Ultimately, such an interference pattern would just increase the efficiency of the energy input as each injection point uses half (or less) of the wattage, together they produce areas with a combined higher amplitude wave perhaps proving useful if energy requirements are insufficiently met by say solar panels in deep space.

Same thought, although, again, at the moment it's just "fried air" without any kind of evidence, that's why I asked if someone already tried exploring (even just using simulations) such an approach

Other waveforms you could consider are using a (or multiple superimposed) chirped pulses to change the shape of the power (and loading) graph or perhaps test whether pulsing the cavity with energy is the only factor in thrust. The time dependent average of the input should be a relatively flat net positive oscillating
[...]
Among other papers you should know this one on time crystals... https://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.08001v4.pdf
Also see this paper regarding the stability of minkowski space... https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0408073v1.pdf
[...]

snipped more interesting stuff, need some time to digest the ideas and the papers, thanks for those

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 05/25/2017 03:34 pm
Re: Ricci tensor & Einstein tensor. Having finally located my notes, one can quickly show that Rμν=0 ⇔ Gμν=0

By definition, Rμν= Gμν +½(gμνR)    Rμν=0 ⇒R=0⇒Rμν= Gμν⇒Gμν=0

But the trace of the Einstein tensor is G=-R  So Gμν=0 ⇒G=0⇒R=0⇒Rμν= Gμν⇒Rμν=0

I can say this with some feeling as a guy who calculated the tensor in detail in a free-space solution before the slap-the-forehead moment...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 05/25/2017 05:32 pm
Just tried an ixquick (http://www.ixquick.com) search for "microwave cavity interference pattern" (w/o quotes) and got back some interestng results ... ranging from Darthmouth to Stuttgart, worth a seekout imVVHo
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 05/25/2017 10:31 pm

All: "Apprentice Sorcerer Gravity Appliances Reaction Devices (ASGARD) works for me!  :)  I just hope Thor doesn't mind...


Nope, don't mind in the slightest!

I'd be more worried about Loki!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 05/26/2017 02:31 am
All:

I ran across a paper on the unification of GRT and QM this morning that IMO we all need to consider in regards to what is real and what is mathematics devoid of physical content.

Best, Paul M.
spupeng7, a lot of similarities to concepts you have proposed, due to a 5D model, whether it is truly complex time or ?? Perhaps there is good food for thought there.

As a non-physicist, his historical/narrative style helped me to visualize where he is trying to go. Of course, in the end, only experiments and correct math matter. He does claim that his theory is falsifiable.

Not sure if his other papers include derivations, or just more talk... more than enough reading already tonight.

mh
Thankyou mh,
       bedtime reading that may disturb your dreams... yes I did like some of it but the 5D argument complicates. I use complex time to argue that interaction is direct and that unification can be achieved by simplification. I agree with Beichler when he argues that a point has extension, because separation of the dimensions is artificial.

The extension of a point charge apparent to me, is the reaction its acceleration causes at separation ict. "What is real and what is mathematics devoid of physical content", is a sticky question for me. I am asking myself to believe that action at a distance is real.

Allowing the vacuum to have properties other than extension with direction, disturbs me. Would it not be simpler to accept action at a distance and see if that allows gravity to be the slightly unequal sum of electrical attractions and repulsions? Looking, of course, for a collaborator with the mathematical fluency required to make this argument properly  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Notsosureofit on 05/26/2017 05:29 pm
FYI: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.03118.pdf

Entropy theorems in classical mechanics, general relativity, and the gravitational
two-body problem

(Dated: August 30, 2016)

"In classical Hamiltonian theories, entropy may be understood either as a statistical property of
canonical systems, or as a mechanical property, that is, as a monotonic function of the phase space
along trajectories. In classical mechanics, there are theorems which have been proposed for proving
the non-existence of entropy in the latter sense. We explicate, clarify and extend the proofs of these
theorems to some standard matter (scalar and electromagnetic) field theories in curved spacetime,
and then we show why these proofs fail in general relativity; due to properties of the gravitational
Hamiltonian and phase space measures, the second law of thermodynamics holds. As a concrete
application, we focus on the consequences of these results for the gravitational two-body problem,
and in particular, we prove the non-compactness of the phase space of perturbed SchwarzschildDroste
spacetimes. We thus identify the lack of recurring orbits in phase space as a distinct sign of
dissipation and hence entropy production."

Note: It is the existence of recurring "orbits" in "free energy" arguments that gives me reason to dismiss them out of hand.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: R.W. Keyes on 05/28/2017 06:39 am
<puts on experimenter's cap>
How about going for the best and highest Q, before testing for acceleration? But at what frequency? People seem to like 2.4 Ghz because of the availability of magnetrons for it, but there's a lot of RF noise in that band. Magnetrons seem to be dismissed because of their noisiness (even if there are ways to stabilize them, does it matter at experimenter's power levels?) Why not use some frequency a bit lower? Maybe just below it in the 2300-2310 Mhz band (Amateur), or a lot lower at 1240-1300 Mhz (also Amateur).  Might make VNA analysis more precise, but at the expense of larger cavities.

Also, I haven't given up the idea of metal spinning on a high-accuracy & precision CNC spinning lathe. I think it's impractical for me to try to acquire the tools and learn the practice myself, especially as I live in an area with many small metal shops - one of them is likely to do decent spin-forming.  Of course, for high-Q I'd then want to go for superconducting end plates which is a bit more daunting.

I am just raising some ideas up the flagpole here, to see if anyone salutes, to use the old expression.

By the way, I have moved to Westfield, Mass. If anyone on this forum is in the general area it would be great to get together and toss ideas back and forth.

<takes off experimenter's cap, dons theoretician's hat>
In case any of you are interested, I find myself becoming more convinced of Dr. Mike McCullough's theories. Quantum inertia, horizon mechanics, whatever you want to call it. Ockham's razor etc.  I don't expect everyone to agree with me. I am more interested in experimentation than theory, but only because I think that good experiments are in short supply.

<takes off hat, does not don another>

For you in the USA, I hope you have a happy holiday weekend. I spent much of today hiking in the woods, fighting mud, mosquitoes, and high humidity. I'd really like to find a place for a good fire pit on Monday, but it seems unlikely, and useless as rain is predicted.

--RWK
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 05/28/2017 07:43 am
<puts on experimenter cap>
Going for the best and highest Q, before testing for acceleration? But at what frequency? People seem to like 2.4 Ghz because of the availability of magnetrons for it, but there's a lot of RF in that band. Magnetrons seem to be dismissed because of their noisiness (even if there are ways to stabilize them, does it matter at experimenter's power levels?) Why not use something a bit lower? Maybe just below it in the 2300-2310 Mhz band (Amateur), or a lot lower at 1240-1300 Mhz (also Amateur).  Might make VNE analysis more precise, but at the expense of larger cavities.

Also, I haven't given up the idea of metal spinning on a high-accuracy & precision CNC spinning lathe. I think it's impractical for me to try to acquire the tools and learn the practice myself, especially as I live in an area with many small metal shops - one of them is likely to do decent spin-forming.  Of course, for high-Q I'd then want to go for superconducting end plates which is a bit more daunting.

I am just raising some ideas up the flagpole here, to see if anyone salutes.

By the way, I have moved to Westfield, Mass. If anyone on this forum is in the general area it would be great to get together and toss ideas back and forth.

<takes off experimenter cap, dons theoreticians hat>
In case any of you are interested, I find myself becoming more convinced of Dr. Mike McCullough's theories. Quantum inertia, horizon mechanics, whatever you want to call it. Ockham's razor etc.  I don't expect everyone to agree with me. I am more interested in experimentation than theory, but only because I think that good experiments are in short supply.

<takes off hat, does not don another>

For you in the USA, I hope you have a happy holiday weekend. I spend much of today hiking in the woods, fighting mud, mosquitoes, and high humidity. I'd really like to find a place for a good fire pit on Monday, but it seems unlikely, and useless as rain is predicted.

--RWK
RW if you ever make it to Oregon, I'd be happy to show you some hikes. I'm old and disabled and can't hike any more, but I can show you some great places, and some great beer to boot.


Ditto for the rest of you. Coming this way, let me know.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mezzenile on 05/28/2017 08:19 am
Example: in 4 D spacetime gravitational plane waves have zero Ricci curvature tensor but non-zero Riemannian curvature.  In the region of the gravitational wave disturbance spacetime is not flat, even though the RIcci tensor is zero.
 
The energy and momentum of these gravitational plane waves is not in the energy-stress tensor, but the energy and momentum are in the gravitational field itself. 
 
The stress-energy tensor represents the energy due to matter, but stress-energy tensor includes NO contribution from gravitational energy or momentum in the field itself.
 
When a binary pulsar emits gravitational waves, these waves will carry away energy away and therefore its orbital period should change.  The energy and momentum are in the gravitational wave itself.
 
Thus, in general relativity you can have energy and momentum in gravitational waves, on the left hand side of the equation, on the field itself.  And these wave can interact nonlinearly. 

All very interesting from an energy conservation point of view :-)
The price to pay for these situations where space-time curvature occurs even when there is no stress energy-momentum tensor distribution, is that it is impossible to say where the corresponding gravitational energy is localized (this is the energy pseudo-tensor usually associated to gravitational waves).

These pseudo-tensors have some rather strange properties.  If "wrong" coordinates are chosen then the energy pseudo-tensors is non-zero even in flat empty spacetime.  By another choice of coordinates, they can be made zero at any chosen point, even in a spacetime full of gravitational radiation.  So the pseudo-tensors are not able to provide a good local definition of energy density, although their integrals are sometimes useful as a measure of total energy.

One other point on which the energy pseudo-tensor (gravitational energy) differs from classical energy/matter is that it cannot act  itself as a source of gravity as modelised by Einstein fundamental equation of General Relativity (G = 8 Pi  T). The only indirect way by which it can act as a source of gravity modification is through the non-linearity of the Einstein Field Equations which govern the space-time curvature evolution (propagation phenomena where for example a gravitational wave interacts with the local background curvature of space-time).

So in General relativity ther are several "kind" of energy and there is generaly speaking, no overall conservation law  encompassing all these kinds of energy. It is only in very special situation where space-time geometry has specific boundary conditions that overall energy conservation can have a meaning (this is linked to the possibilty then to apply famous Noether theorems)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: R.W. Keyes on 05/28/2017 08:49 am

RW if you ever make it to Oregon, I'd be happy to show you some hikes. I'm old and disabled and can't hike any more, but I can show you some great places, and some great beer to boot.


Ditto for the rest of you. Coming this way, let me know.

The invitation is appreciated, and reciprocated. I have a whole list of people, from Albany to Portland, in Oregon that I need to take up on their offers to visit. Oregonian beer culture is well renowned, but I wonder if I could find a brew out there without the huge amount of hops that I typically see, and which interfere with my digestion.

As to my Westfield, I am new to the precise area, but it is part of Western Mass that I know very well, being a native. Westfield has two airbases nearby, one gun manufacturer (Savage), and along history of metalworking (due to its close proximity to the former Springfield Armory). It is known as 'the whip city', because of its ancient dominance in manufacture of buggy whips, and was also home to Columbia bicycles. It is currently home to a state university, formerly a teachers school. and not far from the campus of the University of Massachusetts (in Amherst) as well as a smattering of other colleges.

My situation in it is my own company/lab, which is primarily focused on 3D printing, but has enough room for my many other interests. Once I have some substatial EMdrive-related facilities, I will post some bragging pictures, but the factory/lab/office is in an industrial area about three miles from the apartment I live in, and is a bit dingy compared to what SeeShells has.

as a side note, I own a fairly large (5500+ sf) but dilapidated building in the city I used to live in (Pittsfield) which I would gladly donate to some good use, such as an NPO for Emdrive research. But it would require at least $25,000 to get it to adequate state to be used. It's got 3-phase 220V, so that's a plus. Consider this a notice to anyone who is in need of a space and can sink the work & money into it; there might be grants / loans available to make it happen. I really need to do something with the building soon, so any proposals, no matter how incomplete, should be discussed soon before I sell it at auction and take a huge loss.

Anyhow, I want to return the focus of this list to its major technical focus, and encourage people with proposals or plans to meet up to contact me through the private message facility here. This goes for business regarding to my 3D printing business as well.

--RWK, at nearly dawn
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 05/28/2017 02:48 pm
Maybe I'm totally off target but ... what if one modulates the signal injected into the cavity? I mean ... using different waveforms

Was this already experimented?
Not intentionally (not with the intention to achieve an express purpose) to my knowledge, except that magnetrons by their nature already contain amplitude, frequency and phase modulation
(http://198.74.50.173/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Magic-ChefMagnetronOven2.45GHzSpectra-1.jpg)(http://file.scirp.org/Html/8-9801080%5C7aa0f806-9c62-4bf5-ae30-1c09e7756ab9.jpg)
Dr. Rodal,

I go back to a time I learned the basics of electronics with tubes, transistors where the new wonder toy IC's were stuff of dreams. The magnetron is nothing but a tube that self excites to produce microwaves. This isn't rocket science but tube science. Tubes are still around and still are used in the semiconductor industry where signal splatter and jitter have to be tightly controlled.

This is the one of the first articles I ran across that reinforced what I knew of tubes and what caused issues. http://lea.hamradio.si/~s57uuu/mischam/magnetr/

I was able to build a thermally stabilized water cooled current and voltage controlled supply locked into Fo by the use of a waveguide > antenna this gave me a very stable signal with no AM jitters and side lobes.
(http://lea.hamradio.si/~s57uuu/mischam/magnetr/magn2.jpg)

It's not entirely true that a magnetron is nasty noisy and unusable as a RF device it's just tougher to do than a lower wattage SS device.

I do plan to go to a SS device sometime in the near future although for now the toughness of a magnetron tube and support hardware suits what I'm doing quite well and if I do blow it up and make matchstick from magic smoke it's a less than 50 bucks to replace it.

My Very Best,
Shell

PS: Currently I'm getting all the machinery setup and oiled and checked out as some stuff I've had in storage. Ran air into the tool room yesterday and today start hauling all the drills, nuts bolts and setting up all the bins for my nuts, screws, drill buts, washers in about a 100 little bins. Guarantee you I'll be ready to fire up the grill later to burn up something and wash it down with a frothy brew after.  8)

PSS: Sticky Shift key LeFt Caps on aNd Off hapHazardly, need a new KB. Fixed it I hope.

One more thing: I had a dear friend donate a new/old Tektronix O-Scope for the lab, there is something about a simple O-scope that I love, the new stuff on the computer via the USB port is OK but green wiggly lines on a CRT make me smile a lot.  :P
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Augmentor on 05/28/2017 04:28 pm
Shell,

You could always go to a klystron.

D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 05/28/2017 04:40 pm
Shell,

You could always go to a klystron.

D
I'll take the 250Kw one right behind me at the SSC.  :o
Added: I debated at first look, but magnetrons were easier to come by.
Best,
Shell
(https://2dbdd5116ffa30a49aa8-c03f075f8191fb4e60e74b907071aee8.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/5230204_1436438764.938.jpg)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/28/2017 08:34 pm
People seem to like 2.4 Ghz because of the availability of magnetrons for it, but there's a lot of RF noise in that band. Magnetrons seem to be dismissed because of their noisiness (even if there are ways to stabilize them, does it matter at experimenter's power levels?)

I like 2.45Ghz as that frequency band is unlicensed and therefore safe to leak into. I would hate to have the FCC call as those fines are quite substantial.

Magnetrons also require cooling to keep the frequency stable. If it is not actively cooled, then runaway thermal heating causes the frequency to drift lower, eventually damaging the magnetron. The frequency drift makes holding resonance very difficult and active cooling makes precise measurements very difficult.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: 1 on 05/29/2017 01:03 am

All: "Apprentice Sorcerer Gravity Appliances Reaction Devices (ASGARD) works for me!  :)  I just hope Thor doesn't mind...

Boy, be busy and you miss the fun. What about "Paul's Texas Quantum Bar and Boson BBQ"

I think that the "Boson BBQ" may be more appropriate for Shells since, apparently, she likes roasting antennas  ;D ;D

ħ & Grill
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 05/29/2017 01:10 am
People seem to like 2.4 Ghz because of the availability of magnetrons for it, but there's a lot of RF noise in that band. Magnetrons seem to be dismissed because of their noisiness (even if there are ways to stabilize them, does it matter at experimenter's power levels?)

I like 2.45Ghz as that frequency band is unlicensed and therefore safe to leak into. I would hate to have the FCC call as those fines are quite substantial.

Magnetrons also require cooling to keep the frequency stable. If it is not actively cooled, then runaway thermal heating causes the frequency to drift lower, eventually damaging the magnetron. The frequency drift makes holding resonance very difficult and active cooling makes precise measurements very difficult.
That's why my was cooled.

My Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 05/30/2017 01:36 am
I wanted to suggest or ask if the EM drive may be squeezing light inside.  The apparent wavelength at the large end appears to have a shorter wavelength while at the narrow end of the frustum a longer wavelength along the frustum symmetric axis.  Perpendicular to this axis it was brought to my atention some time ago that the wavelength while at the narrow end appears longer along the axis, perpendicular to the axis the wavelength appears to be shorter than at the large end. 

So to summarize if z axis is the axis of the frustum then
wavelength at large end (z-axis: shorter, x-y-axis more relaxed/longer)
wavelength at narrow end (z-axis: longer, x-y-axis more compact/shorter)

I have been thinking about squeezed light for some time and LIGO's use of it to detect gravitational waves.  My thoughts were, squeezed light may be necessary to detect such gravitational waves as to increase interaction with the vacuum.  Along that line of thought, to cause light to interact with the vacuum may require squeezed states. 

Now I'lll share one power point that glosses over squeezed states and its connection with negative energy which may have been shared by some one else but I can't remember where I got this link: http://old.earthtech.org/reports/Davis-Puthoff_STAIF_Neg.Energ.Lab.Exp.pdf

Quote
Squeezed Electromagnetic Vacuum:
...
-One can "squeeze" variance of one observable provided variance in conjugate observable is stretched

- Observable that gets squeezed will have its fluctuations reduced below the vacuum ZPF

o Since the vacuum is defined to have vanishing energy density, any region with less energy density than the vacuum actually has a negative (renormalized) expectation value for the energy density

So is it possible there could be squeezed light near the narrow region.  Is there a measurement that could detect such squeezed light?  I believe there is some factor where a squeezed state becomes more certain about one aspect while becoming more uncertain about another.  similar to this article here: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2016/sep/12/squeezed-light... (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2016/sep/12/squeezed-light-shatters-previous-record-for-manipulating-quantum-uncertainty)

Quote
The uncertainty principle puts a lower limit on the product of the variance in the amplitude (or number) of photons and the variance in the phase. Vacuum photons naturally have equal variance in both amplitude and phase. It is, however, possible to create a "squeezed state" of light, in which either one of these quantities is minimized (squeezed) and the other is allowed to increase (antisqueezed).

also it may be possible we want at least 2 frequencies involved.  Here is why and possibly the magnetron putting out both of these frequencies may be desirable?  Is it desirable for the cavity to have 2 resonant frequencies close together both excited by the magnetron? 

Quote
The Hannover team has now improved several aspects of its instrumentation. Most significantly, they have used a new, doubly resonant cavity: "You need two wavelengths to generate the squeezed light and we had a resonator that was resonant for both," explains team member Moritz Mehmet. In addition, says his teammate Henning Vahlbruch, they upgraded several other features: "We used the best available materials, a different cavity topology and custom-made photodetectors." The researchers broke their own record, squeezing vacuum photons by a factor of 32.

Normally I have heard squeezed states have commonly been accomplished with a crystal/accelerated mirror, but above they mention a cavity and I wonder if it's possible to accomplish squeezed states with just a cavity. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: aero on 05/30/2017 05:02 am
@dustinthewind
I don't know how meaningful it is but here is what meep indicates regarding resonant frequencies in a particular cavity. This is Monomorphic's DUT, in copper with two detector locations. Each is located 4 mm from the inside face of the respective end, and half the small end radius from the z-axis of rotation offset equally in x and y. If you need the imaginary component of frequency, I can provide the complete output including a ton of significant digits in a spreadsheet, if you would like.

I note that the ez component contains very little energy but what is there is enough to satisfy meep and is reported. As I understand it, no energy in the ez component is a characteristic of a TE mode of resonance.

freq.   GHz   Q   Amp   Amp SI   Comp   freq. Diff.   end
2451314734.6915   2.45131   34,362   0.29088   1.10E+02   ex   0   SE
                     
2451314734.69151   2.45131   34,362   0.29088   1.10E+02   ey   0   SE
                     
2441943271.04085   2.44194   -13,481   0.00000   2.07E-15   ez      SE
2451262522.54508   2.45126   968   0.00000   5.29E-15   ez      SE
2465495123.57696   2.46550   2,452   0.00000   9.35E-15   ez      SE
                     
2451315953.25884   2.45132   35,297   1.14531   1.14531   hx   0   SE
                     
2451315953.25884   2.45132   35,297   1.14531   1.14531   hy   0   SE
                     
2451315922.70902   2.45132   35,431   0.36909   0.36909   hz   0   SE
                     
2451314755.05473   2.45131   34,545   0.00439   1.65E+00   ex   -20.36323452   BE
                     
2451314755.05472   2.45131   34,545   0.00439   1.65E+00   ey   -20.3632049561   BE
                     
2451571816.19804   2.45157   560   0.00000   5.54E-14   ez      BE
2457576614.11381   2.45758   313   0.00000   2.48E-13   ez      BE
2465596829.68202   2.46560   5,955   0.00000   1.50E-14   ez      BE
                     
2451315943.00494   2.45132   35,343   1.73483   1.73483   hx   10.2538976669   BE
                     
2451315943.00495   2.45132   35,343   1.73483   1.73483   hy   10.2538948059   BE
                     
2451316625.84456   2.45132   35,418   0.07332   0.07332   hz   -703.1355333328   BE
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 05/30/2017 09:19 am
(...)
One more thing: I had a dear friend donate a new/old Tektronix O-Scope for the lab, there is something about a simple O-scope that I love, the new stuff on the computer via the USB port is OK but green wiggly lines on a CRT make me smile a lot.  :P
Shell,
that O-scope may have been built in Guernsey C.I. off the coast of France (where I grew up!)   :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 05/30/2017 09:59 am
"Seeking the fifth force"

While it may be unrelated (and possibly off-topic) to EMdrive, I think that this research initiative may be of interest for the people on this forum

"Physicists Are Probing The Centre of Our Galaxy to Find The Missing Fifth Force of Nature" (http://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-are-probing-the-centre-of-our-galaxy-to-find-the-missing-fifth-force-of-nature)

also because it's an attempt to (better) understand gravity :)

detailed informations can be found here (https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.211101)

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 05/30/2017 10:30 am

freq.                GHz       Q       Amp       Amp SI   Comp   freq. Diff.   end
2451314734.6915    2.45131   34,362   0.29088   1.10E+02   ex             0     SE
2451314734.69151   2.45131   34,362   0.29088   1.10E+02   ey             0     SE
2441943271.04085   2.44194  -13,481   0.00000   2.07E-15   ez                   SE
2451262522.54508   2.45126  968       0.00000   5.29E-15   ez                   SE
2465495123.57696   2.46550    2,452   0.00000   9.35E-15   ez                   SE
2451315953.25884   2.45132   35,297   1.14531   1.14531    hx             0     SE
2451315953.25884   2.45132   35,297   1.14531   1.14531    hy             0     SE
2451315922.70902   2.45132   35,431   0.36909   0.36909    hz             0     SE
2451314755.05473   2.45131   34,545   0.00439   1.65E+00   ex  -20.36323452     BE
2451314755.05472   2.45131   34,545   0.00439   1.65E+00   ey  -20.3632049561   BE
2451571816.19804   2.45157  560       0.00000   5.54E-14   ez                   BE
2457576614.11381   2.45758  313       0.00000   2.48E-13   ez                   BE
2465596829.68202   2.46560    5,955   0.00000   1.50E-14   ez                   BE
2451315943.00494   2.45132   35,343   1.73483   1.73483    hx   10.2538976669   BE
2451315943.00495   2.45132   35,343   1.73483   1.73483    hy   10.2538948059   BE
2451316625.84456   2.45132   35,418   0.07332   0.07332    hz -703.1355333328   BE


just trying to improve readability :)

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 05/30/2017 12:40 pm
(...)
One more thing: I had a dear friend donate a new/old Tektronix O-Scope for the lab, there is something about a simple O-scope that I love, the new stuff on the computer via the USB port is OK but green wiggly lines on a CRT make me smile a lot.  :P
Shell,
that O-scope may have been built in Guernsey C.I. off the coast of France (where I grew up!)   :)
Considering I cut my teeth on an old 555 dual trace. :) It's good to know they do good work in Guernsey C. I.
(http://www.barrytech.com/tektronix/vintage/tek555.jpg)

Still getting the shop straightened up and still need to move some of the cabinets out to make space for the lab benches and tidy up the other half of the space.

My Very Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: JonCard on 05/31/2017 04:23 am
Hi,

I'm not a regular here, but I am running an organization to try to put an EMDrive into orbit on a CubeSat and demonstrate whether it works in-situ. I have 3 minutes at the Smallsat Conference in Logan, UT, this summer to present a brief overview of the "state of the art" of EMDrive, and I have an opportunity to submit a paper along with my talk. I was thinking of including the attached document as an appendix, and I was hoping one of you could look at it and tell me what you think of it, or if it would be worth it. I don't know if it is useful, or even something everyone already knows. I'm sure it's not something helpful to someone with access to COMSOL, but I am not among that number.

It is a an attempt to derive an equation for the cut-off diameter in a frustum in TM mode, given that (I believe) the equations for the cut-off for a cylinder are not valid for that case.

A little about my project: www.buildanemdrive.org is a non-profit to raise money to put a test article of the EMDrive into orbit on a CubeSat. I am working on a test article myself, and I am currently working with the State Department to try to get approval to make it open source. I am interested in partnering with other groups that want the chance to go to orbit and I will share any funds raised towards a launch with whoever is ready to fly and will likely provide a definite answer of whether an EMDrive will work free of testing equipment and in control. If enough people are interested, I think we can put together a judging event with celebrity judges at one of the annual space conferences, or something like that. Fundraising is going a bit slowly just now, mostly because I have to choose between making progress on my drive and doing fundraising. Please let me know if you are interested in working together. If you are unwilling to share technical data, that's OK; I don't really need to know that right now.

Sorry to be a bit terse. If anyone has any questions, I'll try to answer them.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: JonCard on 05/31/2017 04:36 am
@dustinthewind

Yes, you are right. Feynman discusses this in his great book, the Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol 2, and he's very good at explaining it in a way that makes sense.  It's called the guide wavelength. In a waveguide, like a fiberoptic cable or an resonance cavity, the interaction with the walls causes an interference pattern that behaves as if the light has a longer wavelength and the same frequency, causing a strange effect as the "phase velocity" and the "group velocity" of the light to go out of sync.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 05/31/2017 05:19 am
@dustinthewind

Yes, you are right. Feynman discusses this in his great book, the Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol 2, and he's very good at explaining it in a way that makes sense.  It's called the guide wavelength. In a waveguide, like a fiberoptic cable or an resonance cavity, the interaction with the walls causes an interference pattern that behaves as if the light has a longer wavelength and the same frequency, causing a strange effect as the "phase velocity" and the "group velocity" of the light to go out of sync.

c=f*lambda->f=c/lambda  with f constant and lambda growing larger then c must become larger which maybe suggests a decrease in the effective mass of light near the cutoff.  (considering momentum conservation if mass decreases then phase velocity should increase - phase being the individual photon, group being the collective behavior) . 
https://www.microwaves101.com/encyclopedias/waveguide-mathematics
Its not obvious with the equation E=h*f because f is constant and effective mass E/c^2 but E/c^2=m_eff=h*c/(lambda*c^2)=h*f/c^2  If both c and lambda increase then it suggests the effective mass decreases.  https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60441/does-a-photon-have-mass

This means in a collision the photon transfers less kinetic energy to the narrow end of the cavity as it does the large side.   ... Maybe.  Proof is in the pudding. 

I haven't done much on it recently but I think it still needs more work.  https://www.researchgate.net/project/Is-the-frustum-EM-Drive4-decelerating-light-for-propellantless-propulsion

light carries lots of energy but little momentum can be harnessed from it due the ridiculous small effective mass.  Part of the heat death of the universe.  It would be nice if there was a way to re-collect that energy in an effective manner. 

The question comes up if we can drain energy from the light in one direction how does this conserve momentum.  Not sure but there is known the be a Lens Thirring effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lense%E2%80%93Thirring_precession where the vacuum can appear to be in motion around a rotating object. 

Also a Doppler shift from a photon impacting and object and transferring energy tends to red-shift the photon as a 2nd order effect that I derive in the paper on researchgate.  The light appears to undergo a change in frame.  If the light was pushed on before the reflection it would appear to be pushed against but what is light.  Maybe it is a disturbance of the quantum vacuum so could pushing against light be pushing against the QV? 

Why is it a disturbance of the Quantum Vacuum?  If you let and electron-positron pair annihilate light is generated from them coming together.  Now reverse time and let the light come together and you get the particles back.  Imagine an e-p pair in the vacuum together and you get (zero rest mass) just like light. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: JonCard on 05/31/2017 04:12 pm
I have not had a chance to read your papers yet, but in regards to the change in speed, yes, sort of. The velocity that increases is the "phase velocity"; another speed called the "group velocity" is actually lower. There's a good graphic about the difference on Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_velocity). Because it is not the velocity of the photons themselves, it's not clear whether Planck's constant can be used with it, since it isn't quantised energy packets like a photon. Obviously, the whole is a bit up in the air because of this device, but I think observed thrust is in the direction of the small end.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 05/31/2017 07:09 pm
Hi,

I'm not a regular here, but I am running an organization to try to put an EMDrive into orbit on a CubeSat and demonstrate whether it works in-situ. I have 3 minutes at the Smallsat Conference in Logan, UT, this summer to present a brief overview of the "state of the art" of EMDrive, and I have an opportunity to submit a paper along with my talk. I was thinking of including the attached document as an appendix, and I was hoping one of you could look at it and tell me what you think of it, or if it would be worth it. I don't know if it is useful, or even something everyone already knows. I'm sure it's not something helpful to someone with access to COMSOL, but I am not among that number.

It is a an attempt to derive an equation for the cut-off diameter in a frustum in TM mode, given that (I believe) the equations for the cut-off for a cylinder are not valid for that case.

A little about my project: www.buildanemdrive.org is a non-profit to raise money to put a test article of the EMDrive into orbit on a CubeSat. I am working on a test article myself, and I am currently working with the State Department to try to get approval to make it open source. I am interested in partnering with other groups that want the chance to go to orbit and I will share any funds raised towards a launch with whoever is ready to fly and will likely provide a definite answer of whether an EMDrive will work free of testing equipment and in control. If enough people are interested, I think we can put together a judging event with celebrity judges at one of the annual space conferences, or something like that. Fundraising is going a bit slowly just now, mostly because I have to choose between making progress on my drive and doing fundraising. Please let me know if you are interested in working together. If you are unwilling to share technical data, that's OK; I don't really need to know that right now.

Sorry to be a bit terse. If anyone has any questions, I'll try to answer them.

On Thread 3, two years ago, 06/21/2015 08:07 PM, I posted:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1392223#msg1392223


with this attachment report, titled:

Cut-off of Resonant Modes in Truncated Conical Cavities:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=37642.0;attach=1030954;sess=45576
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 05/31/2017 09:07 pm
Hi,

I'm not a regular here, but I am running an organization to try to put an EMDrive into orbit on a CubeSat and demonstrate whether it works in-situ. I have 3 minutes at the Smallsat Conference in Logan, UT, this summer to present a brief overview of the "state of the art" of EMDrive, and I have an opportunity to submit a paper along with my talk. I was thinking of including the attached document as an appendix, and I was hoping one of you could look at it and tell me what you think of it, or if it would be worth it. I don't know if it is useful, or even something everyone already knows. I'm sure it's not something helpful to someone with access to COMSOL, but I am not among that number.

It is a an attempt to derive an equation for the cut-off diameter in a frustum in TM mode, given that (I believe) the equations for the cut-off for a cylinder are not valid for that case.

A little about my project: www.buildanemdrive.org is a non-profit to raise money to put a test article of the EMDrive into orbit on a CubeSat. I am working on a test article myself, and I am currently working with the State Department to try to get approval to make it open source. I am interested in partnering with other groups that want the chance to go to orbit and I will share any funds raised towards a launch with whoever is ready to fly and will likely provide a definite answer of whether an EMDrive will work free of testing equipment and in control. If enough people are interested, I think we can put together a judging event with celebrity judges at one of the annual space conferences, or something like that. Fundraising is going a bit slowly just now, mostly because I have to choose between making progress on my drive and doing fundraising. Please let me know if you are interested in working together. If you are unwilling to share technical data, that's OK; I don't really need to know that right now.

Sorry to be a bit terse. If anyone has any questions, I'll try to answer them.

On Thread 3, two years ago, 06/21/2015 08:07 PM, I posted:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1392223#msg1392223


with this attachment report, titled:

Cut-off of Resonant Modes in Truncated Conical Cavities:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=37642.0;attach=1030954;sess=45576
Because of your write up we did sims in meep with an extended frustum cavity past cutoff to see if it did indeed act the way you wrote. It does.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 06/01/2017 03:17 am
I have not had a chance to read your papers yet, but in regards to the change in speed, yes, sort of. The velocity that increases is the "phase velocity"; another speed called the "group velocity" is actually lower. There's a good graphic about the difference on Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_velocity). Because it is not the velocity of the photons themselves, it's not clear whether Planck's constant can be used with it, since it isn't quantised energy packets like a photon. Obviously, the whole is a bit up in the air because of this device, but I think observed thrust is in the direction of the small end.

Problem is the group velocity of purely reflected light in the cavity would be standing still because of it being a standing wave.  I don't think we can think of the photons as standing.  Also if their wavelength stretches out with out their frequency changing then their velocity must increase. 

There is some traveling group waves due to energy loss, but I still have my reservations as qualifying the group waves as the photons.  There may be some Merritt to it.  I'll give it some thought. 

If we consider a photon recycling thruster we can get what appears to be a standing wave but once the mirror starts accelerating there should be 2nd order Doppler shifting via transferred energy so that also sets up a difference in frequency traveling wave. 

With out the mirror moving, perfectly collimated light, and hypothetically negligible heat loss there should still be large pressure via the photons while sustaining what appears to be a standing group wave so I have a hard time distinguishing which wave really defines the photon (group or phase).  I wan't to say phase but not exactly sure.  Also the phase waves in superpositions make up the group wave behavior which is similar to light which in superpositions makes up the sum. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: JonCard on 06/01/2017 05:11 am
@dustinthewind - Well, in a standing wave the phase velocity is 0, too. :)

@SeeShells - Thanks! That's amazing. I appreciate it very much and let me know if you want to be a part of the the launch project.

@Rodal - That's great! I gave it one read through, and I know it'll need some time to digest it. One thing that I know I will be paying attention to is conclusion #8; to my reading, Shawyer's equation does not predict that thrust is maximized by a greatest difference between the plate sizes (while McCulloch obviously does). He predicts that thrust is maximized for a given large plate by the small plate being as close to the cut-off as possible. That is the point where the guide wavelength goes to infinity and that term, lambda0/lambdag2, goes to 0. It is one of the things my paper for the Smallsat Conference is going to list as one of the testable predictions I would like to gather data around, with future fundraising: Shawyer suggests that thrust is maximized as we approach cut-off, and McCulloch predicts thrust is maximized when the small plate is infinitely small and cut-off is an unavoidable prohibition preventing greater efficiency.

I think this is why the Eagleworks found greater thrust in the TM mode than in the TE mode; with a larger cut-off diameter in the TM mode, the small plate in the cavity was closer to the TM mode cut-off when resonating in the TM mode than the small plate was to the TE mode cut-off when resonating in the TE mode. I wish they had released those numbers; that's almost as important as their thrust measurements, to my mind. I'm not sure what the conditions were for those tests. I wonder if a cavity with a small plate close to the TE mode cut-off resonating in TE mode would have as great a thrust as a cavity with a small plate equally close to the TM mode cut-off resonating in the TM mode. I'm fascinated that the Shawyer equation predicts the TM/TE mode difference (once I knew there was one; I didn't predict it in advance).

If I am repeating what everyone already knows, I apologize.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 06/01/2017 05:25 am
@dustinthewind - Well, in a standing wave the phase velocity is 0, too. :)

...

Quote from: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/speed-of-stationary-wave-in-a-string.729703/
Think of a stationary wave as the sum of two travelling waves. If the two waves move in opposite directions and have the same frequency, the result is a stationary wave. The travelling waves have a well defined speed (or phase velocity). You're allowed to do this because of the principle of superposition.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: qraal on 06/01/2017 11:01 am
Hi Guys

Normally I lurk and enjoy the show, but I spotted this pertinent preprint on the arXiv today:

Theoretical calculation of the fine-structure constant and the permittivity of the vacuum (https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.11068)

Quote
Light traveling through the vacuum interacts with virtual particles similarly to the way that light traveling through a dielectric interacts with ordinary matter. And just as the permittivity of a dielectric can be calculated, the permittivity ϵ0 of the vacuum can be calculated, yielding an equation for the fine-structure constant α. The most important contributions to the value of α arise from interactions in the vacuum of photons with virtual, bound states of charged lepton-antilepton pairs. Considering only these contributions, the fully screened α≅1/139
.

An intriguing suggestion at the end is that considering the vacuum in this manner allows for a variable speed of light in the very early universe. But the fact that the Fine Structure Constant can be computed from assuming the vacuum is filled with virtual positronium (some ~10^39 per cubic metre) does lend some credence to Harold White's suggestions about how EM-Drives and kin *might* work.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/01/2017 04:42 pm
FYI: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.03118.pdf

Entropy theorems in classical mechanics, general relativity, and the gravitational
two-body problem

(Dated: August 30, 2016)

"In classical Hamiltonian theories, entropy may be understood either as a statistical property of
canonical systems, or as a mechanical property, that is, as a monotonic function of the phase space
along trajectories. In classical mechanics, there are theorems which have been proposed for proving
the non-existence of entropy in the latter sense. We explicate, clarify and extend the proofs of these
theorems to some standard matter (scalar and electromagnetic) field theories in curved spacetime,
and then we show why these proofs fail in general relativity; due to properties of the gravitational
Hamiltonian and phase space measures, the second law of thermodynamics holds. As a concrete
application, we focus on the consequences of these results for the gravitational two-body problem,
and in particular, we prove the non-compactness of the phase space of perturbed SchwarzschildDroste
spacetimes. We thus identify the lack of recurring orbits in phase space as a distinct sign of
dissipation and hence entropy production."

Note: It is the existence of recurring "orbits" in "free energy" arguments that gives me reason to dismiss them out of hand.
Thank you, Notsosureofit.   The fact that entropy of bodies attracted by gravitation can increase purely due to dynamic movement of the bodies (without friction or other forms of dissipation being present) is something that escapes many people's attention.

Perhaps one way to visualize this is to think about the 3 body problem, and the N- body problem.  It is only under certain conditions, for some finite amount of time (albeit a very long time compared with life) that one can have low-entropy solutions: stable elliptical orbits of planets around the Sun, stable orbits of moons around planets.  Over the long-term the stability of these planets and these moons will be perturbed and they will cease to be stable, for example the planets falling into the Sun or a moon escaping a planet (thus entropy will increase).  The range of dynamic solutions that are stable decreases with the number of gravitational bodies involved.  Therefore, for example, in the Hoyle-Narlikar model, inertia of a body is conferred by the gravitational effect of all the other bodies in the Universe.  If one fluctuates the energy in a body at a frequency omega, a small fluctuating mass density will result (Woodward's hypothesis) and if one rectifies this fluctuation by superposing another fluctuation at a superharmonic 2 omega, then an acceleration of the center of mass can occur due to the shift in the center of mass.  The momentum and energy associated with this acceleration is balanced by the (infinitesimally small in comparison) change in momentum and energy of the rest of the bodies in the universe (responsible for conferring the inertial mass to the object).  What the paper you mentioned shows, is that this  (infinitesimally small) change in momentum and energy of the rest of the bodies in the universe must be accompanied by an increase in entropy of the universe.  This must follow, because as one perturbs the dynamic equilibrium of N bodies in gravitation, the entropy of the universe must increase. 

This increase in entropy of the universe due to dynamic perturbation of the motion of the N bodies, is not due to any friction (any such frictional losses are in addition to this effect) but due to the fact that gravitation of many bodies is a dynamically unstable problem.  (We are fooled by thinking about the stability of planets and moons, and satellites: we also have to think about the whole range of possible motions that lead to instability and hence to a dynamic configuration that is less orderly and hence has increased entropy).

Thus, there are at least two kinds of entropy being ignored by those maintaining that there is boundless free-energy to be extracted: the entropy of the Machian drive (as entropy of a material being vibrated increases, due to dissipation of heat) and the entropy of the universe also must increase (as shown in the paper you posted).  There is no free lunch.

If the EM Drive is not an experimental artifact and its acceleration is somehow due to general relativity, these entropy (2nd law) constraints must also operate: thus they pertain to the "overunity problem" frequently discussed, and the acceleration that would be possible and under what range of motions (along a geodesic vs. circular motion as in what is frequently hypothesized would be used to generate electricity).
(http://images.slideplayer.com/25/7945386/slides/slide_20.jpg)(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/Restricted_Three-Body_Problem_-_Energy_Potential_Analysis.png/1024px-Restricted_Three-Body_Problem_-_Energy_Potential_Analysis.png)
(http://www.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/styles/article_main_large/public/images/sn-threebody.jpg?itok=JvXNVSKM)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 06/01/2017 05:09 pm
...

Perhaps one way to visualize this is to think about the 3 body problem, and the N- body problem.  It is only under certain conditions, for some finite amount of time (albeit a very long time compared with life) that one can have low-entropy solutions: stable elliptical orbits of planets around the Sun, stable orbits of moons around planets.  Over the long-term the stability of these planets and these moons will be perturbed and they will cease to be stable, for example the planets falling into the Sun or a moon escaping a planet (thus entropy will increase).  The range of dynamic solutions that are stable decreases with the number of gravitational bodies involved.  Therefore, for example, in the Hoyle-Narlikar model, inertia of a body is conferred by the gravitational effect of all the other bodies in the Universe.  If one fluctuates the energy in a body at a frequency omega, a small fluctuating mass density will result (Woodward's hypothesis) and if one rectifies this fluctuation by superposing another fluctuation at a superharmonic 2 omega, then an acceleration of the center of mass can occur due to the shift in the center of mass.  The momentum and energy associated with this acceleration is balanced by the (infinitesimally small in comparison) change in momentum and energy of the rest of the bodies in the universe (responsible for conferring the inertial mass to the object).  What the paper you mentioned shows, is that this  (infinitesimally small) change in momentum and energy of the rest of the bodies in the universe must be accompanied by an increase in entropy of the universe.  This must follow, because as one perturbs the dynamic equilibrium of N bodies in gravitation, the entropy of the universe must increase. 

This increase in entropy of the universe due to dynamic perturbation of the motion of the N bodies, is not due to any friction (any such frictional losses are in addition to this effect) but due to the fact that gravitation of many bodies is a dynamically unstable problem.  (We are fooled by thinking about the stability of planets and moons, and satellites: we also have to think about the whole range of possible motions that lead to instability and hence to a dynamic configuration that is less orderly and hence has increased entropy).

Thus, there are at least two kinds of entropy being ignored by those maintaining that there is boundless free-energy to be extracted: the entropy of the Machian drive (as entropy of a material being vibrated increases, due to dissipation of heat) and the entropy of the universe also must increase (as shown in the paper you posted).  There is no free lunch.

If the EM Drive is not an experimental artifact and its acceleration is somehow due to general relativity, these entropy (2nd law) constraints must also operate: thus they pertain to the "overunity problem" frequently discussed, and the acceleration that would be possible and under what range of motions (along a geodesic vs. circular motion as in what is frequently hypothesized would be used to generate electricity).

Very good and clear explanation for the lay person.

If I understand well, and if the MEGA/Emdrive thrusters have any kind of physical validity, then they could be indeed used for getting useful thrust and speeds (e.g. for space ships), seemingly getting more energy in the form of kinetic energy than the one we spend on making them active.

Because the energy making them move is not from the energy we used to catalyze the reactions actually making them move. It comes from the distant part of the cosmos these systems are inextricably linked to, like everything else.

But the universal accounting book remains balanced and with an ever growing entropy. We are simply taking energy from the distant bodies of the universe, in infinitesimal amounts but very measurable at the local level, which is the one we are interested in.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/01/2017 05:46 pm
Re: Ricci tensor & Einstein tensor. Having finally located my notes, one can quickly show that Rμν=0 ⇔ Gμν=0

By definition, Rμν= Gμν +½(gμνR)    Rμν=0 ⇒R=0⇒Rμν= Gμν⇒Gμν=0

But the trace of the Einstein tensor is G=-R  So Gμν=0 ⇒G=0⇒R=0⇒Rμν= Gμν⇒Rμν=0

I can say this with some feeling as a guy who calculated the tensor in detail in a free-space solution before the slap-the-forehead moment...
Yes, that is completely true.  The interesting thing is that the Ricci tensor being zero somewhere, sometime, Rμν = 0 does not necessarily mean that spacetime is flat (for 4D spacetime).  Therefore  Gμν=0 does not necessarily mean that spacetime is flat either.  In 4D spacetime Rμν = 0  does not at all mean that Rαβμν = 0 .
It is the Riemann curvature tensor Rαβμν (which is a 4th rank tensor, as opposed to the Ricci tensor Rμν which is only second rank) that completely defines the curvature.  Thus General Relativity is interesting because one can have zero mass and a zero source of energy in a region in 4D spacetime, therefore Ricci tensor Rμν = 0 and yet the Riemann curvature tensor Rαβμν may have non-zero components.  One can have gravitational waves that carry momentum and energy in a given region of spacetime without that region in spacetime needing to contain mass or energy sources.  (This in contrast with charge in electrodynamics, where a source of charge is always needed, as photons do not carry charge).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Notsosureofit on 06/01/2017 05:52 pm

Note: It is the existence of recurring "orbits" in "free energy" arguments that gives me reason to dismiss them out of hand.
Thank you, Notsosureofit.   The fact that entropy of bodies attracted by gravitation can increase purely due to dynamic movement of the bodies (without friction or other forms of dissipation being present) is something that escapes many people's attention.


I should add that my reasoning came not from GR, but from the "Hamiltonian" radars that I worked on in the 60's, where only the "entropic" components of the solutions were of interest.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 06/01/2017 07:26 pm
...
 One can have gravitational waves that carry momentum and energy in a given region of spacetime without that region in spacetime needing to contain mass or energy sources.  (This in contrast with charge in electrodynamics, where a source of charge is always needed, as photons do not carry charge).

Something interesting to consider is an electronic positron annihilation.  The source of the charge after annihilation no longer exists.  The light could be considered to Cary the remaining mass and charge of the annihilated e-p pair. 

The electric field of light possibly being low level disturbance of vacuum e-p pair virtual particles.  So while they have zero charge it may actually be negative plus positive.  Reversing the light wave recreates the charges. 

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: R.W. Keyes on 06/01/2017 10:37 pm
True, 2,4 Ghz is an ISM band.
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISM_band (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISM_band). But there are others. I have an Amateur Radio license and could legally use those bands, but there are other legal requirements which may make such a plan untenable.

I understand the problems with heat and drift of magnetrons, but there was a paper posted here some time ago which detailed ways of stabilizing them. Stable enough? Maybe not.

People seem to like 2.4 Ghz because of the availability of magnetrons for it, but there's a lot of RF noise in that band. Magnetrons seem to be dismissed because of their noisiness (even if there are ways to stabilize them, does it matter at experimenter's power levels?)

I like 2.45Ghz as that frequency band is unlicensed and therefore safe to leak into. I would hate to have the FCC call as those fines are quite substantial.

Magnetrons also require cooling to keep the frequency stable. If it is not actively cooled, then runaway thermal heating causes the frequency to drift lower, eventually damaging the magnetron. The frequency drift makes holding resonance very difficult and active cooling makes precise measurements very difficult.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 06/01/2017 11:13 pm
Hi Guys

Normally I lurk and enjoy the show, but I spotted this pertinent preprint on the arXiv today:

Theoretical calculation of the fine-structure constant and the permittivity of the vacuum (https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.11068)

Quote
Light traveling through the vacuum interacts with virtual particles similarly to the way that light traveling through a dielectric interacts with ordinary matter. And just as the permittivity of a dielectric can be calculated, the permittivity ϵ0 of the vacuum can be calculated, yielding an equation for the fine-structure constant α. The most important contributions to the value of α arise from interactions in the vacuum of photons with virtual, bound states of charged lepton-antilepton pairs. Considering only these contributions, the fully screened α≅1/139
.

An intriguing suggestion at the end is that considering the vacuum in this manner allows for a variable speed of light in the very early universe. But the fact that the Fine Structure Constant can be computed from assuming the vacuum is filled with virtual positronium (some ~10^39 per cubic metre) does lend some credence to Harold White's suggestions about how EM-Drives and kin *might* work.

I haven't sat down and compared them yet, but this sounds very similar to Marcel Urban, et. al.'s paper:

The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light - 2013
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepjd%2Fe2013-30578-7 (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepjd%2Fe2013-30578-7)

If anyone has the time to compare them, please keep me in the loop.

Thanks!


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 06/02/2017 03:36 am
Hi Guys

Normally I lurk and enjoy the show, but I spotted this pertinent preprint on the arXiv today:

Theoretical calculation of the fine-structure constant and the permittivity of the vacuum (https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.11068)

Quote
Light traveling through the vacuum interacts with virtual particles similarly to the way that light traveling through a dielectric interacts with ordinary matter. And just as the permittivity of a dielectric can be calculated, the permittivity ϵ0 of the vacuum can be calculated, yielding an equation for the fine-structure constant α. The most important contributions to the value of α arise from interactions in the vacuum of photons with virtual, bound states of charged lepton-antilepton pairs. Considering only these contributions, the fully screened α≅1/139
.

An intriguing suggestion at the end is that considering the vacuum in this manner allows for a variable speed of light in the very early universe. But the fact that the Fine Structure Constant can be computed from assuming the vacuum is filled with virtual positronium (some ~10^39 per cubic metre) does lend some credence to Harold White's suggestions about how EM-Drives and kin *might* work.

I haven't sat down and compared them yet, but this sounds very similar to Marcel Urban, et. al.'s paper:

The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light - 2013
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepjd%2Fe2013-30578-7 (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepjd%2Fe2013-30578-7)

If anyone has the time to compare them, please keep me in the loop.

Thanks!

The vacuum pairs I suspect can not reach a zero temperature state.  As a result the vacuum should actually possess some form of average mass/energy, on a large scale. 

If we push against light resulting in a 2nd order Doppler shift (change in frame) might this also have an effect on accelerating or changing the frame of such vacuum pairs?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 06/02/2017 04:37 am
It's good to know they do good work in Guernsey C. I.

(http://www.barrytech.com/tektronix/vintage/tek555.jpg)
They used to. I have done a few years there as a farm laborer/gardener (which is good for the blood) but all they do is banking now...

must confess to some workshop envy  :)

:J
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: qraal on 06/02/2017 09:26 am
Hi

I seem to remember that preprint too...

The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light (https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.6165)

Quote
We show that the vacuum permeability and permittivity may originate from the magnetization and the polarization of continuously appearing and disappearing fermion pairs. We then show that if we simply model the propagation of the photon in vacuum as a series of transient captures within these ephemeral pairs, we can derive a finite photon velocity. Requiring that this velocity is equal to the speed of light constrains our model of vacuum. Within this approach, the propagation of a photon is a statistical process at scales much larger than the Planck scale. Therefore we expect its time of flight to fluctuate. We propose an experimental test of this prediction.

Thanks for the lead. Will have a read too.

Hi Guys

Normally I lurk and enjoy the show, but I spotted this pertinent preprint on the arXiv today:

Theoretical calculation of the fine-structure constant and the permittivity of the vacuum (https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.11068)

An intriguing suggestion at the end is that considering the vacuum in this manner allows for a variable speed of light in the very early universe. But the fact that the Fine Structure Constant can be computed from assuming the vacuum is filled with virtual positronium (some ~10^39 per cubic metre) does lend some credence to Harold White's suggestions about how EM-Drives and kin *might* work.

I haven't sat down and compared them yet, but this sounds very similar to Marcel Urban, et. al.'s paper:

The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light - 2013
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepjd%2Fe2013-30578-7 (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepjd%2Fe2013-30578-7)

If anyone has the time to compare them, please keep me in the loop.

Thanks!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Paul Howard on 06/02/2017 08:47 pm
So we're years on and I assume this magical device hasn't been proven still? Still a chance or do we send this to the room that has the anti-gravity machine that's collecting dust?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Stormbringer on 06/02/2017 09:17 pm
So we're years on and I assume this magical device hasn't been proven still? Still a chance or do we send this to the room that has the anti-gravity machine that's collecting dust?
actually the effect is still anomalous but the signal is there. what hasn't happened despite everybody trying to do it is explain why it is there. or what spurious source of the signal is responsible. Also several sources of error have been eliminated or greatly reduced. Now correct me if i am wrong but i thought the scientific method involved a null hypothesis which (despite the years you have mentioned) has not been validated. Or contra-wise the experimental hypothesis has not been falsed.

In fact; current evidence points to the contrary of the null hypothesis. The experimenters have accounted for several proposed mundane sources  of error by identifying potential sources of error/ spurious signals and designing the protocols and equipment to negate or to be able to filter them out of the data. The anomalous signal remains despite this effort.

That is the current status of the experiments. They are ongoing. It is premature to try to consign the effect to the dustbin.

EDIT: Besides the antigravity machine is not in some room collecting dust. My star cruiser's engineers run a clean engine room and it is inspected on a daily basis.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 06/02/2017 09:34 pm
...

That is the current status of the experiments. They are ongoing. It is premature to try to consign the effect to the dustbin.
...


It is taking longer than most people expected to get it confirmed/refuted, but IMO, the theoretical body and experimental work surrounding the Emdrive is much better than it ever was. But it seems like it will take several years more to achieve a conclusion.

This is a shocker for many, given our natural urgency to see if this has any truth behind it, but science is a slow deliberate process that takes years and sometimes decades.

Prof. Woodward has been doing something like this since the mid nineties, carefully gathering evidence and theoretical works and it is just now that his research received some institutional attention outside of the inner circle.

The Emdrive broke through into public attention in 2006 (even if Mr. Shawyer had been working on it since several years before), so it's slightly more than 10 years since anyone else than Mr. shawyer heard about it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: rq3 on 06/02/2017 11:27 pm
So we're years on and I assume this magical device hasn't been proven still? Still a chance or do we send this to the room that has the anti-gravity machine that's collecting dust?

Patience, Grasshopper ;) . From memory, it took 7 years for polywater to be declared "not an actual thing". Lots of folks are spending a phenomenal amount of time, money, and effort to pick this signal out of the noise, and there is phenomenal science being done here.

The other "weird science" I personally follow is LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, AKA cold fusion). That apparently is also an area where something seems to be going on, but no-one can get a "recipe" type handle on it, because it violates what we think we know.

Theory and experiment tend to leap-frog each other. We're all in the middle of a leap. It's a matter of time and co-operation to determine whether the frog goes splat, or keeps soaring.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 06/03/2017 12:30 am
It's good to know they do good work in Guernsey C. I.

(http://www.barrytech.com/tektronix/vintage/tek555.jpg)
They used to. I have done a few years there as a farm laborer/gardener (which is good for the blood) but all they do is banking now...

must confess to some workshop envy  :)

:J
Everyone needs a playpen.  ;D
My Very Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 06/03/2017 03:57 am
Hi

I seem to remember that preprint too...

The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light (https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.6165)

Quote
We show that the vacuum permeability and permittivity may originate from the magnetization and the polarization of continuously appearing and disappearing fermion pairs. We then show that if we simply model the propagation of the photon in vacuum as a series of transient captures within these ephemeral pairs, we can derive a finite photon velocity. Requiring that this velocity is equal to the speed of light constrains our model of vacuum. Within this approach, the propagation of a photon is a statistical process at scales much larger than the Planck scale. Therefore we expect its time of flight to fluctuate. We propose an experimental test of this prediction.

Thanks for the lead. Will have a read too.

Hi Guys

Normally I lurk and enjoy the show, but I spotted this pertinent preprint on the arXiv today:

Theoretical calculation of the fine-structure constant and the permittivity of the vacuum (https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.11068)

An intriguing suggestion at the end is that considering the vacuum in this manner allows for a variable speed of light in the very early universe. But the fact that the Fine Structure Constant can be computed from assuming the vacuum is filled with virtual positronium (some ~10^39 per cubic metre) does lend some credence to Harold White's suggestions about how EM-Drives and kin *might* work.

I haven't sat down and compared them yet, but this sounds very similar to Marcel Urban, et. al.'s paper:

The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light - 2013
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepjd%2Fe2013-30578-7 (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepjd%2Fe2013-30578-7)

If anyone has the time to compare them, please keep me in the loop.

Thanks!

I wrote to the authors regarding their work vs the work of Dr Fern and Prof. Woodward, recently published in JBIS. Because their claim that there are 1.11 x 1039 parapositronium "on mass shell" atoms per cubic meter, results in a cubic meter of empty spacing having an instantaneous rest mass of over 2 million metric tons.

I'm looking forward to a response.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: hyperplanck on 06/03/2017 04:42 am
       What is often over looked by those wanting to degrade those involved in em drive research and discussion is in the context of the long term future. Long distance space propulsion through nuclear reactions may not be the wisest or most feasible propulsion. Not only is it a danger to crew and launch missions but it is not an easily found fuel and a complicated design, with many 'possible fail points' in the system where as in the EM drive you can charge batteries off of a lot of materials and interactions and its fairly simple. A low fail, simplistic design is crucial in space travel. Things that can't be fixed, cannot be allowed to break down.  Ion propulsion is stymied in fuel by Xenon and Solar sails are too weak or flimsy, while functional regenerative materials will take another decade at least to even be operable, and that doesn't mean they will even work. Yet I don't see people and the media going around such that, "people researching quantum field theory of solar sails are delusional." Most physicists that I see attack the EM drive are usually indoctrinated by academic peer pressure to disregard everything, or simply don't know any better about the research being done.   
        "The scientific (mind) does not aim at an immediate result. They do not expect that their advanced ideas will be readily taken up. Their work is like that of the planter - for the future. Their duty is to lay the foundation for those who are to come, and point the way." - Tesla

      Quantum mechanics and field theory in cavities is a very complicated scenario with a large array of phenomena. If you look at fusion cavity research it is probably some of the most complex interactions to be solved through physics. More than particle interactions and the big bang computations because they are under no pressure to extract energy from their experiments reactions.
So you could almost assimilate em drive research to be as difficult and as complicated as fusion research in many instances, and especially considering the economic environment. ITER, and CERN receive billions. It is easy to attack those who don't have exuberant funding. Though large funding is not always equal to good science. In fact I think the smaller fusion experiments will gain more headway in the long term as far as discovery.
What we are discovering and will discover through this research may not formulate in the way you thought it would. Science has a funny way of discovering other things and inventions while trying to solve some unrelated problem such as all the 1000's of inventions nasa indirectly has made while flying rockets and people around the Earth.

In critical terms the low 'm newton' thrust needs to be increased by a factor of 10 to be able to overcome GEO correct? As well as a stabilization ability as I believe it will have sporadic tilt. So to me, rather than directing money to an inflight experiment, or building more em drives; developing a more detailed simulation model with an ability to alter various characteristics and physics formulas with the intent of increasing thrust and stabilization with an increase of detailed interactions would be an objective worth alternative consideration before you build. IMHO.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star One on 06/03/2017 06:39 am
Some things just take a long time to prove or disprove. Look at how long LIGO took to produce results, it's my understanding that even with Einstein on their side so to speak many weren't sure if it would ever produce any results.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 06/03/2017 01:46 pm
My take on the time for results.

On the surface this looks like a simple thing to do. Something you should be able to pick up at your local supermarket.
1 can of microwaves
1 antenna
1 table
Box of sensors
Spaghetti-O-wires
Box of Lucky Charms
1 theory recipe (sold out of theory this week)

Mix all ingredients thoroughly (without the theory recipe) and.  bake, heat, chill, let stand, or boil. Sadly you end up with something your dog won't eat because they were out of recipes.

On the surface this looks easy to do but it's not. The drive is relative easy to build all things considered.
(https://futurism.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/lhc.jpg)

Although it's very easy to get this silly thing to fail.

To do this right and prove without a shadow of doubt will take time and small calculated steps. Maybe someone will get lucky and hit it with a first time build, but don't count on it, as one missed ingredient and it will fail.

(https://uptownsparkle.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/success-is-the-ability-to-go-from-failure-to-failure-without-losing-your-enthusiasm.jpg)

When I get discouraged and ready to throw in the towel I come back here to recharge and get a dose of enthusiasm. I thank you all for that.

My Very Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 06/03/2017 09:06 pm
If you check your closet and the anti-gravity machine is dust free, you may want to continue to experiment.  ;) 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/03/2017 09:53 pm
So we're years on and I assume this magical device hasn't been proven still? Still a chance or do we send this to the room that has the anti-gravity machine that's collecting dust?
actually the effect is still anomalous but the signal is there. what hasn't happened despite everybody trying to do it is explain why it is there. or what spurious source of the signal is responsible. Also several sources of error have been eliminated or greatly reduced. Now correct me if i am wrong but i thought the scientific method involved a null hypothesis which (despite the years you have mentioned) has not been validated. Or contra-wise the experimental hypothesis has not been falsed.

In fact; current evidence points to the contrary of the null hypothesis. The experimenters have accounted for several proposed mundane sources  of error by identifying potential sources of error/ spurious signals and designing the protocols and equipment to negate or to be able to filter them out of the data. The anomalous signal remains despite this effort.

That is the current status of the experiments. They are ongoing. It is premature to try to consign the effect to the dustbin.

EDIT: Besides the antigravity machine is not in some room collecting dust. My star cruiser's engineers run a clean engine room and it is inspected on a daily basis.
While I agree that it is too early to call it, and I would like to see this followed through to the end, I am confused as to how you find current evidence as pointing towards the emDrive working.

Demonstrating a working emDrive is something that is inherently easier than demonstrating that it doesn't work. To show it doesn't work, you need to get down to an experiment sensitive enough to measure the force due to thermal radiation coming off the device. You also then have to repeat it for enough different configurations of mode shapes, dielectrics, etc. There has been a significant lack of criteria defined for just how much of this needs to be done before it is accepted as not working. As error sources and noise have been removed from experiments, the anomalous thrust has also decreased, which means that even more minor of errors need to be accounted for.

I'd have to go back and check the original numbers, but I think there have been quite a few experiments at this point that have constrained thrust levels to significantly less than Shawyer's original claims. The only experiment that really came close to a replication of Shawyer (Yang's) was later determined to be an experimental error. At this point, even if the emDrive works, I think it could be shown that Shawyer never measured a real signal as his results would have been swamped by errors.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Stormbringer on 06/03/2017 11:18 pm
it is my understanding of most of the results shared here that a thrust signal remains after all known sources of spurious signals are eliminated, reduced or simply deducted out by mathematical magic. if the spurious signal in the data were to blame then there would be no signal in the data and the EM drive effect hypothesis would be falsed and a null hypothesis proven. That has not happened. therefore the evidence points away from a null hypothesis though it remains to be seen if this holds throughout the experimental process. OTOH. a (weak) signal remains. So far this is an indicator pointing towards the EM Drive effect. I thought what remains is getting above sigma five...or not.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: JonathanD on 06/04/2017 12:29 am
it is my understanding of most of the results shared here that a thrust signal remains after all known sources of spurious signals are eliminated, reduced or simply deducted out by mathematical magic. if the spurious signal in the data were to blame then there would be no signal in the data and the EM drive effect hypothesis would be falsed and a null hypothesis proven. That has not happened. therefore the evidence points away from a null hypothesis though it remains to be seen if this holds throughout the experimental process. OTOH. a (weak) signal remains. So far this is an indicator pointing towards the EM Drive effect. I thought what remains is getting above sigma five...or not.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  As as lurker here for a number of years I can't express how amazed I am at the determination, dedication, and professionalism of the testers and theorists in this series of threads.  While there have certainly been the moments of disagreement and some cantankerous exchanges, compared to the state of the internet in 2017, this might possibly be the most civil exchange of ideas in recent history!  I'll be glad to see this figured out one way or another, and irrespective of the result, kudos to all of you, wish I had the chops to help, but if nothing else I can wave a pom-pom.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Req on 06/04/2017 01:39 am
Is it not the case that the main reason that this is "taking so long" is simply that nobody who is in the business of justifying major investments into science takes it seriously?  Somebody brought up LIGO earlier... LIGO/VIRGO were funded to the tune of however many (hundreds of?) millions of dollars and a large talent commitment for many years because it was taken seriously by people who could justify it.  Ditto LHC, and etc.  These are also example of projects where one could say that "the desired outcome is uncertain", so the difference is really that only people with limited resources are taking it seriously.  Right?  How about the NSF's laser fusion ignition facility, how much money has been dumped into that to date without reaching the desired outcome?

Doesn't it seem strange to anybody that nobody who should be excited about this is?  Where is the NSF, where are Musk and Bezos, etc?  Part of the "institutional science cabal bent on preserving what they think" or somesuch?  That sounds beyond absurd to me.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Stormbringer on 06/04/2017 01:46 am
you mean the people who are staking their fortunes on conventional chemical rockets and whose business model relies on people buying space on their conventional launch vehicles? I know- I'll invest billions in chemical tech and then put a million or so in tech that would wipe out my entire business plan and render my prior investments null and void. :) That sounds pretty unlikely to me.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Req on 06/04/2017 01:47 am
you mean the people who are staking their fortunes on conventional chemical rockets and whose business model relies on people buying space on their conventional launch vehicles? I know- I'll invest billions in chemical tech and then put a million or so in tech that would wipe out my entire business plan and render my prior investments null and void. :) That sounds pretty likely to me.

And how do you explain ITS?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Stormbringer on 06/04/2017 02:08 am
I don't know what this is and a google search is not helpful.


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Req on 06/04/2017 02:17 am
BFR/BFS, formerly known as MCT...  The(presently) paper rocket/spaceship.  My point with the question is that BFS is still in the CAD/etc stage, and as it's design in particular would be radically different(for the better) if EMDrive was a thing, you'd think that if he took it even remotely seriously, he would have been sending them up for quite some time now to prove it/increase TRL before he seriously considers sending fleets of hundreds or thousands of 150MT dry ships with massive tanks off every synod, each needing 4 launches.  Moreover, how many college classes launch cubesat-sized payloads into orbit every year?  You can pretend like Musk might be blinded by (insert reason here), but everybody who has routine access to space?  Why doesn't anybody with routine access to space and enough resources to build a flight article do just that?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Superfastjellyfish on 06/04/2017 02:22 am
I don't know what this is and a google search is not helpful.

ITS is Musk's 'colonization of Mars' vehicle.  It's ridiculous, IMO. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_Transport_System

edit:  Ninja'd :) 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: kenny008 on 06/04/2017 02:27 am
Is it not the case that the main reason that this is "taking so long" is simply that nobody who is in the business of justifying major investments into science takes it seriously?  Somebody brought up LIGO earlier... LIGO/VIRGO were funded to the tune of however many (hundreds of?) millions of dollars and a large talent commitment for many years because it was taken seriously by people who could justify it.  Ditto LHC, and etc.  These are also example of projects where one could say that "the desired outcome is uncertain", so the difference is really that only people with limited resources are taking it seriously.  Right?  How about the NSF's laser fusion ignition facility, how much money has been dumped into that to date without reaching the desired outcome?

Doesn't it seem strange to anybody that nobody who should be excited about this is?  Where is the NSF, where are Musk and Bezos, etc?  Part of the "institutional science cabal bent on preserving what they think" or somesuch?  That sounds beyond absurd to me.
I think the difference between EM Drive and your examples is that there is sound, already understood physics explanations for the effects being sought at LIGO, LHC, etc. As of right now, the theoretical background for EM Drive is far less understood, agreed upon, or even believed. I'm happy to see the theoretical exchanges going on here (WAY over my head), but these discussions certainly would not be described as "mainstream."  LIGO and LHC were more engineering exercises to prove or disprove widely-accepted alternatives to well-understood physics. IMHO, EM Drive theory isn't there yet.
I think I'm agreeing with you. Once a widely-accepted, testable theory is developed, OR an unequivocal experimental signal is seen, I think you'll see more financial interest in further experimental development. I don't think we need to look for conspiracy theories ("Musk has a vested interest in NOT developing EM Drive") to explain the lack of financial support.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Req on 06/04/2017 02:46 am
Is it not the case that the main reason that this is "taking so long" is simply that nobody who is in the business of justifying major investments into science takes it seriously?  Somebody brought up LIGO earlier... LIGO/VIRGO were funded to the tune of however many (hundreds of?) millions of dollars and a large talent commitment for many years because it was taken seriously by people who could justify it.  Ditto LHC, and etc.  These are also example of projects where one could say that "the desired outcome is uncertain", so the difference is really that only people with limited resources are taking it seriously.  Right?  How about the NSF's laser fusion ignition facility, how much money has been dumped into that to date without reaching the desired outcome?

Doesn't it seem strange to anybody that nobody who should be excited about this is?  Where is the NSF, where are Musk and Bezos, etc?  Part of the "institutional science cabal bent on preserving what they think" or somesuch?  That sounds beyond absurd to me.
I think the difference between EM Drive and your examples is that there is sound, already understood physics explanations for the effects being sought at LIGO, LHC, etc. As of right now, the theoretical background for EM Drive is far less understood, agreed upon, or even believed. I'm happy to see the theoretical exchanges going on here (WAY over my head), but these discussions certainly would not be described as "mainstream."  LIGO and LHC were more engineering exercises to prove or disprove widely-accepted alternatives to well-understood physics. IMHO, EM Drive theory isn't there yet.
I think I'm agreeing with you. Once a widely-accepted, testable theory is developed, OR an unequivocal experimental signal is seen, I think you'll see more financial interest in further experimental development. I don't think we need to look for conspiracy theories ("Musk has a vested interest in NOT developing EM Drive") to explain the lack of financial support.

Thanks for putting this in a more eloquent way than I could have.  That being said, my opinion is that at least some people would still have made flight articles if they thought there was even the slightest shred of credibility, considering the massive reward side of the equation.  It's not like this is new, and it's not like there's a high barrier to entry simply to make a copy of a design and send it up to find out whether the anomalous thrust is systemic or real.  That would be extremely useful all by itself, forget understanding why.  I posit that if anybody took this even remotely seriously, somebody would have done that already.  I think it goes beyond simply "outside of mainstream" because the potential reward is just so huge for taking the risk, and the risk is very small as far as space experiments go.

Edit - Think about it this way.  It would cost like 1/10th or 1/100th or something of the fairing reuse experiments.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: hyperplanck on 06/04/2017 04:02 am
at least some people would still have made flight articles if they thought there was even the slightest shred of credibility, considering the massive reward side of the equation.

You are making a serious assumption. First off, many gov't entities and others have experimented with it in those regards, so there is one aspect of observational selection and willful blindness in your argument that is blatantly fallacious, which in turn, makes me question the validity of any of your claims.

I don't think you understand the costs of running an experiment and putting something in orbit. Just because a bunch of high school kids design and work on cube sats doesn't mean they ever see the light of day. I think you need to follow up on your research to be conclusive about how much you are claiming. I also don't think you understand the complex socio-economic environment or the actual research involved so I would double check what you think you understand about propulsion, corporations interests, the physics community and the em drive.

In regards to LHC, I would argue you are using observational selection again in that one of their main missions is centered around  the higgs of which has yet to be proven with all those billions of dollars invested. Though I'm not here to talk down on particle physics research or CERN because I appreciate their work. I would just be sure you look at your own biases and logic to see if you are making any fallacies in your argument before you hand wave sociological impacts and obtuse assertions.
 

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Req on 06/04/2017 04:06 am
You are making a serious assumption. First off, many gov't entities and others have experimented with it in those regards, so there is one aspect of observational selection and willful blindness in your argument that is fallacious in many regards. Which makes me question the validity of any of your claims.
Are you referring to what China supposedly did?  I thought the latest on that was that they have not actually flown anything, and that blurb had been discredited.  Am I missing new information?


Quote
I don't think you understand the costs of running an experiment and putting something in orbit. Just because a bunch of high school kids design and work on cube sats doesn't mean they ever see the light of day. I think you need to follow up on your research to be conclusive about how much you are claiming. I also don't think you understand the complex socio-economic environment or the actual research involved so I would double check what you think you understand about propulsion, corporations interests, the physics community and the em drive.
I do know that Cannae has plans for an inexpensive compact demonstrator.  Are they also lacking in understanding, or are they just outright lying?  I wonder what your idea of what it takes to design a re-entry/glide/landing profile and kit for fairings(my example) entails and costs, and how that compares to a EMDrive demonstrator?  Re college cubesats, I didn't ask how many are built every year, I asked how many are launched every year, making your point superfluous.

Quote
In regards to LHC, I would argue you are using observational selection again in that their whole mission is centered around gluons and the higgs of which NEITHER have been proven with all those billions of dollars invested. Though I'm not here to talk down on particle physics research or CERN, etc, I would just be sure you look at your own biases and logic to see if you are making any fallacies in your argument before you hand wave sociological impacts and obtuse assertions.

I wonder if you realize that asserting that LHC still has not completed it's stated objectives actually reinforces my point.  I'd also like to point out that I did not say that it has.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: hyperplanck on 06/04/2017 04:52 am
I don't like how this conversation is evolving into degrading highly funded physics research to prove the em drive research is legitimate. While I am a strong supporter fusion research, it has yet to prove that it has much if any return on energy.  Though from your logic set, when fusion was 'well known', 10-20 years after its design, why weren't investors throwing down billions to support fusion research then? You see why you cant make analogies like that? There is a good lecture on the danger of analogies I linked.
I think its absolutely asinine that anyone in the physics community would think that rf waves don't induce thrust, in a cavity or without. I think its also just as ridiculous to think that you cant increase the reaction of this thrust.
I'm so tired of the people who come in here just to drop a few lines of hate,who don't understand biases and logical fallacies, and don't provide any constructive comments on physics.

list of cognitive biases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

The backfire effect
http://bigthink.com/think-tank/the-backfire-effect-why-facts-dont-win-arguments

The dangers of analogies
 https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/analogy.htm


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Req on 06/04/2017 04:54 am
Though from your logic set, when fusion was 'well known', 10-20 years after its design, why weren't investors throwing down billions to support fusion research then?
They were, and continue to.  See ITER, NIF, ARC/SPARC, Pollywell, Lockmart, the long history of tokamaks etc from past present and future.

Quote
I think its absolutely asinine that anyone in the physics community would think that rf waves don't induce thrust, in a cavity or without.
This is called a photon rocket, and anybody in the physics community who thinks otherwise only exists in your imagination.

Quote
You see why you cant make analogies like that?
No.  But I've said my piece and I'll bow out.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: qraal on 06/04/2017 06:27 am
And still no NET energy generation...

Though from your logic set, when fusion was 'well known', 10-20 years after its design, why weren't investors throwing down billions to support fusion research then?
They were, and continue to.  See ITER, NIF, ARC/SPARC, Pollywell, Lockmart, the long history of tokamaks etc from past present and future.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 06/04/2017 07:04 am
After years of gentle persuasion the Astronomy Society of South Australia has published my emdrive article in the June 2017 edition of their Bulletin. See, patience is rewarded  ;D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Tcarey on 06/04/2017 07:08 am


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  As as lurker here for a number of years I can't express how amazed I am at the determination, dedication, and professionalism of the testers and theorists in this series of threads.  While there have certainly been the moments of disagreement and some cantankerous exchanges, compared to the state of the internet in 2017, this might possibly be the most civil exchange of ideas in recent history!  I'll be glad to see this figured out one way or another, and irrespective of the result, kudos to all of you, wish I had the chops to help, but if nothing else I can wave a pom-pom.

I take issue with the statement "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Extraordinary claims require the same evidence as any other scientific claim. That phrase is catchy but it is simply not true.

All scientific claims require sufficient information to allow for replication and examination of possible sources of error.  Notice that a theory explaining the claim or observation is not a requirement. A theory is nice and many people seem to think that it is a requirement.  A theory that explains an observation is certainly helpful as a guide to further understanding an observation.   
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star One on 06/04/2017 10:45 am
Though from your logic set, when fusion was 'well known', 10-20 years after its design, why weren't investors throwing down billions to support fusion research then?
They were, and continue to.  See ITER, NIF, ARC/SPARC, Pollywell, Lockmart, the long history of tokamaks etc from past present and future.

Quote
I think its absolutely asinine that anyone in the physics community would think that rf waves don't induce thrust, in a cavity or without.
This is called a photon rocket, and anybody in the physics community who thinks otherwise only exists in your imagination.

Quote
You see why you cant make analogies like that?
No.  But I've said my piece and I'll bow out.

So what was all that about, were you just being a disruptive and non-constructive contributor to the thread then?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 06/04/2017 01:54 pm
@Star One

Don't jump the gun just yet. Hyperplanck is simply a critical theoretical physicist who has been very hard at work trying to compile down and explain a list of advanced topics which are necessary to understand the EM Drive. As with meberbs and Rodal, there is no need for coddling or babying of other contributors, especially those who throw out immature comments such as "why is it taking so long?" or "why does it not have funding?". Considering the difference in terms of theoretical robustness (again, I reference the reader to the Desiato-Rodal model among others), variety (gravity gradients, plasma pressures, doppler shifts, MiHsC etc) and experimental data (an entire wiki's worth (http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results)) between the first thread on this website and the current state of affairs, it is clear that there has been an explosion of interest and investment internationally. The EM Drive is held back only by dogmatic thought and a lack of understanding regarding the propulsion mechanism(s). So many people still see it as a box full of tennis balls, and this broken analogy is plainly inapplicable if you understand that the electron pressure and discrete energy quanta is mainly what determines thrust, not the original input. Without understanding the retention of energy in phononic structures and the propagation of waves through different media and dimensions then you cannot possible hope to understand the "magic" inside the box.       

I won't give too much information away, but it is my impression that some very intriguing theory posts are coming from Hyperplanck ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 06/04/2017 03:15 pm
While I agree that it is too early to call it, and I would like to see this followed through to the end, I am confused as to how you find current evidence as pointing towards the emDrive working.

Demonstrating a working emDrive is something that is inherently easier than demonstrating that it doesn't work. ......

.... The only experiment that really came close to a replication of Shawyer (Yang's) was later determined to be an experimental error. ....

While I agree with your initial statement above the two following comments are in the least misleading, to inherently inaccurate.

Setting aside the theoretical speculation (and I say speculation because there has been insufficient experimental evidence to support any of the existing theories), Shawyer has never published enough design information for anyone to know that any of the attempts to replicate his claims, including Yang's attempt, can be thought of as an independent test of his design or claims. If an EmDrive can produce useable thrust, the only thing that can be said at present based on published data, is that is appears far more difficult to design and test, than your above statement, "Demonstrating a working emDrive is something that is inherently easier than..." implies.

In the second case above, it has always bothered me that when Yang retracted here original conclusions, based on the results of an inherently different experiment, it has been taken by many as proof of the flaws in her initial experimental design. Yang certainly had and has the right to re-evaluate her conclusions, but the second experiment was not designed in a manner that provided data that proved the design flaw she attributed to her first attempt. It was not good science. Though I agree with her conclusion that the design flaws were potentially the source of experimental error, she never published information demonstrating that she reassembled the original design and proved her conclusions. Her two experiments involved two different designs. It is not even certain that the frustums were identical, while it is certain that the microwave sources and controls were very different.

You could have the perfect testing design and unless your frustum, microwave source and controls were properly matched, your results would be of no significance. It has been discussed on several occasions how even seemingly insignificant changes in the design of the frustum, dimensions and materials, would have significant impact on resonance... Which would then ensure faulty experimental design and make building a working EmDrive inherently more difficult, than a flawed design. Thus it would seem inherently easier to fail than succeed, in demonstrating that it does not work than otherwise.

Until, the fundamental mechanism that results in an anomalous thrust is known, designing a working EmDrive and experimental test bed is an issue of trial and error. At least until someone either publishes design data of a previously demonstrated functional EmDrive, or one of the DIY or otherwise independent labs stumbles on a functional design and publishes, in enough detail, test results that can be duplicated.

The point is it would seem that it is inherently easier to build a test article and experiment that fails than one that, does not.



Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star One on 06/04/2017 03:16 pm
@Star One

Don't jump the gun just yet. Hyperplanck is simply a critical theoretical physicist who has been very hard at work trying to compile down and explain a list of advanced topics which are necessary to understand the EM Drive. As with meberbs and Rodal, there is no need for coddling or babying of other contributors, especially those who throw out immature comments such as "why is it taking so long?" or "why does it not have funding?". Considering the difference in terms of theoretical robustness (again, I reference the reader to the Desiato-Rodal model among others), variety (gravity gradients, plasma pressures, doppler shifts, MiHsC etc) and experimental data (an entire wiki's worth (http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results)) between the first thread on this website and the current state of affairs, it is clear that there has been an explosion of interest and investment internationally. The EM Drive is held back only by dogmatic thought and a lack of understanding regarding the propulsion mechanism(s). So many people still see it as a box full of tennis balls, and this broken analogy is plainly inapplicable if you understand that the electron pressure and discrete energy quanta is mainly what determines thrust, not the original input. Without understanding the retention of energy in phononic structures and the propagation of waves through different media and dimensions then you cannot possible hope to understand the "magic" inside the box.       

I won't give too much information away, but it is my impression that some very intriguing theory posts are coming from Hyperplanck ;)

I was worried the thread was falling victim to drive by posting again derailing it, as has happened in the past.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/04/2017 03:29 pm
you mean the people who are staking their fortunes on conventional chemical rockets and whose business model relies on people buying space on their conventional launch vehicles? I know- I'll invest billions in chemical tech and then put a million or so in tech that would wipe out my entire business plan and render my prior investments null and void. :) That sounds pretty unlikely to me.
And how do you explain ITS?
I don't know what this is and a google search is not helpful.
Your first post here is a huge insult to multiple people doing very great things. It is tempered somewhat by the fact that you are apparently ignorant of these people existing. I am not sure how, because if you pay any attention to the main articles on this site, or if you ever look at the list of most recent posts, you would not have had to ask what ITS is.

it is my understanding of most of the results shared here that a thrust signal remains after all known sources of spurious signals are eliminated, reduced or simply deducted out by mathematical magic.
Please point to a specific example, of an experiment that meets what you described in your first sentence and I will explain why this is not the case.
if the spurious signal in the data were to blame then there would be no signal in the data and the EM drive effect hypothesis would be falsed and a null hypothesis proven.
Again, it would take an absurdly sensitive and absurdly controlled experiment to do this.

I thought what remains is getting above sigma five...or not.
Each successive experiment has further constrained the potential strength of the emDrive effect, and current signals have been at the same level as the noise or expected errors.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/04/2017 03:47 pm
While I agree that it is too early to call it, and I would like to see this followed through to the end, I am confused as to how you find current evidence as pointing towards the emDrive working.

Demonstrating a working emDrive is something that is inherently easier than demonstrating that it doesn't work. ......

.... The only experiment that really came close to a replication of Shawyer (Yang's) was later determined to be an experimental error. ....

While I agree with your initial statement above the two following comments are in the least misleading, to inherently inaccurate.

...

The point is it would seem that it is inherently easier to build a test article and experiment that fails than one that, does not.
You entirely missed the meaning of my statement. I was talking about rigorously demonstrating that there is no emDrive effect, even something below your experiment's sensitivity. Most of your post amounts to further explanation of why fully disproving the emDrive is nearly impossible. It is obviously easy to make an emDrive that doesn't conclusively work. Experimentally disproving the emDrive has all of the problems you listed in your post and then some, because you have to show that none of what you stated is the reason you got no force.

As for Yang, we could have a long discussion on the merits and flaws in Yang's papers, and I see flaws in all of them including the retraction. I'd rather not go into details if we can at least agree that Yang's original large measured force is most likely due to a flawed setup.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 06/04/2017 05:37 pm
We can all debate about if testing by various individuals or groups was enough to prove that the EMDrive works or not and still end up where we all started. . . debating. Theories are different.

Building and testing is absolutely critical to be the best that can be (with funding) to gain solid data. That data will or will not go to prove the drive doesn't work, or works. If it works than the data points can be plugged into existing theories or even a new theory. . . hopefully.

This device could have the ability to change the world we live in and change can happen in a relatively short time. I had to search for an sample of something I saw years ago that drove home this point. The two pictures are from Denver, CO. In a span of only 13 years, from 1900 to 1913 we went from horse drawn carriages to Model Ts.

I will get these builds right, much is at stake, on that we can agree on.

My Very Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: wicoe on 06/04/2017 06:10 pm
I'm not sure the "ability to change the world" should be taken into account and allowed to overshadow scientific rigor.  A perpetual motion machine would definitely change the world, but it does not mean it is worth chasing the idea, given what we currently know about the world.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 06/04/2017 07:07 pm
I will get these builds right, much is at stake, on that we can agree on.

This has been a rather opaque subject as of late. Are you and your fellow builders making progress? At what point will we be able to see it?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Stormbringer on 06/04/2017 07:11 pm


Your first post here is a huge insult to multiple people doing very great things. It is tempered somewhat by the fact that you are apparently ignorant of these people existing. I am not sure how, because if you pay any attention to the main articles on this site, or if you ever look at the list of most recent posts, you would not have had to ask what ITS is.



In the first draft I was going to point out that in correspondence or text it is good form to spell out acronyms when they first enter the dialog unless they are so well known and in general use that their meaning is considered universally understood. On consideration I choose to actually delete that part of my response because i thought it sounded impolite rude. The final draft you object to is actually much more polite than the original "mr style guide enforcer" appearance of my original approach.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 06/04/2017 07:24 pm
I will get these builds right, much is at stake, on that we can agree on.

This has been a rather opaque subject as of late. Are you and your fellow builders making progress? At what point will we be able to see it?
All I know is what has been posted here. rfmwgyuy says he saw something and monomorphic is still refining his testing, TheTraveler is in question as to what is going on. For me I did see something, several times, although my build is significantly different than the normal builds and I'm in the process of refining the test bed and rebuilding my device.
I'm redoing my shop and lab to do just this and am working on a hypothesis of why. Time frame? I'm not sure but maybe a few months away.

You're just going to have to be patient as I'm known to take small steps, to be sure of the results I present.

My Very Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 06/04/2017 07:25 pm
I'm not sure the "ability to change the world" should be taken into account and allowed to overshadow scientific rigor.  A perpetual motion machine would definitely change the world, but it does not mean it is worth chasing the idea, given what we currently know about the world.
Geez. Scientific rigor is my primary concern.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 06/04/2017 07:38 pm
I will get these builds right, much is at stake, on that we can agree on.

This has been a rather opaque subject as of late. Are you and your fellow builders making progress? At what point will we be able to see it?
All I know is what has been posted here. rfmwgyuy says he saw something and monomorphic is still refining his testing, TheTraveler is in question as to what is going on. For me I did see something, several times, although my build is significantly different than the normal builds and I'm in the process of refining the test bed and rebuilding my device.
I'm redoing my shop and lab to do just this and am working on a hypothesis of why. Time frame? I'm not sure but maybe a few months away.

You're just going to have to be patient as I'm known to take small steps, to be sure of the results I present.

My Very Best,
Shell

I'm willing to wait. Alas, I'm only human; I need to know what I'm waiting for!  ;D Thank you, SeaShells.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: oyzw on 06/05/2017 12:35 am
Harbin Institute of Technology has applied for two emdrive patents.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/05/2017 12:42 am
monomorphic is still refining his testing

I'm pretty deep "in the weeds" right now. I will conduct a series of low powered tests (2.5W) this week. Then I will work on incorporating the new 30W amplifier.

I have also been working on STL files for 3D printing the spherical endplates. Due to the large size and tight tolerances, I have had to cut the end plates into fourths so that it can be printed using the prusa i3 mk2 platform. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: oyzw on 06/05/2017 12:49 am
In China, there have been three official institutions conducted emdrive experiments, measuring thrust on the ground, they are Northwestern Polytechnical University, Harbin Institute of Technology, China Aerospace Science and technology group.  Professor Yang Juan completed the last paper test at the Harbin Institute of Technology laboratory, and Harbin Institute of Technology carried out special experiments and research.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 06/05/2017 12:57 am
monomorphic is still refining his testing

I'm pretty deep "in the weeds" right now. I will conduct a series of low powered tests (2.5W) this week. Then I will work on incorporating the new 30W amplifier.

I have also been working on STL files for 3D printing the spherical endplates. Due to the large size and tight tolerances, I have had to cut the end plates into fourths so that it can be printed using the prusa i3 mk2 platform.

What kind of 3D printing platform are you looking at using? I haven't had much luck with thermoplastics for tolerances or consistency.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/05/2017 01:03 am
What kind of 3D printing platform are you looking at using? I haven't had much luck with thermoplastics for tolerances or consistency.

I'm vacillating between purchasing my own 3D printer (prusa i3 mk2) or sending the parts out for professional printing.  Attached is the STL file for a quarter of the big end plate.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 06/05/2017 02:02 am
What kind of 3D printing platform are you looking at using? I haven't had much luck with thermoplastics for tolerances or consistency.

I'm vacillating between purchasing my own 3D printer (prusa i3 mk2) or sending the parts out for professional printing.  Attached is the STL file for a quarter of the big end plate.

What percentage tolerance are you looking to achieve? If the resonance target needs tighter tolerances than a hundredth of an inch, you're going to need a machined part.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Flyby on 06/05/2017 07:01 am
What kind of 3D printing platform are you looking at using? I haven't had much luck with thermoplastics for tolerances or consistency.

I'm vacillating between purchasing my own 3D printer (prusa i3 mk2) or sending the parts out for professional printing.  Attached is the STL file for a quarter of the big end plate.
Jamie,

a few remarks concerning the idea of 3dprinting :

-printing in quarter parts is not a good idea, because of the increased warping, due to not being a full circular object. The thermal tension in a fully circular object cancel each other out (more or less). Printing only a quarter will make it difficult to get all piece join up nicely.

-secondly, you might want the outside of the part designed as a flat part, so you can print it without the need for supports. You want to print this with the inside upwards.

-You'll need to pay special attention to where you put your seams (the points your printhead moves from layer to layer)

-with FDM fillament printing, always expect a small hick-up or imperfection somewhere, so you'll need to think about post processing too.

-I'm worried about the thermal stability when the EMdrive is operational as most thermoplastics tend to deform easily when they reach  100° C.

-As last hint , regardless my above concern, I'd suggest printing with PETG to minimize thermal warping. PLA tends to be brittle (fastening bolts might crack it) and ABS is notorious for thermal warping...

-to get a good surface finish, I suggest using a spray car putty and some fine sanding paper. then coat it with a conductive paint, then copper plate it...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wktymv8fsus
I suspect it is going to be very hard to maintain a nicely curved surface, while sanding it manually...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: demofsky on 06/05/2017 07:18 am
[size=78%]I'm pretty deep "in the weeds" right now. I will conduct a series of low powered tests (2.5W) this week. Then I will work on incorporating the new 30W amplifier. [/size]



I have also been working on STL files for 3D printing the spherical endplates. Due to the large size and tight tolerances, I have had to cut the end plates into fourths so that it can be printed using the prusa i3 mk2 platform.
Would machining plexiglass work instead?  Not sure how you would copper plate it afterwards but it would be consistent with the rest of the fustrum.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/05/2017 12:29 pm
What percentage tolerance are you looking to achieve? If the resonance target needs tighter tolerances than a hundredth of an inch, you're going to need a machined part.

The prusa 3D printer has a resolution of 50 microns. So I was going to start there. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/05/2017 12:38 pm
a few remarks concerning the idea of 3dprinting :

-printing in quarter parts is not a good idea, because of the increased warping, due to not being a full circular object. The thermal tension in a fully circular object cancel each other out (more or less). Printing only a quarter will make it difficult to get all piece join up nicely.

-secondly, you might want the outside of the part designed as a flat part, so you can print it without the need for supports. You want to print this with the inside upwards.

-You'll need to pay special attention to where you put your seams (the points your printhead moves from layer to layer)

-with FDM fillament printing, always expect a small hick-up or imperfection somewhere, so you'll need to think about post processing too.

-I'm worried about the thermal stability when the EMdrive is operational as most thermoplastics tend to deform easily when they reach  100° C.

-As last hint , regardless my above concern, I'd suggest printing with PETG to minimize thermal warping. PLA tends to be brittle (fastening bolts might crack it) and ABS is notorious for thermal warping...

-to get a good surface finish, I suggest using a spray car putty and some fine sanding paper. then coat it with a conductive paint, then copper plate it...

These are all very good points. Thank you. The way I see it, this can go several ways. The most obvious route is to 3D print the parts and simply cover them with EMI shielding copper conductive adhesive tape. Alternatively, one could 3D print, sand, and then copper plate. Yet another option is to 3D print and then use a process like the Virtual Foundry (http://www.thevirtualfoundry.com/) to make solid copper parts. The last option, and the best route in my opinion, is to 3D print wax copies of the end plates and then use the lost wax process to create parts which are then machined to exact specifications.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mark7777777 on 06/05/2017 12:45 pm
Harbin Institute of Technology has applied for two emdrive patents.

I did try to convert the PDFs to English by uploading them to google translate. It didn't do it. If anyone else has other means of doing it ...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star One on 06/05/2017 01:04 pm
Harbin Institute of Technology has applied for two emdrive patents.

I did try to convert the PDFs to English by uploading them to google translate. It didn't do it. If anyone else has other means of doing it ...

Does that usually work, not the biggest expert on translating PDFs?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: AnalogMan on 06/05/2017 01:06 pm
Harbin Institute of Technology has applied for two emdrive patents.

I did try to convert the PDFs to English by uploading them to google translate. It didn't do it. If anyone else has other means of doing it ...

Managed to find machine translations for both patents:

CN 105790717 A A microwave-based adaptive tuning system for a non-working microwave thruster and a microwave source adaptive tuning method using the system

http://www.google.com/patents/CN105790717A (http://www.google.com/patents/CN105790717A)


CN105775171A Propelling system assisting in reducing weight of propelling system and changing degree and direction of thrust

http://www.google.com/patents/CN105775171A (http://www.google.com/patents/CN105775171A)

[Edit: added second patent link]
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 06/05/2017 01:40 pm
a few remarks concerning the idea of 3dprinting :

-printing in quarter parts is not a good idea, because of the increased warping, due to not being a full circular object. The thermal tension in a fully circular object cancel each other out (more or less). Printing only a quarter will make it difficult to get all piece join up nicely.

-secondly, you might want the outside of the part designed as a flat part, so you can print it without the need for supports. You want to print this with the inside upwards.

-You'll need to pay special attention to where you put your seams (the points your printhead moves from layer to layer)

-with FDM fillament printing, always expect a small hick-up or imperfection somewhere, so you'll need to think about post processing too.

-I'm worried about the thermal stability when the EMdrive is operational as most thermoplastics tend to deform easily when they reach  100° C.

-As last hint , regardless my above concern, I'd suggest printing with PETG to minimize thermal warping. PLA tends to be brittle (fastening bolts might crack it) and ABS is notorious for thermal warping...

-to get a good surface finish, I suggest using a spray car putty and some fine sanding paper. then coat it with a conductive paint, then copper plate it...

These are all very good points. Thank you. The way I see it, this can go several ways. The most obvious route is to 3D print the parts and simply cover them with EMI shielding copper conductive adhesive tape. Alternatively, one could 3D print, sand, and then copper plate. Yet another option is to 3D print and then use a process like the Virtual Foundry (http://www.thevirtualfoundry.com/) to make solid copper parts. The last option, and the best route in my opinion, is to 3D print wax copies of the end plates and then use the lost wax process to create parts which are then machined to exact specifications.

Well, maybe there are alternatives, check this stuff (http://www.wired.co.uk/article/3d-printing-moving-machine)  ;)

[edit]

Or, you may always go for the plastic printing, as long as someone (no idea here, sorry) finds a way to apply this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_plating) to the printed parts

[edit #2]

found something here (http://hackaday.com/2015/01/12/electroplating-copper-and-silver-onto-3d-prints/) - not sure it may fit, though

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: xyzzy on 06/05/2017 01:55 pm
I'm pretty deep "in the weeds" right now. I will conduct a series of low powered tests (2.5W) this week. Then I will work on incorporating the new 30W amplifier.

I have also been working on STL files for 3D printing the spherical endplates. Due to the large size and tight tolerances, I have had to cut the end plates into fourths so that it can be printed using the prusa i3 mk2 platform.

Are you sure you want to go that route? From what 3d printed parts I've seen, they were never exact.

The couple of times that I happened to see the "work" of an older (some 6-7 years) industrial type machine that must have cost a fortune when it was new and was owned by a large company, I found it impressively unimpressive. Straight vertical elements were askew, no two seams of a sectioned part would really fit together and the dimensional tolerances of the final part were such that no self-respecting mechanical engineer would ever dare to utter that term in this context. Granted, the machine was an early generation, no longer new, and becoming increasingly flakey. It must have seen better days - otherwise nobody would have paid much for it, but still it was difficult to imagine it ever being useful for precision parts.

If anything, plastic filament 3d printing looks to me more like the first coarse production step, to be followed by the famous universal finishing approach "file to fit, sand to suit, hammer home", only without the hammering, the parts being fragile.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/05/2017 01:58 pm
CN105775171A Propelling system assisting in reducing weight of propelling system and changing degree and direction of thrust

This looks like an emdrive based reaction control system.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: xyzzy on 06/05/2017 02:16 pm
CN105775171A Propelling system assisting in reducing weight of propelling system and changing degree and direction of thrust

This looks like an emdrive based reaction control system.

Yep, seems so. And the other patent describes a force locked control loop. The circuit diagram inside is an oscillator, apparently with some FM capability (by "pulling" a crystal resonator). The google-translated text describes the EM drive being attached to a force sensor that provides a signal to a controller, which in turn controls the oscillator.

P.S. Apparently they envision an early stage prototype satellite. The coarse frequency selection steps are described to be remotely commanded from ground control (presumably in discrete steps), based on the (presence or absence of force) feedback from the force sensor. The fine frequency control does not seem clearly described, but I think that is what the FM is for. This would need reasonably fast realtime (PLL-like) control only realistically achievable with an on board controller.

P.P.S. The "invention" does not seem to amount to much - it looks like a first step going from a constant frequency non-adjustable RF source to one that can be stepped through a series of bands by remote commands. Trivial patents, anyone? Almost as if the inventor designed TV tuner circuits - preset a channel number (coarse frequency) by remote, then let the AFC circuit handle the fine tuning :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 06/05/2017 04:11 pm
...

These are all very good points. Thank you. The way I see it, this can go several ways. The most obvious route is to 3D print the parts and simply cover them with EMI shielding copper conductive adhesive tape. Alternatively, one could 3D print, sand, and then copper plate. Yet another option is to 3D print and then use a process like the Virtual Foundry (http://www.thevirtualfoundry.com/) to make solid copper parts. The last option, and the best route in my opinion, is to 3D print wax copies of the end plates and then use the lost wax process to create parts which are then machined to exact specifications.
I'm about to have access to a 3D printer that has a 12" (40cm) square build area and can print higher temp materials like PETG and Nylon.  Also for copper plating I've used a company in Baltimore, MD called Repliform (http://www.repliforminc.com/) who did an amazing job for us on a spherical object.
Usually what you do with these kinds of requirements is 3D print a 'near net shape' (adding extra material) and then machine it down - 'file to fit' :)  As this is circular, you should be able to put it on a lathe and get a really good finish.  Polishing most plastics can be done with a heat gun :D
Oh, and check out this video which was uploaded this morning on 3D printing! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwIUfOC0WAc (lightly related)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 06/05/2017 05:08 pm
I do not know whether it is only my opinion or it represents opinion from several others too, but may I suggest we leave alone the 3D printing idea before Shawyer's, EW's, and TheTraveller's claims are confirmed/replicated? After all, they did not use 3D printing. If we pursue this 3D printing idea, I suspect new ideas such as graphene plating, YBCO plating/annealing, explosive forming, powder metallurgy,aspherical shaping, you-name-a-new-tech, will all jump in to delay the tests.

For monomorphic's test, I am especially interested in the direction-relative-to-Earth-magnetic-field null test. It's a pity monomorphic did not carry out this albeit easy test. No, not all known interferences were eliminated in those reported tests. Here is one.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Flyby on 06/05/2017 06:33 pm
These are all very good points. Thank you. The way I see it, this can go several ways. The most obvious route is to 3D print the parts and simply cover them with EMI shielding copper conductive adhesive tape. Alternatively, one could 3D print, sand, and then copper plate. Yet another option is to 3D print and then use a process like the Virtual Foundry (http://www.thevirtualfoundry.com/) to make solid copper parts. The last option, and the best route in my opinion, is to 3D print wax copies of the end plates and then use the lost wax process to create parts which are then machined to exact specifications.
I've been eyeing this type of high metal content filament for some time....
but...
- did you notice it has a rather high degree of shrinking, because you melt away the 15% of PLA
- It needs a high temperature oven (ceramic baking type) to fuse the copper/bronze/... particles together

The lost wax process is indeed a good option, although it also has some dimensional shrinking issues.
And it will need additional machining to get a smooth interior surface

I'd say, for a quick testing, a 3dprint might be an option, on condition the temperature doesn't go too high...

I still think a mold, lathe copper spinning technique would yield the cheapest, best finished product.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to build the lathe molding shape with 3Dprinting?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6lINFzdtCA
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/05/2017 07:46 pm
For monomorphic's test, I am especially interested in the direction-relative-to-Earth-magnetic-field null test. It's a pity monomorphic did not carry out this albeit easy test.

It's on my list. I had to reinforce the workbench legs as they were not designed to be pushed around on wheels. The whole test stand nearly toppled over one day spilling the entire antifreeze dampening fluid reservoir all over the floor and breaking the glass container into a hundred shards.  It took a couple of hours to get that cleaned up and ever since then i've been a little afraid to move it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/05/2017 07:52 pm
I'm about to have access to a 3D printer that has a 12" (40cm) square build area and can print higher temp materials like PETG and Nylon. 

The big end, with 3.5cm flanges, is 14.5" (36.5cm) in diameter.  12" is 30cm not 40cm, so I don't think it could be printed even with that printer.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mark7777777 on 06/05/2017 09:08 pm
Harbin Institute of Technology has applied for two emdrive patents.

I did try to convert the PDFs to English by uploading them to google translate. It didn't do it. If anyone else has other means of doing it ...

Managed to find machine translations for both patents:

CN 105790717 A A microwave-based adaptive tuning system for a non-working microwave thruster and a microwave source adaptive tuning method using the system

http://www.google.com/patents/CN105790717A (http://www.google.com/patents/CN105790717A)


CN105775171A Propelling system assisting in reducing weight of propelling system and changing degree and direction of thrust

http://www.google.com/patents/CN105775171A (http://www.google.com/patents/CN105775171A)

[Edit: added second patent link]

Would people not think it's a lot of effort to go through and author and file those patents if Harbin Institute of Technology hadn't seen real-life evidence of thrust themselves? Maybe in their own labs?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harbin_Institute_of_Technology

"HIT is consistently ranked as one of the top universities in the country [3] with a focus on science and engineering.[4][5][6] HIT was ranked 7th in the Best Global Universities for Engineering by U.S. News in 2016.[7] HIT is one of only a handful of universities in the world that have designed, built, and launched their own satellites (in 2004, 2008 and 2013)."
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 06/05/2017 09:17 pm

Would people not think it's a lot of effort to go through and author and file those patents if Harbin Institute of Technology hadn't seen real-life evidence of thrust themselves? Maybe in their own labs?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harbin_Institute_of_Technology

"HIT is consistently ranked as one of the top universities in the country [3] with a focus on science and engineering.[4][5][6] HIT was ranked 7th in the Best Global Universities for Engineering by U.S. News in 2016.[7] HIT is one of only a handful of universities in the world that have designed, built, and launched their own satellites (in 2004, 2008 and 2013)."

Roger Shawyer has patents yet here we are, discussing the validity of his presumed invention.

Patents by themselves aren't evidence of anything. Given the lack of rigor on their review, nowadays they are just like placeholders for potential intellectual property.

Peer-reviewed papers, communiqués and press releases are a bit more interesting, because they can describe events and happenings that we aren't aware of yet.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WhirlingWorlds on 06/05/2017 11:23 pm
I'm about to have access to a 3D printer that has a 12" (40cm) square build area and can print higher temp materials like PETG and Nylon. 

The big end, with 3.5cm flanges, is 14.5" (36.5cm) in diameter.  12" is 30cm not 40cm, so I don't think it could be printed even with that printer.

instead of the 3d printer or lathe, i would suggest you use amateur telescope making (atm) techniques to grind a concavity (or convexity, the tool will do that anyway) in a copper blank.  it requires little prep and just a little research, is far, far cheaper, and would make a much more accurate surface.  there should be many, many videos on youtube on the procedure.  perhaps reach out to the atm community and enlist the aid of an interested volunteer?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 06/06/2017 12:27 am
Hi

I seem to remember that preprint too...

The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light (https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.6165)

Quote
We show that the vacuum permeability and permittivity may originate from the magnetization and the polarization of continuously appearing and disappearing fermion pairs. We then show that if we simply model the propagation of the photon in vacuum as a series of transient captures within these ephemeral pairs, we can derive a finite photon velocity. Requiring that this velocity is equal to the speed of light constrains our model of vacuum. Within this approach, the propagation of a photon is a statistical process at scales much larger than the Planck scale. Therefore we expect its time of flight to fluctuate. We propose an experimental test of this prediction.

Thanks for the lead. Will have a read too.

Hi Guys

Normally I lurk and enjoy the show, but I spotted this pertinent preprint on the arXiv today:

Theoretical calculation of the fine-structure constant and the permittivity of the vacuum (https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.11068)

An intriguing suggestion at the end is that considering the vacuum in this manner allows for a variable speed of light in the very early universe. But the fact that the Fine Structure Constant can be computed from assuming the vacuum is filled with virtual positronium (some ~10^39 per cubic metre) does lend some credence to Harold White's suggestions about how EM-Drives and kin *might* work.

I haven't sat down and compared them yet, but this sounds very similar to Marcel Urban, et. al.'s paper:

The quantum vacuum as the origin of the speed of light - 2013
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepjd%2Fe2013-30578-7 (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140%2Fepjd%2Fe2013-30578-7)

If anyone has the time to compare them, please keep me in the loop.

Thanks!

I wrote to the authors regarding their work vs the work of Dr Fern and Prof. Woodward, recently published in JBIS. Because their claim that there are 1.11 x 1039 parapositronium "on mass shell" atoms per cubic meter, results in a cubic meter of empty spacing having an instantaneous rest mass of over 2 million metric tons.

I'm looking forward to a response.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/236/how-does-positronium-exist
It appears while positronium can exist, it has a half-life from .125ns to 142ns if the last poster is correct.  What is interesting is depending on the local available energy these positronium can pop in and out of existence.  To me that suggest something similar to phantom particles with zero rest mass but some transient mass depending on the local available energy. 

I am toying with their idea that there is a density of these positronium particles in the vacuum inside the frustum.  At the narrow end having the same density there are less particles than at the large end.  Combine that with increased energy density at the narrow end.  Take the photon density at the narrow end over the positronium density.  If the ratio exceeds one, nature may be some how combining energy from multiple positronium into fewer. (squeezed light?)  More enegy/(virtual particle - almost positronium) should increase the mass.  That is supposing the photons are the disturbed phantom positronium. 

Increased mass at the narrow end would transfer more energy per collision than to the larger end with lighter virtural particles?...  Its almost the opposite direction than the other idea I was toying with. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: oyzw on 06/06/2017 12:47 am
Harbin Institute of Technology has applied for two emdrive patents.

I did try to convert the PDFs to English by uploading them to google translate. It didn't do it. If anyone else has other means of doing it ...

Managed to find machine translations for both patents:

CN 105790717 A A microwave-based adaptive tuning system for a non-working microwave thruster and a microwave source adaptive tuning method using the system

http://www.google.com/patents/CN105790717A (http://www.google.com/patents/CN105790717A)


CN105775171A Propelling system assisting in reducing weight of propelling system and changing degree and direction of thrust

http://www.google.com/patents/CN105775171A (http://www.google.com/patents/CN105775171A)

[Edit: added second patent link]

Would people not think it's a lot of effort to go through and author and file those patents if Harbin Institute of Technology hadn't seen real-life evidence of thrust themselves? Maybe in their own labs?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harbin_Institute_of_Technology

"HIT is consistently ranked as one of the top universities in the country [3] with a focus on science and engineering.[4][5][6] HIT was ranked 7th in the Best Global Universities for Engineering by U.S. News in 2016.[7] HIT is one of only a handful of universities in the world that have designed, built, and launched their own satellites (in 2004, 2008 and 2013)."
In 2014, Professor Yang Juan conducted emdrive experiments at the Harbin Institute of Technology Laboratory.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Stormbringer on 06/06/2017 05:04 am


https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/236/how-does-positronium-exist
It appears while positronium can exist, it has a half-life from .125ns to 142ns if the last poster is correct.  What is interesting is depending on the local available energy these positronium can pop in and out of existence.  To me that suggest something similar to phantom particles with zero rest mass but some transient mass depending on the local available energy. 



In addition; atoms can be made of muons (Muonium) and Kaons (Kaonium) with similar miniscule half lives. One might speculate that just like conditions or proximity of other particles alters the half life of neutrons there might be conditions that stabilize these fleeting atoms in a like manner.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Tcarey on 06/06/2017 05:20 am
I'm about to have access to a 3D printer that has a 12" (40cm) square build area and can print higher temp materials like PETG and Nylon. 

The big end, with 3.5cm flanges, is 14.5" (36.5cm) in diameter.  12" is 30cm not 40cm, so I don't think it could be printed even with that printer.

Mono...  What is the depth of the curve you are interested in for your large end plate?  What is its shape?

Thanks for all you are doing.....
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/06/2017 01:10 pm
Mono...  What is the depth of the curve you are interested in for your large end plate?  What is its shape?

Curve depth for big end is 1.8553cm. Spherical radius is 61.161cm. Inner spherical diameter is 29.9cm.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 06/06/2017 04:07 pm
I'm about to have access to a 3D printer that has a 12" (40cm) square build area and can print higher temp materials like PETG and Nylon. 

The big end, with 3.5cm flanges, is 14.5" (36.5cm) in diameter.  12" is 30cm not 40cm, so I don't think it could be printed even with that printer.
*facepalm* Sorry I knew that...that's what I get for trying to do imperial to metric in my head...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/06/2017 05:33 pm
If the EM Drive is not an experimental artifact and its acceleration is somehow due to general relativity, these entropy (2nd law) constraints must also operate: thus they pertain to the "overunity problem" frequently discussed, and the acceleration that would be possible and under what range of motions (along a geodesic vs. circular motion as in what is frequently hypothesized would be used to generate electricity).

It seems you are suggesting an unknown mechanism based on a hypothetical 'entropy' to limit accelerations of an EmDrive or Mach Effect Thruster. Such a limitation would make any device effectively useless as the acceleration would asymptotically go to zero and the speed achieved for the total energy expended would be unimpressive and always linked to the square root of the total energy input. No going to the stars. But I'm skeptical such a limitation exists. Different inertial frames woud require different acceleration limits depending on their relative velocities yet the acceleration profile would also be absolute leading to paradoxes. I prefer Dr. Woodward's explanation that there is no energy problem, only a misunderstanding of basic physics.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Augmentor on 06/06/2017 05:35 pm
Shell,

I agree.

Buried in the readings above, there are three notable items: Dirac and Weyl versions of Maxwells equations, Conservation of Angular Momentum at both atomic and elementary particle level,  and the magnetic monopole which is required for quantization of charge which is a requirement for quantum mechanics

In the paper Electromagnetic Duality Anomaly in Curved Spacetimes, the Weyl version of Maxwell's equations is important to understand.
ref: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.08879.pdf

Conservation of Angular Momentum (AM) at the atomic level, and at the elementary particle level are from a form of the Total Angular Momentum Quantum Number.

Atomic:       j = s + l where j is the total AM, s is atomic spin, and l is the atomic orbital (sic) AM.

Elementary: J = S + L where J is the total AM, S is elementary spin, and L is the elementary orbit (sic) AM.

Quanta? The conjecture is that elementary particles are made of even smaller building blocks call quanta, an energy only particle or perhaps particle family. At the sub-elementary level, the quanta are expected to have both spin and orbit-like parameters. Current data is scarce and inconclusive.

Your Mass May Vary,

David



Magnetic Monopole

https://phys.org/news/2016-08-mysterious-magnetic-monopole.html

"In 1894, Nobel Laureate Pierre Curie discussed the possibility of such an undiscovered particle and could find no reason to discount its existence. Later, in 1931, Nobel Laureate Paul Dirac showed that when Maxwell's equations are extended to include a magnetic monopole, electric charge can exist only in discrete values.
This "quantisation" of electric charge is one of the requirements of quantum mechanics. So Dirac's work went towards showing that classical electromagnetism and quantum electrodynamics were compatible theories in this sense."

See also https://phys.org/news/2015-04-physicists-quantum-mechanical-monopoles.html
Physicists discover quantum-mechanical monopoles



Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2016-08-mysterious-magnetic-monopole.html#jCp



Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/06/2017 05:45 pm
So we're years on and I assume this magical device hasn't been proven still? Still a chance or do we send this to the room that has the anti-gravity machine that's collecting dust?
actually the effect is still anomalous but the signal is there. what hasn't happened despite everybody trying to do it is explain why it is there. or what spurious source of the signal is responsible. Also several sources of error have been eliminated or greatly reduced. Now correct me if i am wrong but i thought the scientific method involved a null hypothesis which (despite the years you have mentioned) has not been validated. Or contra-wise the experimental hypothesis has not been falsed.

In fact; current evidence points to the contrary of the null hypothesis. The experimenters have accounted for several proposed mundane sources  of error by identifying potential sources of error/ spurious signals and designing the protocols and equipment to negate or to be able to filter them out of the data. The anomalous signal remains despite this effort.

That is the current status of the experiments. They are ongoing. It is premature to try to consign the effect to the dustbin.

EDIT: Besides the antigravity machine is not in some room collecting dust. My star cruiser's engineers run a clean engine room and it is inspected on a daily basis.
While I agree that it is too early to call it, and I would like to see this followed through to the end, I am confused as to how you find current evidence as pointing towards the emDrive working.

Demonstrating a working emDrive is something that is inherently easier than demonstrating that it doesn't work. To show it doesn't work, you need to get down to an experiment sensitive enough to measure the force due to thermal radiation coming off the device. You also then have to repeat it for enough different configurations of mode shapes, dielectrics, etc. There has been a significant lack of criteria defined for just how much of this needs to be done before it is accepted as not working. As error sources and noise have been removed from experiments, the anomalous thrust has also decreased, which means that even more minor of errors need to be accounted for.

I'd have to go back and check the original numbers, but I think there have been quite a few experiments at this point that have constrained thrust levels to significantly less than Shawyer's original claims. The only experiment that really came close to a replication of Shawyer (Yang's) was later determined to be an experimental error. At this point, even if the emDrive works, I think it could be shown that Shawyer never measured a real signal as his results would have been swamped by errors.

Thrust levels are not 'constrained' by subsequent experiments. Those are different experiments under different conditions. Consider also the claims of Cannea superconducting devices. Professor Yang's retraction is not a refutation of everyone's else's results and should not be construed as such.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/06/2017 06:02 pm

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  As as lurker here for a number of years I can't express how amazed I am at the determination, dedication, and professionalism of the testers and theorists in this series of threads.  While there have certainly been the moments of disagreement and some cantankerous exchanges, compared to the state of the internet in 2017, this might possibly be the most civil exchange of ideas in recent history!  I'll be glad to see this figured out one way or another, and irrespective of the result, kudos to all of you, wish I had the chops to help, but if nothing else I can wave a pom-pom.

Carl Sagan did a lot of damage with that logically untrue statement. It's been used as a weapon for a generation to simply discount experimental results that don't fit current understanding making it harder to progress. The fact is that that it doesn't or shouldn't require any more extraordinary evidence to prove something new and unexpected than something expected. And untrue ideas can be given longevity when experiments are preferentially interpreted to confirm what was expected. The same rigor is necessary and sufficient irregardless of the human subjectivity of what is considered ordinary vs. extraordinary.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/06/2017 06:50 pm
Thrust levels are not 'constrained' by subsequent experiments. Those are different experiments under different conditions. Consider also the claims of Cannea superconducting devices. Professor Yang's retraction is not a refutation of everyone's else's results and should not be construed as such.
Experiments with the emDrive so far have not shown a signal above potential noise or error sources and therefore have only served to limit the magnitude of effect that may have been generated. The many possible variables of frequency, mode shape, etc. are part of why fully disproving the emDrive experimentally is nearly impossible. Enough experiments have been done in similar enough of ranges where the most sensitive of them can limit what real signal may have been present in less sensitive setups.


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  As as lurker here for a number of years I can't express how amazed I am at the determination, dedication, and professionalism of the testers and theorists in this series of threads.  While there have certainly been the moments of disagreement and some cantankerous exchanges, compared to the state of the internet in 2017, this might possibly be the most civil exchange of ideas in recent history!  I'll be glad to see this figured out one way or another, and irrespective of the result, kudos to all of you, wish I had the chops to help, but if nothing else I can wave a pom-pom.

Carl Sagan did a lot of damage with that logically untrue statement. It's been used as a weapon for a generation to simply discount experimental results that don't fit current understanding making it harder to progress. The fact is that that it doesn't or shouldn't require any more extraordinary evidence to prove something new and unexpected than something expected. And untrue ideas can be given longevity when experiments are preferentially interpreted to confirm what was expected. The same rigor is necessary and sufficient irregardless of the human subjectivity of what is considered ordinary vs. extraordinary.
How is it logically untrue? Have you not heard of Bayesian statistics? https://xkcd.com/1132/

A claim that contradicts something that has been verified by countless experiments is going to need some very good evidence to explain why those other experiments were wrong, or how there is not actually a contradiction. The statement is clearly not about human subjectivity of ordinary vs. extraordinary, but a scientific ordinary meaning "consistent with what we already have observed." Quantum mechanics would be considered extraordinary by most people, but there is tons of evidence supporting this, so now the extraordinary claim would be saying that quantum is untrue, and this would take extraordinary evidence to overcome all of the evidence currently in favor of quantum.

Quote
And untrue ideas can be given longevity when experiments are preferentially interpreted to confirm what was expected.
This is what I am afraid of happening with the emDrive, and while most people here have been good about it, some have clearly been biased with interpretation of results. To help avoid this it would be great if people defined criteria as sufficient to conclude that their is no anomalous force.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 06/06/2017 07:23 pm
It may be that current duplicated experiments, constrained to equipment sizes, radio frequencies, power levels, and materials that are "convenient", are just brushing up against the effect, whatever it is, rather than hitting its sweet spot.  Given that nobody is sure how this effect works (if it does) this is not surprising.  But once a confirmed theory is developed, it might be possible to greatly increase efficiency.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: wicoe on 06/06/2017 07:45 pm

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  As as lurker here for a number of years I can't express how amazed I am at the determination, dedication, and professionalism of the testers and theorists in this series of threads.  While there have certainly been the moments of disagreement and some cantankerous exchanges, compared to the state of the internet in 2017, this might possibly be the most civil exchange of ideas in recent history!  I'll be glad to see this figured out one way or another, and irrespective of the result, kudos to all of you, wish I had the chops to help, but if nothing else I can wave a pom-pom.

Carl Sagan did a lot of damage with that logically untrue statement. It's been used as a weapon for a generation to simply discount experimental results that don't fit current understanding making it harder to progress. The fact is that that it doesn't or shouldn't require any more extraordinary evidence to prove something new and unexpected than something expected. And untrue ideas can be given longevity when experiments are preferentially interpreted to confirm what was expected. The same rigor is necessary and sufficient irregardless of the human subjectivity of what is considered ordinary vs. extraordinary.

I fail to see how this is untrue... An "extraordinary claim" is a claim that seems to contradict some established model that has already been backed by countless experiments (i.e. "extraordinary evidence" has already been collected for the established model).  Clearly, if someone wanted to prove such a claim, they would need to collect at least as much evidence as has been collected over the years for the contrary claim, hence "extraordinary evidence".
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/06/2017 07:51 pm
Thrust levels are not 'constrained' by subsequent experiments. Those are different experiments under different conditions. Consider also the claims of Cannea superconducting devices. Professor Yang's retraction is not a refutation of everyone's else's results and should not be construed as such.
Experiments with the emDrive so far have not shown a signal above potential noise or error sources and therefore have only served to limit the magnitude of effect that may have been generated. The many possible variables of frequency, mode shape, etc. are part of why fully disproving the emDrive experimentally is nearly impossible. Enough experiments have been done in similar enough of ranges where the most sensitive of them can limit what real signal may have been present in less sensitive setups.


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  As as lurker here for a number of years I can't express how amazed I am at the determination, dedication, and professionalism of the testers and theorists in this series of threads.  While there have certainly been the moments of disagreement and some cantankerous exchanges, compared to the state of the internet in 2017, this might possibly be the most civil exchange of ideas in recent history!  I'll be glad to see this figured out one way or another, and irrespective of the result, kudos to all of you, wish I had the chops to help, but if nothing else I can wave a pom-pom.

Carl Sagan did a lot of damage with that logically untrue statement. It's been used as a weapon for a generation to simply discount experimental results that don't fit current understanding making it harder to progress. The fact is that that it doesn't or shouldn't require any more extraordinary evidence to prove something new and unexpected than something expected. And untrue ideas can be given longevity when experiments are preferentially interpreted to confirm what was expected. The same rigor is necessary and sufficient irregardless of the human subjectivity of what is considered ordinary vs. extraordinary.
How is it logically untrue? Have you not heard of Bayesian statistics? https://xkcd.com/1132/

A claim that contradicts something that has been verified by countless experiments is going to need some very good evidence to explain why those other experiments were wrong, or how there is not actually a contradiction. The statement is clearly not about human subjectivity of ordinary vs. extraordinary, but a scientific ordinary meaning "consistent with what we already have observed." Quantum mechanics would be considered extraordinary by most people, but there is tons of evidence supporting this, so now the extraordinary claim would be saying that quantum is untrue, and this would take extraordinary evidence to overcome all of the evidence currently in favor of quantum.

Quote
And untrue ideas can be given longevity when experiments are preferentially interpreted to confirm what was expected.
This is what I am afraid of happening with the emDrive, and while most people here have been good about it, some have clearly been biased with interpretation of results. To help avoid this it would be great if people defined criteria as sufficient to conclude that their is no anomalous force.


Regarding your example of quantum mechanics, there is a growing body of evidence that Hydrogen exists in lower or fractional states according to multiple new experiments. QM doesn't admit such fractional states. Accordingly, if you ask any physicist they will tell you such states cannot exist because they are not admitted in QM and we know QM is 'true'. They say millions of experiments have been conducted consistent with QM for over a century. It's completely proven. So what do the proponents need to do to show that hydrogen does exist in lower 'fractional' states? How much data does it take? Does it matter who does the confirming experiment? In practice, what would you consider the necessary 'extraordinary' evidence? Thanks.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/06/2017 08:01 pm

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  As as lurker here for a number of years I can't express how amazed I am at the determination, dedication, and professionalism of the testers and theorists in this series of threads.  While there have certainly been the moments of disagreement and some cantankerous exchanges, compared to the state of the internet in 2017, this might possibly be the most civil exchange of ideas in recent history!  I'll be glad to see this figured out one way or another, and irrespective of the result, kudos to all of you, wish I had the chops to help, but if nothing else I can wave a pom-pom.

Carl Sagan did a lot of damage with that logically untrue statement. It's been used as a weapon for a generation to simply discount experimental results that don't fit current understanding making it harder to progress. The fact is that that it doesn't or shouldn't require any more extraordinary evidence to prove something new and unexpected than something expected. And untrue ideas can be given longevity when experiments are preferentially interpreted to confirm what was expected. The same rigor is necessary and sufficient irregardless of the human subjectivity of what is considered ordinary vs. extraordinary.

I fail to see how this is untrue... An "extraordinary claim" is a claim that seems to contradict some established model that has already been backed by countless experiments (i.e. "extraordinary evidence" has already been collected for the established model).  Clearly, if someone wanted to prove such a claim, they would need to collect at least as much evidence as has been collected over the years for the contrary claim, hence "extraordinary evidence".

What is 'extraordinary' is subjective. If someone builds a Mach Effect Thruster or EMDrive that works, I mean undeniably works, that's enough. For example, if you set out a probe to just go out of the solar system and you follow the speed and trajectory at some point, it's obvious it works as planned or it doesn't. You don't need a century of experiments to decide.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: wicoe on 06/06/2017 08:12 pm

Carl Sagan did a lot of damage with that logically untrue statement. It's been used as a weapon for a generation to simply discount experimental results that don't fit current understanding making it harder to progress. The fact is that that it doesn't or shouldn't require any more extraordinary evidence to prove something new and unexpected than something expected. And untrue ideas can be given longevity when experiments are preferentially interpreted to confirm what was expected. The same rigor is necessary and sufficient irregardless of the human subjectivity of what is considered ordinary vs. extraordinary.

I fail to see how this is untrue... An "extraordinary claim" is a claim that seems to contradict some established model that has already been backed by countless experiments (i.e. "extraordinary evidence" has already been collected for the established model).  Clearly, if someone wanted to prove such a claim, they would need to collect at least as much evidence as has been collected over the years for the contrary claim, hence "extraordinary evidence".

What is 'extraordinary' is subjective. If someone builds a Mach Effect Thruster or EMDrive that works, I mean undeniably works, that's enough. For example, if you set out a probe to just go out of the solar system and you follow the speed and trajectory at some point, it's obvious it works as planned or it doesn't. You don't need a century of experiments to decide.

No, not just someone... someone with high credibility, backed by good reputation and prior work.  Otherwise you'd have to accept that people can easily soar up in the air based on what you see at a David Copperfield show.  If NASA builds such a device and it does what you described above (as confirmed by other experts and space agencies), that would be "extraordinary evidence".
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Augmentor on 06/06/2017 08:20 pm
How does one capture the Universe in a few words and inspire generations?

Sagan's infamous quote and mantra "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" can be parsed into three other possibilities. Sagan's abilities to overstate the obvious and often the obvious is stated in such a way as to provide an out of the box view to drive home a point even to the dullest dullard glued to the TV or video. Here are three other possibilities of that famous phrase.

Simple claims required extraordinary evidence.
Simple claims require simple evidence.
Extraordinary claims require simple evidence.

All of these are simply variations on the theme of "claims require evidence" which has two corollaries: Show me the data, and provide a rigorous proof.

Whether the emDrive uses mainstream physics such as General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, or emerging science such as Quantum Field theory, in the end, the hidden message that Sagan captured with his Extraordinary Quote is that the 5% of the galaxy we understand needs something more. The data tells confirms our beliefs and at the same time says there is more, perhaps even extraordinary and well beyond what we already know, conjectured, surmised, guessed, tripped over, had an epiphany, or otherwise finally recognized and grasped.

Clearly, Nature knows more than we know. So data needs a rigorous proof so we can add the useful discovery so the next time we encounter it, the claims are no longer extraordinary nor is the evidence in data and theory extraordinary. Instead, we simply will step up our game to the next level and reach higher, faster and farther in our olympic level quest to understand this universe, and perhaps others.

Three Sagan videos online...

100 Billion galaxies each with a hundred billion of stars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ex__M-OwSA

Man in his arrogance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSrL0BXsO40

Humility
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8GA2w-qrcg
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/06/2017 08:42 pm
Regarding your example of quantum mechanics, there is a growing body of evidence that Hydrogen exists in lower or fractional states according to multiple new experiments. QM doesn't admit such fractional states. Accordingly, if you ask any physicist they will tell you such states cannot exist because they are not admitted in QM and we know QM is 'true'. They say millions of experiments have been conducted consistent with QM for over a century. It's completely proven. So what do the proponents need to do to show that hydrogen does exist in lower 'fractional' states? How much data does it take? Does it matter who does the confirming experiment? In practice, what would you consider the necessary 'extraordinary' evidence? Thanks.
I cannot answer your question because I don't know what you mean by a fractional state of hydrogen. A quick google search turned up nothing. If you point me to these experiments, I could give a better answer, but for now it could be anything from experiments showing a new state that is consistent with the rest of quantum, but had either been overlooked in the theory due to complicated preconditions necessary for it to exist, or simply not formed experimentally until now. On the other hand it could be talking about electron orbitals that don't fit Schrodinger's equation, and they will need a lot of careful data showing there is not some contaminant in their experiment, and explaining why no one has ever noticed the extra line in the emission spectrum of hydrogen.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThinkerX on 06/07/2017 07:30 am
Not very bright late night thought:

The EM Drive has been occasionally described as a 'kinetic energy thief.' 

Gravitational flyby's are sometimes used as an analogy.  Fair enough: gravity is used to alter spacecraft's course and velocity.  Likewise, planetary gravitational fields influence each other: Neptune was discovered because of its gravitational effects on planets closer to the sun.  Each planet in our solar system has at least a minute gravitational effect on every other planet.  Similar calculations are used to identify planets orbiting other stars.

The EM Drive tests are all over the place.  But, if this device works by stealing kinetic energy, then perhaps one of the major local astronomical sources of such should be taken into account - the moon.  The area I live in has tides well in excess of twenty feet, operating on a predictable cycle.  Possibly this lunar/tidal cycle has an effect on the device - assuming it does steal kinetic energy?  The more impressive results stem from the devices orientation with respect to the moon?

Or, what would the tide level have been for say, Shell's more impressive tests at her location?

Better quit while I'm behind. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Augmentor on 06/07/2017 08:39 am
Not very bright late night thought:

The EM Drive has been occasionally described as a 'kinetic energy thief.' 

Gravitational flyby's are sometimes used as an analogy.  Fair enough: gravity is used to alter spacecraft's course and velocity.  Likewise, planetary gravitational fields influence each other: Neptune was discovered because of its gravitational effects on planets closer to the sun.  Each planet in our solar system has at least a minute gravitational effect on every other planet.  Similar calculations are used to identify planets orbiting other stars.

The EM Drive tests are all over the place.  But, if this device works by stealing kinetic energy, then perhaps one of the major local astronomical sources of such should be taken into account - the moon.  The area I live in has tides well in excess of twenty feet, operating on a predictable cycle.  Possibly this lunar/tidal cycle has an effect on the device - assuming it does steal kinetic energy?  The more impressive results stem from the devices orientation with respect to the moon?

Or, what would the tide level have been for say, Shell's more impressive tests at her location?

Better quit while I'm behind. 

More beer and pizza ordered.

If we are going to start down the long road of Mach theory where everything in the universe contributes to the local condition and performance of mass especially under accelerations, then we need to add a number of items to the laundry list of possible contributions to the  causes and effects of the emDrive including field reconnection of both electric and magnetic fields especially after frame dragging is induced, and any correlation with the hydrogen line.

A conjecture worth investigating is that ...
In the emDrive the hydrogen line may actually be contributing to the eigenvalues and frequencies as a parametric amplifier which in turn may produce nonlinear effects including thrust. After all, externally the copper may be attracting electrons as the electrons internally are absorbed into the plasma. A more general approach would be to examine any potential contributions to amplification especially parametric amplification and in particular the hydrogen line.

If the emDrive does not perform in space tests as it performs on the ground in the labs or field testing, especially outside the earth's influence of atmosphere and fields, then we at least have to advance emDrive theory to determine how to build a proper space drive for space operations.




Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Tcarey on 06/07/2017 05:46 pm
Mono...  What is the depth of the curve you are interested in for your large end plate?  What is its shape?

Curve depth for big end is 1.8553cm. Spherical radius is 61.161cm. Inner spherical diameter is 29.9cm.

Thanks for the reply. Two additional questions. How thick do you want the end plate to be? On your drawing I see a flange that appears to be flat. Is that part of the end plate or is that just a reference to the drawing? If it is part of the end plate what are its dimensions?

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/07/2017 06:41 pm
Regarding your example of quantum mechanics, there is a growing body of evidence that Hydrogen exists in lower or fractional states according to multiple new experiments. QM doesn't admit such fractional states. Accordingly, if you ask any physicist they will tell you such states cannot exist because they are not admitted in QM and we know QM is 'true'. They say millions of experiments have been conducted consistent with QM for over a century. It's completely proven. So what do the proponents need to do to show that hydrogen does exist in lower 'fractional' states? How much data does it take? Does it matter who does the confirming experiment? In practice, what would you consider the necessary 'extraordinary' evidence? Thanks.
I cannot answer your question because I don't know what you mean by a fractional state of hydrogen. A quick google search turned up nothing. If you point me to these experiments, I could give a better answer, but for now it could be anything from experiments showing a new state that is consistent with the rest of quantum, but had either been overlooked in the theory due to complicated preconditions necessary for it to exist, or simply not formed experimentally until now. On the other hand it could be talking about electron orbitals that don't fit Schrodinger's equation, and they will need a lot of careful data showing there is not some contaminant in their experiment, and explaining why no one has ever noticed the extra line in the emission spectrum of hydrogen.

Fractional states are those with principle quantum numbers as fractions such as 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, and so on where the electron is closer and more tightly bound. These states are stable and non radiative and below the accepted ground state (but wait, QM says that's impossible!..oh well, too bad) and thus release huge amounts of energy as they form. The scientist is Randell Mills at Brilliant Light Power. Mills calls these 'hydrino' or small hydrogen states. A word of caution, the Wikipedia editors consider it junk science and they actively censor any confirming data concentrating mainly on snarky public comments from well known scientists opposed to the idea. Mills holds the worlds record for pissing off the most Nobel laureates. But at least they've heard of him.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/07/2017 07:04 pm
Regarding your example of quantum mechanics, there is a growing body of evidence that Hydrogen exists in lower or fractional states according to multiple new experiments. QM doesn't admit such fractional states. Accordingly, if you ask any physicist they will tell you such states cannot exist because they are not admitted in QM and we know QM is 'true'. They say millions of experiments have been conducted consistent with QM for over a century. It's completely proven. So what do the proponents need to do to show that hydrogen does exist in lower 'fractional' states? How much data does it take? Does it matter who does the confirming experiment? In practice, what would you consider the necessary 'extraordinary' evidence? Thanks.
I cannot answer your question because I don't know what you mean by a fractional state of hydrogen. A quick google search turned up nothing. If you point me to these experiments, I could give a better answer, but for now it could be anything from experiments showing a new state that is consistent with the rest of quantum, but had either been overlooked in the theory due to complicated preconditions necessary for it to exist, or simply not formed experimentally until now. On the other hand it could be talking about electron orbitals that don't fit Schrodinger's equation, and they will need a lot of careful data showing there is not some contaminant in their experiment, and explaining why no one has ever noticed the extra line in the emission spectrum of hydrogen.

Fractional states are those with principle quantum numbers as fractions such as 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, and so on where the electron is closer and more tightly bound. These states are stable and non radiative and below the accepted ground state and thus release huge amounts of energy as they form. The scientist is Randell Mills at Brilliant Light Power. Mills calls these 'hydrino' or small hydrogen states. A word of caution, the Wikipedia editors consider it junk science and they actively censor any confirming data concentrating mainly on snarky public comments from well known scientists opposed to the idea. Mills holds the worlds record for pissing off the most Nobel laureates. But at least they've heard of him.
I don't think it is so much they censor confirming data as there is none. I specifically asked you to point me to the experiments and you did not.

"incompatible with key equations of Quantum Mechanics" is not a snarky comment, it is a problem that would have to be addressed. So far you have pointed me to one collection of claims that contradict a whole lot of known physics, and 0 supporting evidence. These claims would need either a huge amount of data or a few very significant experiments (scientific definition of significance). He has had tons of funding and plenty of time, and if any of his claims worked, he should have created irrefutable demonstrations by now.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: as58 on 06/07/2017 09:12 pm
There seems to already be a thread for Black/Brightlight Power: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16535.160

With just the emdrive itself having serious credibility problems, it's surely not a good idea to associate it with other fringe-y concepts.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Flyby on 06/07/2017 09:17 pm
No, not just someone... someone with high credibility, backed by good reputation and prior work.  Otherwise you'd have to accept that people can easily soar up in the air based on what you see at a David Copperfield show.  If NASA builds such a device and it does what you described above (as confirmed by other experts and space agencies), that would be "extraordinary evidence".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pv4VNkmBP0

Dr.White filming their test stand in operation....
Granted, the short film was posted without approval/authorization  (hence why it is so hard to find) but it is clear that "something" makes their setup move.(8.3 revolutions per hour, iirc)
What remains to do is to identify WHAT makes it move...

It might be vibrations, it might Lorentz forces, it might be thermal (less likely as they tried hard to eliminate that part in vacuum), or... it might be that there is indeed an EM effect that we have difficult to understand how it's working....

It is not something that hides in statistical data and can be endlessly debated on it validity. It turns, no question about that...
 
It now needs replication and it needs validation by elimination of all "other possible causes".
And that's exactly what Michelle, Jamie and Paul March are working on...
If only TT would provide more evidence and feedback then his name would be on top of the list  too.

We all need patience, because solid testing needs a lot of preparation...hence time...specially when the budgets are limited...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: otlski on 06/07/2017 11:57 pm
No, not just someone... someone with high credibility, backed by good reputation and prior work.  Otherwise you'd have to accept that people can easily soar up in the air based on what you see at a David Copperfield show.  If NASA builds such a device and it does what you described above (as confirmed by other experts and space agencies), that would be "extraordinary evidence".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pv4VNkmBP0

Dr.White filming their test stand in operation....
Granted, the short film was posted without approval/authorization  (hence why it is so hard to find) but it is clear that "something" makes their setup move.(8.3 revolutions per hour, iirc)
What remains to do is to identify WHAT makes it move...

It might be vibrations, it might Lorentz forces, it might be thermal (less likely as they tried hard to eliminate that part in vacuum), or... it might be that there is indeed an EM effect that we have difficult to understand how it's working....

It is not something that hides in statistical data and can be endlessly debated on it validity. It turns, no question about that...
 
It now needs replication and it needs validation by elimination of all "other possible causes".
And that's exactly what Michelle, Jamie and Paul March are working on...
If only TT would provide more evidence and feedback then his name would be on top of the list  too.

We all need patience, because solid testing needs a lot of preparation...hence time...specially when the budgets are limited...

Perhaps it is EM drive effect as we all hope, or it could be any number of air bearing artifacts.  I do remember mention of major issues with EW's bearing.  I have designed, built, and tested many air bearings and can envision self-motoring and preferred position as suspect causes.  Some time ago I looked over the data from EW associated with this test and there was no obvious smoking gun (artifact-wise). However, there are questions unanswered preventing me from concluding all was valid. 

Shawyer's test on the other hand was fraught with issues.  Mainly, he did not rotate more than 360 degrees and the attaching cables undermined the test. 

Suffice to say I could put a pile of marshmallows on different types of air bearings and make them rotate via different techniques.  My only point being that it is easy to accidentally create subtle rotation.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 06/08/2017 02:52 am
No, not just someone... someone with high credibility, backed by good reputation and prior work.  Otherwise you'd have to accept that people can easily soar up in the air based on what you see at a David Copperfield show.  If NASA builds such a device and it does what you described above (as confirmed by other experts and space agencies), that would be "extraordinary evidence".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pv4VNkmBP0

Dr.White filming their test stand in operation....
Granted, the short film was posted without approval/authorization  (hence why it is so hard to find) but it is clear that "something" makes their setup move.(8.3 revolutions per hour, iirc)
What remains to do is to identify WHAT makes it move...

It might be vibrations, it might Lorentz forces, it might be thermal (less likely as they tried hard to eliminate that part in vacuum), or... it might be that there is indeed an EM effect that we have difficult to understand how it's working....

It is not something that hides in statistical data and can be endlessly debated on it validity. It turns, no question about that...
 
It now needs replication and it needs validation by elimination of all "other possible causes".
And that's exactly what Michelle, Jamie and Paul March are working on...
If only TT would provide more evidence and feedback then his name would be on top of the list  too.

We all need patience, because solid testing needs a lot of preparation...hence time...specially when the budgets are limited...

Perhaps it is EM drive effect as we all hope, or it could be any number of air bearing artifacts.  I do remember mention of major issues with EW's bearing.  I have designed, built, and tested many air bearings and can envision self-motoring and preferred position as suspect causes.  Some time ago I looked over the data from EW associated with this test and there was no obvious smoking gun (artifact-wise). However, there are questions unanswered preventing me from concluding all was valid. 

Shawyer's test on the other hand was fraught with issues.  Mainly, he did not rotate more than 360 degrees and the attaching cables undermined the test. 

Suffice to say I could put a pile of marshmallows on different types of air bearings and make them rotate via different techniques.  My only point being that it is easy to accidentally create subtle rotation.

The thing that this pointed out to me was it is exceedingly tough to make a test and account for all the errors that can and do occur. This doesn't by any means this test was a failure one way or the other.  I've been known to say several times, there is no bad data.

Shell

 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 06/08/2017 03:28 am
No, not just someone... someone with high credibility, backed by good reputation and prior work.  Otherwise you'd have to accept that people can easily soar up in the air based on what you see at a David Copperfield show.  If NASA builds such a device and it does what you described above (as confirmed by other experts and space agencies), that would be "extraordinary evidence".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pv4VNkmBP0

Dr.White filming their test stand in operation....
Granted, the short film was posted without approval/authorization  (hence why it is so hard to find) but it is clear that "something" makes their setup move.(8.3 revolutions per hour, iirc)
What remains to do is to identify WHAT makes it move...

It might be vibrations, it might Lorentz forces, it might be thermal (less likely as they tried hard to eliminate that part in vacuum), or... it might be that there is indeed an EM effect that we have difficult to understand how it's working....

It is not something that hides in statistical data and can be endlessly debated on it validity. It turns, no question about that...
 
It now needs replication and it needs validation by elimination of all "other possible causes".
And that's exactly what Michelle, Jamie and Paul March are working on...
If only TT would provide more evidence and feedback then his name would be on top of the list  too.

We all need patience, because solid testing needs a lot of preparation...hence time...specially when the budgets are limited...

Perhaps it is EM drive effect as we all hope, or it could be any number of air bearing artifacts.  I do remember mention of major issues with EW's bearing.  I have designed, built, and tested many air bearings and can envision self-motoring and preferred position as suspect causes.  Some time ago I looked over the data from EW associated with this test and there was no obvious smoking gun (artifact-wise). However, there are questions unanswered preventing me from concluding all was valid. 

Shawyer's test on the other hand was fraught with issues.  Mainly, he did not rotate more than 360 degrees and the attaching cables undermined the test. 

Suffice to say I could put a pile of marshmallows on different types of air bearings and make them rotate via different techniques.  My only point being that it is easy to accidentally create subtle rotation.

The thing that this pointed out to me was it is exceedingly tough to make a test and account for all the errors that can and do occur. This doesn't by any means this test was a failure one way or the other.  I've been known to say several times, there is no bad data.

Shell

They made a mistake to use air bearing in the first place. Monomorphic will be able to tell you why he dropped air bearing and adopted hanging wire (torsion balance). Thetraveller said he would show us rotating EmDrive on torsion balance in September. For EmDrive of tests, where expected force is extremely small, air bearing is bad, I would say unless they had documented everything (including air bearing details, air bearing calibrations details, etc), data from such tests are bad data.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 06/08/2017 04:17 am
I thought I had suggested this before but in light, I am bringing it up again.  The image I will attach as a method of testing the EM Drive. 

"EMDrive mu-shield resonance.png"

It works by using the resonance of a pendulum to maximize the displacement for small impulses.  Low damping is desirable to maximize displacement at small impulse.  A one direction impulse has the effect of offsetting the swing a bit but it won't do much.  This is for small displacements of a pendulum but that is all that will be needed. 

The mu-metal shielding is supposed to isolate the EM drive from outside Electric/magnetic interference and keep the EM drive from attracting it self to the mu-metal container.  One box can swing the other is stationary. 

Sensitive equipment detects any osculation of the pendulum. 

The equation I used to predict the maximum displacement of the pendulum is also attached below as, "EMDrive mu-shield resonance function.png"  The symbol meanings are discussed in the green highlighted text. 

The blue line is a pendulum released at an offset where the force is out of phase so the force slows it down.  After some time the pendulum reverses direction and the applied force is now storing energy in the pendulum.  The green line is the applied force (small force).  The red osculation is the maximum amplitude the pendulum will reach.  Notice the force is only in one direction, or is positive. 

The maximum amplitude is given approximately in the green text as Edited:A_max = A/(2*c*w) where c is the damping constant, if I remember correct (w) is the resonant frequency, A should be a force and A/(2*c*w) = displacement = A_max or amplitude.  Large forces and low damping constants and frequencies desirable, it appears, to maximize displacement. 

The damping constant (c) can be found by c=A_force/(A_max*w), applying some known force to the pendulum at its resonant frequency and observing the maximum displacement, plug in values.  If I am correct it can be simplified to c=1/(2*w) sorry this would be incorrect

The solution is for a sinusoidal applied force, in the form of the green line plot I believe is A/2*sin(sqrt(k/m)*t)+A/2 which came from the solution for: ode2(m*diff(y(t),t,2)+c*diff(y(t),t,1)+k*y(t)=A/2*sin(sqrt(k/m)*t)+A/2, y(t), t);. 

The entire apparatus itself could be damped so as to prevent impulses from outside.  Maybe sitting on rubber stoppers or something of the like. 

It's been a while since I looked back at this. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 06/08/2017 04:29 am
No, not just someone... someone with high credibility, backed by good reputation and prior work.  Otherwise you'd have to accept that people can easily soar up in the air based on what you see at a David Copperfield show.  If NASA builds such a device and it does what you described above (as confirmed by other experts and space agencies), that would be "extraordinary evidence".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pv4VNkmBP0

Dr.White filming their test stand in operation....
Granted, the short film was posted without approval/authorization  (hence why it is so hard to find) but it is clear that "something" makes their setup move.(8.3 revolutions per hour, iirc)
What remains to do is to identify WHAT makes it move...

It might be vibrations, it might Lorentz forces, it might be thermal (less likely as they tried hard to eliminate that part in vacuum), or... it might be that there is indeed an EM effect that we have difficult to understand how it's working....

It is not something that hides in statistical data and can be endlessly debated on it validity. It turns, no question about that...
 
It now needs replication and it needs validation by elimination of all "other possible causes".
And that's exactly what Michelle, Jamie and Paul March are working on...
If only TT would provide more evidence and feedback then his name would be on top of the list  too.

We all need patience, because solid testing needs a lot of preparation...hence time...specially when the budgets are limited...

Perhaps it is EM drive effect as we all hope, or it could be any number of air bearing artifacts.  I do remember mention of major issues with EW's bearing.  I have designed, built, and tested many air bearings and can envision self-motoring and preferred position as suspect causes.  Some time ago I looked over the data from EW associated with this test and there was no obvious smoking gun (artifact-wise). However, there are questions unanswered preventing me from concluding all was valid. 

Shawyer's test on the other hand was fraught with issues.  Mainly, he did not rotate more than 360 degrees and the attaching cables undermined the test. 

Suffice to say I could put a pile of marshmallows on different types of air bearings and make them rotate via different techniques.  My only point being that it is easy to accidentally create subtle rotation.

The thing that this pointed out to me was it is exceedingly tough to make a test and account for all the errors that can and do occur. This doesn't by any means this test was a failure one way or the other.  I've been known to say several times, there is no bad data.

Shell

They made a mistake to use air bearing in the first place. Monomorphic will be able to tell you why he dropped air bearing and adopted hanging wire (torsion balance). Thetraveller said he would show us rotating EmDrive on torsion balance in September. For EmDrive of tests, where expected force is extremely small, air bearing is bad, I would say unless they had documented everything (including air bearing details, air bearing calibrations details, etc), data from such tests are bad data.
I'm very familiar about the issues with air bearings. We extensively used air bearings in our equipment we designed for the semiconductor industry.

All of the DYIers went with the Torsion Wire Pendulum with the guidance of Dr. Rodal and others here.

The data wasn't bad if you consider all of the data including the test bed and fixtures. The data allowed questions to be raised on the validly of the airbearing setup which I agree with. Personally I would have never went with a spherical airbearing.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: R.W. Keyes on 06/08/2017 08:00 am
I have an advanced 3D printer: Stratasys Fortus 360mc, upgraded to 400mc specs, build volume 40.6 x 35.5 x 40.6 cm (14" x 16" x 14") and can use a wide variety of plastics. I will be shortly moving much of my work from PLA and ABS and into the Nylon and the very high-performance Ultem. I would very much enjoy talking about applications of 3D printing to EMdrive. The noise level in this forum is pretty high and it is going to take me a little while but I will have something of substance to post within the next day or two.

...

These are all very good points. Thank you. The way I see it, this can go several ways. The most obvious route is to 3D print the parts and simply cover them with EMI shielding copper conductive adhesive tape. Alternatively, one could 3D print, sand, and then copper plate. Yet another option is to 3D print and then use a process like the Virtual Foundry (http://www.thevirtualfoundry.com/) to make solid copper parts. The last option, and the best route in my opinion, is to 3D print wax copies of the end plates and then use the lost wax process to create parts which are then machined to exact specifications.
I'm about to have access to a 3D printer that has a 12" (40cm) square build area and can print higher temp materials like PETG and Nylon.  Also for copper plating I've used a company in Baltimore, MD called Repliform (http://www.repliforminc.com/) who did an amazing job for us on a spherical object.
Usually what you do with these kinds of requirements is 3D print a 'near net shape' (adding extra material) and then machine it down - 'file to fit' :)  As this is circular, you should be able to put it on a lathe and get a really good finish.  Polishing most plastics can be done with a heat gun :D
Oh, and check out this video which was uploaded this morning on 3D printing! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwIUfOC0WAc (lightly related)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 06/09/2017 02:49 am
Regarding your example of quantum mechanics, there is a growing body of evidence that Hydrogen exists in lower or fractional states according to multiple new experiments. QM doesn't admit such fractional states. Accordingly, if you ask any physicist they will tell you such states cannot exist because they are not admitted in QM and we know QM is 'true'. They say millions of experiments have been conducted consistent with QM for over a century. It's completely proven. So what do the proponents need to do to show that hydrogen does exist in lower 'fractional' states? How much data does it take? Does it matter who does the confirming experiment? In practice, what would you consider the necessary 'extraordinary' evidence? Thanks.
I cannot answer your question because I don't know what you mean by a fractional state of hydrogen. A quick google search turned up nothing. If you point me to these experiments, I could give a better answer, but for now it could be anything from experiments showing a new state that is consistent with the rest of quantum, but had either been overlooked in the theory due to complicated preconditions necessary for it to exist, or simply not formed experimentally until now. On the other hand it could be talking about electron orbitals that don't fit Schrodinger's equation, and they will need a lot of careful data showing there is not some contaminant in their experiment, and explaining why no one has ever noticed the extra line in the emission spectrum of hydrogen.

Fractional states are those with principle quantum numbers as fractions such as 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, and so on where the electron is closer and more tightly bound. These states are stable and non radiative and below the accepted ground state and thus release huge amounts of energy as they form. The scientist is Randell Mills at Brilliant Light Power. Mills calls these 'hydrino' or small hydrogen states. A word of caution, the Wikipedia editors consider it junk science and they actively censor any confirming data concentrating mainly on snarky public comments from well known scientists opposed to the idea. Mills holds the worlds record for pissing off the most Nobel laureates. But at least they've heard of him.
I don't think it is so much they censor confirming data as there is none. I specifically asked you to point me to the experiments and you did not.

"incompatible with key equations of Quantum Mechanics" is not a snarky comment, it is a problem that would have to be addressed. So far you have pointed me to one collection of claims that contradict a whole lot of known physics, and 0 supporting evidence. These claims would need either a huge amount of data or a few very significant experiments (scientific definition of significance). He has had tons of funding and plenty of time, and if any of his claims worked, he should have created irrefutable demonstrations by now.

I do not think the quantum number, n=1/2, 1/3, etc. is realistic, but I wouldn't say "0 supporting evidence" for a reduced ground state energy. If an observer measures the spectrum of a hydrogen atom in the local, at-rest, inertial reference frame, and compares it to a hydrogen atom that is inside a gravity well. It appears that the hydrogen atom's spectrum is red-shifted by the gravity well. When the atom transitions to the ground state, the atom in the gravity well will have a lower energy than the atom that is not in the gravity well.

So if he wants to observe this affect, he would need to create (or simulate) a gravity well in the Lab. One way to simulate it would be to give the atoms very high velocity and SR effects will lower the ground state energy. It's all a matter of clock rates (frequency is energy).



Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/09/2017 03:33 am
Back from NIAC's orientation Meeting at NASA's headquarters  :) .  There are many exciting NIAC projects this year: https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-invests-in-22-visionary-exploration-concepts

Here is a picture at the National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, standing next to one of the Saturn V  F-1  gas-generator cycle rocket engine nozzles, where I am next to Prof. Heidi Fearn (California State University, Fullerton) and Marshall Eubanks (MIT educated physicist, ex Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and astronomer at the U.S. Naval Observatory.)

During the Evening Social I was lucky to be seated between and listen to and learn from Dr. John G. Cramer, and Dr. Michael I. Yarymovych.

Dr. John G. Cramer, Professsor of Physics at the University of Washington, who also works with the STAR (Solenoidal Tracker At RHIC) detector at the new Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratory, and the particle accelerator at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland. Among his many publications is the book "The Quantum Handshake: Entanglement, Nonlocality and Transactions" Springer; 1st ed. 2016 edition.  His published novels consist of Twistor (1989) and Einstein's Bridge (1997); both within the hard science fiction genre.

Dr. Michael I. Yarymovych, was Boeing V.P. for international technology of the Information, Space and Defense Systems Group.  V.P. for Rockwell International, in advanced development, missile defense, engineering of the Space Shuttle, Global Positioning System. Assistant Administrator of the U. S. Energy Research and Development Administration, Chief Scientist of the U.S. Air Force,  Director of NATO AGARD in Paris, France, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the USAF for R&D and Technical Director of the USAF  Manned Orbital Laboratory. Previously at NASA Headquarters Manned Space Flight Program involved with the Apollo lunar landing effort and  initial definition studies of the Space Station and the Space Shuttle. Ex Chairman of AGARD and its successor the NATO Research and Technology Organization. 2002 recipient of the NATO RTO's highest award, the von Karman Medal.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: bad_astra on 06/09/2017 02:38 pm
I see Heidi Fearn has a Mach Effect test proposal on the list.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 06/09/2017 03:57 pm
.....

.... If an observer measures the spectrum of a hydrogen atom in the local, at-rest, inertial reference frame, and compares it to a hydrogen atom that is inside a gravity well. It appears that the hydrogen atom's spectrum is red-shifted by the gravity well. When the atom transitions to the ground state, the atom in the gravity well will have a lower energy than the atom that is not in the gravity well.

....

I seems what you are suggesting is that the red-shift is due to the affect of a gravity well on an atom's ground state, rather than the affect of the gravity well on the propagation of the associated red-shifted photons, as they travel out of the gravity well.

It is entirely possible that the ground state of an atom is affected by its location within a gravity well, that would be my assertion (for different reasons beyond this discussion).., but I am unconvinced, that. on its own, this explains any observed red-shift in its emission spectrum.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/09/2017 06:07 pm
Regarding your example of quantum mechanics, there is a growing body of evidence that Hydrogen exists in lower or fractional states according to multiple new experiments. QM doesn't admit such fractional states. Accordingly, if you ask any physicist they will tell you such states cannot exist because they are not admitted in QM and we know QM is 'true'. They say millions of experiments have been conducted consistent with QM for over a century. It's completely proven. So what do the proponents need to do to show that hydrogen does exist in lower 'fractional' states? How much data does it take? Does it matter who does the confirming experiment? In practice, what would you consider the necessary 'extraordinary' evidence? Thanks.
I cannot answer your question because I don't know what you mean by a fractional state of hydrogen. A quick google search turned up nothing. If you point me to these experiments, I could give a better answer, but for now it could be anything from experiments showing a new state that is consistent with the rest of quantum, but had either been overlooked in the theory due to complicated preconditions necessary for it to exist, or simply not formed experimentally until now. On the other hand it could be talking about electron orbitals that don't fit Schrodinger's equation, and they will need a lot of careful data showing there is not some contaminant in their experiment, and explaining why no one has ever noticed the extra line in the emission spectrum of hydrogen.

Fractional states are those with principle quantum numbers as fractions such as 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, and so on where the electron is closer and more tightly bound. These states are stable and non radiative and below the accepted ground state and thus release huge amounts of energy as they form. The scientist is Randell Mills at Brilliant Light Power. Mills calls these 'hydrino' or small hydrogen states. A word of caution, the Wikipedia editors consider it junk science and they actively censor any confirming data concentrating mainly on snarky public comments from well known scientists opposed to the idea. Mills holds the worlds record for pissing off the most Nobel laureates. But at least they've heard of him.
I don't think it is so much they censor confirming data as there is none. I specifically asked you to point me to the experiments and you did not.

"incompatible with key equations of Quantum Mechanics" is not a snarky comment, it is a problem that would have to be addressed. So far you have pointed me to one collection of claims that contradict a whole lot of known physics, and 0 supporting evidence. These claims would need either a huge amount of data or a few very significant experiments (scientific definition of significance). He has had tons of funding and plenty of time, and if any of his claims worked, he should have created irrefutable demonstrations by now.

I do not think the quantum number, n=1/2, 1/3, etc. is realistic, but I wouldn't say "0 supporting evidence" for a reduced ground state energy. If an observer measures the spectrum of a hydrogen atom in the local, at-rest, inertial reference frame, and compares it to a hydrogen atom that is inside a gravity well. It appears that the hydrogen atom's spectrum is red-shifted by the gravity well. When the atom transitions to the ground state, the atom in the gravity well will have a lower energy than the atom that is not in the gravity well.

So if he wants to observe this affect, he would need to create (or simulate) a gravity well in the Lab. One way to simulate it would be to give the atoms very high velocity and SR effects will lower the ground state energy. It's all a matter of clock rates (frequency is energy).

It has nothing to do with gravity. It's an interaction of a hydrogen atom with an appropriate catalyst. I attached a photo of the extreme UV spectra that shows the formation of the hydrino state. The double peak is a clear signature of the two stage process of hydrino formation. Here is a test run from last year, it's not a small effect as these tests kept vaporizing the tungstun electrodes so they went to liquid silver electrodes in the latest design.

Needless to say, such a reaction hold great promise as a power source for any EMDrive or MEGA based vehicle for liftoff and local solar system operations when solar power isn't enough.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wuAuTDFTVdQ
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: otlski on 06/09/2017 10:27 pm

They made a mistake to use air bearing in the first place. Monomorphic will be able to tell you why he dropped air bearing and adopted hanging wire (torsion balance). Thetraveller said he would show us rotating EmDrive on torsion balance in September. For EmDrive of tests, where expected force is extremely small, air bearing is bad, I would say unless they had documented everything (including air bearing details, air bearing calibrations details, etc), data from such tests are bad data.

No offense meant toward Jamie but there is a huge difference between a proper air bearing as opposed to a DIY effort.  A proper air bearing is highly linear, very stiff (in the air gap), very low perturbation torque, and designed so that its meager but highly efficient air flow does not impinge on the rotor (much).  As for EW, I'd like to know the manufacturer of said air bearing and why/how it was so troublesome.  For me as an instrument designer and being experienced with these bearings, they would be my starting point.  Fully characterizing one would take about a day and if it is a good bearing from a reputable supplier, would be behave consistently over the long term.  I have not run the numbers but I am guessing an air bearing would have two orders of magnitude better sensitivity than is needed for the supposed thrust turned torque levels an EM drive is said to generate.  The air bearing would be my starting point for the freely rotating apparatus as what EW attempted, and for a constrained direct force measuring device.  Where air bearings fall down is in the vacuum environment we all would like to see as the next step (after positive results in air are strongly indicated).  Even at that, some of our competitors have vacuum scavenged bearings that likely would help the situation.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/09/2017 11:55 pm
At the time, I thought it was worth noting that EW's Cavendish Balance Rotational experiment continued to rotate after RF was turned off. My understanding is the air bearing used has a known problem of residual swirl torque. Perhaps some kind of magnetic bearing would be best.



Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 06/10/2017 01:26 pm
Surely that's as expected, angular momentum being what it is. The graph seems compelling to me, if it shows what I think it does: no rotation prior to RF on (no air bearing effect) , angular acceleration during RF on, and coasting at a fixed rate of rotation after RF off.

Is there a detail I'm missing which causes scepticism?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: otlski on 06/10/2017 01:31 pm
At the time, I thought it was worth noting that EW's Cavendish Balance Rotational experiment continued to rotate after RF was turned off. My understanding is the air bearing used has a known problem of residual swirl torque. Perhaps some kind of magnetic bearing would be best.

Yes, pretty close to my thoughts.  Strictly speaking, it is not the fact that it continued to rotate at nearly the same rate.  You would expect this to happen to a large degree because the overall friction is so low and there is an appreciable MOI about the rotation axis.  Given the unknown timing resolution and the relatively short period after turn off, I would expect to see something close to the graph you reposted above.  However, and this is important, there should be a negative acceleration not a positive acceleration after turn off.  Granted because of the underlined from above, the negative acceleration may go undetected but we absolutely should not see a positive acceleration.

How much negative acceleration should there be?  Well both the air bearing itself and the experimental payload exhibit a torque decay comprised of three terms.

Coulomb friction - fixed amount related to "break-away" shearing air molecules apart from each other
Viscous friction - fluid in motion, rises linearly with rotation rate
Turbulence friction - rise as the square of the rotation rate

Considering a well behaved air bearing, in most cases the payload's contribution to torque decay will dominate.  Specifically, for EW's experiment the viscous friction would be the major contributor.  This is another way of saying nothing much is available to slow the experiment's rotation rate after turn off except for air drag.  Given a long enough coast duration we should see this.  It should not accelerate as EW's appears to do.

Separate thought.  Just to clarify for the readers.  What EW calls swirl I am calling motoring. Same phenomena different nomenclature.
 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: otlski on 06/10/2017 01:34 pm
Surely that's as expected, angular momentum being what it is. The graph seems compelling to me, if it shows what I think it does: no rotation prior to RF on (no air bearing effect) , angular acceleration during RF on, and coasting at a fixed rate of rotation after RF off.

Is there a detail I'm missing which causes scepticism?

Agreed.  The turn on point and the beginning of rotation is very interesting.  What happens at turn off is questionable,
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: aero on 06/10/2017 04:18 pm
Surely that's as expected, angular momentum being what it is. The graph seems compelling to me, if it shows what I think it does: no rotation prior to RF on (no air bearing effect) , angular acceleration during RF on, and coasting at a fixed rate of rotation after RF off.

Is there a detail I'm missing which causes scepticism?

Agreed.  The turn on point and the beginning of rotation is very interesting.  What happens at turn off is questionable,

Well, something happened, that is clear. Looks to me like nothing at all for 15 minutes after RF turn-on. Why? Then it looks like the RF started something that continued after RF turn-off, especially visible the first minutes after turn-off but continuing for hours. 'Course I could be reading the graph wrong. Do we know the MOI of the set-up?

Do I recall correctly that we have seen the characteristic of Force tailing off much more slowly than expected in other experiments? I suppose if the device really is related to the Mach effect then maybe time is required to experience the reaction of the more distant universe...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 06/10/2017 04:27 pm
Surely that's as expected, angular momentum being what it is. The graph seems compelling to me, if it shows what I think it does: no rotation prior to RF on (no air bearing effect) , angular acceleration during RF on, and coasting at a fixed rate of rotation after RF off.

Is there a detail I'm missing which causes scepticism?

Agreed.  The turn on point and the beginning of rotation is very interesting.  What happens at turn off is questionable,

Every EM Drive experiment has had anomalies once the RF power is removed, without a sharp cutoff. It's the reason why I'm intrigued by the degraded space-time hypothesis.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 06/10/2017 07:11 pm
At the time, I thought it was worth noting that EW's Cavendish Balance Rotational experiment continued to rotate after RF was turned off. My understanding is the air bearing used has a known problem of residual swirl torque. Perhaps some kind of magnetic bearing would be best.
Sounds like a possible error source regarding the further slight accelleration after RF-power was turned off. I think some kind of thermal effect could play into also.
A magnatic bearing sounds good but it would interact with static and slow variable external fields, therefore I am not sure that this would the best way.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 06/10/2017 09:02 pm
At the time, I thought it was worth noting that EW's Cavendish Balance Rotational experiment continued to rotate after RF was turned off. My understanding is the air bearing used has a known problem of residual swirl torque. Perhaps some kind of magnetic bearing would be best.
Sounds like a possible error source regarding the further slight accelleration after RF-power was turned off. I think some kind of thermal effect could play into also.
A magnatic bearing sounds good but it would interact with static and slow variable external fields, therefore I am not sure that this would the best way.
With the very limited data we got from this test it's almost impossible to draw any conclusions.

It would be better if we had other runs, even 180o rotations and extended runs to pull more from. Also the basic test stand data is missing. Maybe EagleWorks will see free in the future to provide additional data.

All we can say is something happened in movement after a period of time when the power was turned on. :-\

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 06/10/2017 11:34 pm
I thought I had suggested this before but in light, I am bringing it up again.  The image I will attach as a method of testing the EM Drive. 

"EMDrive mu-shield resonance.png"

It works by using the resonance of a pendulum to maximize the displacement for small impulses.  Low damping is desirable to maximize displacement at small impulse.  A one direction impulse has the effect of offsetting the swing a bit but it won't do much.  This is for small displacements of a pendulum but that is all that will be needed. 

The mu-metal shielding is supposed to isolate the EM drive from outside Electric/magnetic interference and keep the EM drive from attracting it self to the mu-metal container.  One box can swing the other is stationary. 

Sensitive equipment detects any osculation of the pendulum. 

The equation I used to predict the maximum displacement of the pendulum is also attached below as, "EMDrive mu-shield resonance function.png"  The symbol meanings are discussed in the green highlighted text. 

The blue line is a pendulum released at an offset where the force is out of phase so the force slows it down.  After some time the pendulum reverses direction and the applied force is now storing energy in the pendulum.  The green line is the applied force (small force).  The red osculation is the maximum amplitude the pendulum will reach.  Notice the force is only in one direction, or is positive. 

The maximum amplitude is given approximately in the green text as Edited:A_max = A/(2*c*w) where c is the damping constant, if I remember correct (w) is the resonant frequency, A should be a force and A/(2*c*w) = displacement = A_max or amplitude.  Large forces and low damping constants and frequencies desirable, it appears, to maximize displacement. 

The damping constant (c) can be found by c=A_force/(A_max*w), applying some known force to the pendulum at its resonant frequency and observing the maximum displacement, plug in values.  If I am correct it can be simplified to c=1/(2*w) sorry this would be incorrect

The solution is for a sinusoidal applied force, in the form of the green line plot I believe is A/2*sin(sqrt(k/m)*t)+A/2 which came from the solution for: ode2(m*diff(y(t),t,2)+c*diff(y(t),t,1)+k*y(t)=A/2*sin(sqrt(k/m)*t)+A/2, y(t), t);. 

The entire apparatus itself could be damped so as to prevent impulses from outside.  Maybe sitting on rubber stoppers or something of the like. 

It's been a while since I looked back at this.

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1431993;image)
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1431995;image)

I thought I would add this in as a way of detecting small deflections in angle.  See attached graphic file. 
Edited graphic to display correct equation for change in angle.  Sorry for multiple changes.  Should be correct now. 

 using 30 reflections and the equation for dh  and dl or change in position of the pendulum we can get an amplification factor dh/dl pluging this in to wXmaxima :
t1: atan(z/(n*2*L));
dl: 0.000001;
L: 1;
z: 1;
n:30;
"dh/dl"=L*(tan(t1)+2*tan(t1+2*atan(dl/z))+2*tan(t1+3*atan(dl/z))+...   ...+tan(t1+31*atan(dl/z))-z)/dl;
"dh/dl"=959.267
 959.267*0.000001 = 9.59267*10^-4 change in height or about 1mm if using SI units
 50 cycles gives a sensitivity of about 0.000001m*2600 dl/dh = 0.00259m~2.6mm

It may be better to use an interferometer which has a little better sensitivity depending on the wavelength of the light.  The dual mirror might come close to visible light if I increase the number of reflections.
 There is also an interferometer that uses multiple reflections to increase its sensitivity orders of magnitude which might be worth while.

 Increasing the Sensitivity of the Michelson Interferometer through Multiple Reflection
W Youn - 2015 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=3226451701232513783&hl=en&as_sdt=0,26)

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/11/2017 04:24 am
At the time, I thought it was worth noting that EW's Cavendish Balance Rotational experiment continued to rotate after RF was turned off. My understanding is the air bearing used has a known problem of residual swirl torque. Perhaps some kind of magnetic bearing would be best.
Sounds like a possible error source regarding the further slight accelleration after RF-power was turned off. I think some kind of thermal effect could play into also.
A magnatic bearing sounds good but it would interact with static and slow variable external fields, therefore I am not sure that this would the best way.
With the very limited data we got from this test it's almost impossible to draw any conclusions.

It would be better if we had other runs, even 180o rotations and extended runs to pull more from. Also the basic test stand data is missing. Maybe EagleWorks will see free in the future to provide additional data.

All we can say is something happened in movement after a period of time when the power was turned on. :-\

Shell

Shell:

The EW Cavendish Balance (CB) spherical air bearing had angular zones in its 360 degree rotation that had no measurable swirl torques and other angular zones where it had marked swirl torques along with a near constant low frequency oscillation that varied in both amplitude and frequency with the applied air pressure to the spherical air bearing.  That said, we found several angular zones in the air bearing's 360 degree angular rotation range where the swirl torques were small enough that it did not accelerate the ~25kg payload of the balance, the ICFTA with battery pack and its avionics pallet when the ICFTA was turned off, so that is where we ended up running these tests.  The attached slide deck provides a summary of these tests in both the forward and reverse rotational direction where the only other torque input came from the EW ICFTA, which appeared to be producing around 18-to-20 micro-Newtons (uN) during the 30 minute runs that the ~10 A-hr battery could provide.   However please note that once the test rig entered a swirl torque region in the air bearing response, the bearing swirl torque would either accelerate the rotation rate or brake the rotation rate started by the ICFTA activation period dependent on the direction of rotation.

BTW, its been almost a year since we ran these CB tests in the EW lab and so it appears that Dr. White has moved on to other pursuits.  Thus  I want to make sure these still very preliminary EW CB test results still see the light of day before getting lost to history.

Best,  Paul M.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 06/11/2017 01:12 pm
Paul - any chance of posting a data file so that we can take a closer look at that test? I can see now why there is scepticism, but you explanation seems good. A closer look could confirm the picture you paint. Just angular position and time is all that's needed.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star One on 06/11/2017 01:56 pm
At the time, I thought it was worth noting that EW's Cavendish Balance Rotational experiment continued to rotate after RF was turned off. My understanding is the air bearing used has a known problem of residual swirl torque. Perhaps some kind of magnetic bearing would be best.
Sounds like a possible error source regarding the further slight accelleration after RF-power was turned off. I think some kind of thermal effect could play into also.
A magnatic bearing sounds good but it would interact with static and slow variable external fields, therefore I am not sure that this would the best way.
With the very limited data we got from this test it's almost impossible to draw any conclusions.

It would be better if we had other runs, even 180o rotations and extended runs to pull more from. Also the basic test stand data is missing. Maybe EagleWorks will see free in the future to provide additional data.

All we can say is something happened in movement after a period of time when the power was turned on. :-\

Shell

Shell:

The EW Cavendish Balance (CB) spherical air bearing had angular zones in its 360 degree rotation that had no measurable swirl torques and other angular zones where it had marked swirl torques along with a near constant low frequency oscillation that varied in both amplitude and frequency with the applied air pressure to the spherical air bearing.  That said, we found several angular zones in the air bearing's 360 degree angular rotation range where the swirl torques were small enough that it did not accelerate the ~25kg payload of the balance, the ICFTA with battery pack and its avionics pallet when the ICFTA was turned off, so that is where we ended up running these tests.  The attached slide deck provides a summary of these tests in both the forward and reverse rotational direction where the only other torque input came from the EW ICFTA, which appeared to be producing around 18-to-20 micro-Newtons (uN) during the 30 minute runs that the ~10 A-hr battery could provide.   However please note that once the test rig entered a swirl torque region in the air bearing response, the bearing swirl torque would either accelerate the rotation rate or brake the rotation rate started by the ICFTA activation period dependent on the direction of rotation.

BTW, its been almost a year since we ran these CB tests in the EW lab and so it appears that Dr. White has moved on to other pursuits.  Thus  I want to make sure these still very preliminary EW CB test results still see the light of day before getting lost to history.

Best,  Paul M.

For the sake of clarification do you mean Dr White has abandoned his interest in EM drive?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/11/2017 03:06 pm
...For the sake of clarification do you mean Dr White has abandoned his interest in EM drive?
Dr. White is giving a 40 minute presentation on the EM Drive and White's QV pilot wave theory, and chairing a Breakthrough Propulsion session next week in New York's workshop:

http://www.citytech.cuny.edu/physicsworkshop/

Foundations of Interstellar Studies
Workshop at City Tech, CUNY
June 13-15, 2017, New York, NY USA

Day 3: Breakthrough Propulsion, June 15, 2017
Time   Topic   Speaker   Organization
08.40   Welcome by Session Chairman: Harold White
08.50   1. Pilot Wave Model for Impulsive Thrust from RF Test Device Measured in Vacuum    Harold G. White   NASA JSC Eagleworks
09.30   2. Mach Effect Gravitational Assist Drive    Heidi Fearn et al.   California State University Fullerton
10.10   3. Entanglement and Chameleon Acceleration    Glen A. Robertson   GAResearch LLC
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/11/2017 03:28 pm
At the time, I thought it was worth noting that EW's Cavendish Balance Rotational experiment continued to rotate after RF was turned off. My understanding is the air bearing used has a known problem of residual swirl torque. Perhaps some kind of magnetic bearing would be best.
Sounds like a possible error source regarding the further slight accelleration after RF-power was turned off. I think some kind of thermal effect could play into also.
A magnatic bearing sounds good but it would interact with static and slow variable external fields, therefore I am not sure that this would the best way.
With the very limited data we got from this test it's almost impossible to draw any conclusions.

It would be better if we had other runs, even 180o rotations and extended runs to pull more from. Also the basic test stand data is missing. Maybe EagleWorks will see free in the future to provide additional data.

All we can say is something happened in movement after a period of time when the power was turned on. :-\

Shell

Shell:

The EW Cavendish Balance (CB) spherical air bearing had angular zones in its 360 degree rotation that had no measurable swirl torques and other angular zones where it had marked swirl torques along with a near constant low frequency oscillation that varied in both amplitude and frequency with the applied air pressure to the spherical air bearing.  That said, we found several angular zones in the air bearing's 360 degree angular rotation range where the swirl torques were small enough that it did not accelerate the ~25kg payload of the balance, the ICFTA with battery pack and its avionics pallet when the ICFTA was turned off, so that is where we ended up running these tests.  The attached slide deck provides a summary of these tests in both the forward and reverse rotational direction where the only other torque input came from the EW ICFTA, which appeared to be producing around 18-to-20 micro-Newtons (uN) during the 30 minute runs that the ~10 A-hr battery could provide.   However please note that once the test rig entered a swirl torque region in the air bearing response, the bearing swirl torque would either accelerate the rotation rate or brake the rotation rate started by the ICFTA activation period dependent on the direction of rotation.

BTW, its been almost a year since we ran these CB tests in the EW lab and so it appears that Dr. White has moved on to other pursuits.  Thus  I want to make sure these still very preliminary EW CB test results still see the light of day before getting lost to history.

Best,  Paul M.

For the sake of clarification do you mean Dr White has abandoned his interest in EM drive?

Star-One:

I have no direct insights into what Dr. White is or is not doing since we have not talked since my departure from the Eagleworks Lab back in September 2016.  However Dr. Rodal is correct in that Dr. White is supposed to be presenting a paper at the New York Interstellar Conference next week that is supposed to be a paper on his evolving Quantum Vacuum (QV) conjecture based on de Broglie's pilot-wave approach to Quantum Mechanics (QM), see Dr. Rodal's latest post.  However I've not heard or seen any mention of the EW summer of 2016 Cavendish Balance experiment in any publications to date.  Has anybody else seen or heard of such a CB paper from the EW lab since I left it?

Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star One on 06/11/2017 03:31 pm
Thanks both of you for the clarification on the matter.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/11/2017 03:35 pm
Paul - any chance of posting a data file so that we can take a closer look at that test? I can see now why there is skepticism, but you explanation seems good. A closer look could confirm the picture you paint. Just angular position and time is all that's needed.

RERT:

Wish I could, but Dr. White is the holder of all the analytical/numerical data that was acquired by the 2016 Cavendish Balance (CB) test series, so your request for such should go to him directly at the NASA/JSC EW lab.

Best,  Paul M.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 06/11/2017 07:57 pm
Since we're at it; what about the attenuator you were planning to add ? Did you discard the idea or was it just moved to the "to do in a rainy day" box :) ?

I'm using a 5W attenuator now since the RF output is 2.5W. When I add the 30W amp, I will need a bigger attenuator. This is the current as-built wiring diagram.

I have bought myself a decent pre-amp (the Minicircuits ZX60-H242+) to drive the wifi amp (EDUP etc), Jamie. When measuring with the Zx47-40 detector (Minicircuits), I get an output power of 3.15 W (35 dBm) at 2.45 GHz.
The spectrum analyzer gives 2 dBm lower, though. I have to look into this discrepancy  (attached screenshot of the measurement is with 10 dB attenuator between the EDUP and the SA).
If this amp really gives more than 3 W, it is not bad at all.
Cheers, Peter

 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 06/11/2017 08:11 pm
No, not just someone... someone with high credibility, backed by good reputation and prior work.  Otherwise you'd have to accept that people can easily soar up in the air based on what you see at a David Copperfield show.  If NASA builds such a device and it does what you described above (as confirmed by other experts and space agencies), that would be "extraordinary evidence".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pv4VNkmBP0

Dr.White filming their test stand in operation....
Granted, the short film was posted without approval/authorization  (hence why it is so hard to find) but it is clear that "something" makes their setup move.(8.3 revolutions per hour, iirc)
What remains to do is to identify WHAT makes it move...

It might be vibrations, it might Lorentz forces, it might be thermal (less likely as they tried hard to eliminate that part in vacuum), or... it might be that there is indeed an EM effect that we have difficult to understand how it's working....

It is not something that hides in statistical data and can be endlessly debated on it validity. It turns, no question about that...
 
It now needs replication and it needs validation by elimination of all "other possible causes".
And that's exactly what Michelle, Jamie and Paul March are working on...
If only TT would provide more evidence and feedback then his name would be on top of the list  too.

We all need patience, because solid testing needs a lot of preparation...hence time...specially when the budgets are limited...

Marc Millis also warns for problems with air bearings in measurements in his book 'Frontiers of Propulsion Science (2009, co-edited with E.W. Davis), p. 254.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 06/11/2017 08:32 pm
At the time, I thought it was worth noting that EW's Cavendish Balance Rotational experiment continued to rotate after RF was turned off. My understanding is the air bearing used has a known problem of residual swirl torque. Perhaps some kind of magnetic bearing would be best.
Sounds like a possible error source regarding the further slight accelleration after RF-power was turned off. I think some kind of thermal effect could play into also.
A magnatic bearing sounds good but it would interact with static and slow variable external fields, therefore I am not sure that this would the best way.
With the very limited data we got from this test it's almost impossible to draw any conclusions.

It would be better if we had other runs, even 180o rotations and extended runs to pull more from. Also the basic test stand data is missing. Maybe EagleWorks will see free in the future to provide additional data.

All we can say is something happened in movement after a period of time when the power was turned on. :-\

Shell

Shell:

The EW Cavendish Balance (CB) spherical air bearing had angular zones in its 360 degree rotation that had no measurable swirl torques and other angular zones where it had marked swirl torques along with a near constant low frequency oscillation that varied in both amplitude and frequency with the applied air pressure to the spherical air bearing.  That said, we found several angular zones in the air bearing's 360 degree angular rotation range where the swirl torques were small enough that it did not accelerate the ~25kg payload of the balance, the ICFTA with battery pack and its avionics pallet when the ICFTA was turned off, so that is where we ended up running these tests.  The attached slide deck provides a summary of these tests in both the forward and reverse rotational direction where the only other torque input came from the EW ICFTA, which appeared to be producing around 18-to-20 micro-Newtons (uN) during the 30 minute runs that the ~10 A-hr battery could provide.   However please note that once the test rig entered a swirl torque region in the air bearing response, the bearing swirl torque would either accelerate the rotation rate or brake the rotation rate started by the ICFTA activation period dependent on the direction of rotation.

BTW, its been almost a year since we ran these CB tests in the EW lab and so it appears that Dr. White has moved on to other pursuits.  Thus  I want to make sure these still very preliminary EW CB test results still see the light of day before getting lost to history.

Best,  Paul M.
Paul,

 I for one and think I speak for others here as well, deeply thank you for your dedication, your perseverance and your honesty. You're a rare man indeed.

 Thank you for forwarding your lab results on the error on the air bearing, it makes much more sense now you did see 18-20 uN of thrust.

My Very Best,
Shell

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: otlski on 06/11/2017 11:46 pm

Marc Millis also warns for problems with air bearings in measurements in his book 'Frontiers of Propulsion Science (2009, co-edited with E.W. Davis), p. 254.

To clarify, the mode demonstrated by Millis is very likely in certain configurations of linear air bearing especially those acting like air hockey tables which have high flow at low pressure, yielding very poor stiffness.  Rotary air bearings, especially low flow high pressure professionally made ones, will not exhibit this error mode.

Dan
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.LeBel on 06/12/2017 12:23 am
Example: in 4 D spacetime gravitational plane waves have zero Ricci curvature tensor but non-zero Riemannian curvature.  In the region of the gravitational wave disturbance spacetime is not flat, even though the RIcci tensor is zero.
 
The energy and momentum of these gravitational plane waves is not in the energy-stress tensor, but the energy and momentum are in the gravitational field itself. 
 
The stress-energy tensor represents the energy due to matter, but stress-energy tensor includes NO contribution from gravitational energy or momentum in the field itself.
 
When a binary pulsar emits gravitational waves, these waves will carry away energy away and therefore its orbital period should change.  The energy and momentum are in the gravitational wave itself.
 
Thus, in general relativity you can have energy and momentum in gravitational waves, on the left hand side of the equation, on the field itself.  And these wave can interact nonlinearly. 

All very interesting from an energy conservation point of view :-)
Very interesting Dr. Rodal. You're way beyond my pay grade, although I think I can see what you're trying to convey. If a drive is done right and you're inciting a gravitational 4D effect (like the Mach effect) you will not have the issue of over unity and violate conservation laws.

My Best,
Shell
Hi Shell,

Yes,  but we need further theoretical and experimental work  :). 

Notsosureofit was working on it, a lot of this is tied with entropy.

The curvature of space can also be measured with entropy measures

(K.-T. Sturm, On the geometry of metric measure spaces, Acta Math. 196 (2006), n 1, 65–177. https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.acta/1485891805 
https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.acta/1485891806   )
 
The idea is that, in positive Ricci curvature (like the curvature of a sphere), “midpoints spread out”: if we take two geometrical measures in the curved 4 D spacetime surface, and consider the set of points that lie “halfway” between the two sets then the set of midpoints is wider than expected from the Euclidean (flat) case. (For example, on a sphere, the set of midpoints of the two poles will be the whole equator.)
 
The reverse is true for negative Ricci curvature (like the curvature of a saddle).
 
In the entropy approach one uses probability measures instead of geometrical measures in the  4 D spacetime surface. The extent to which they are spread can be evaluated using the relative entropy (the Kullback–Leibler divergence  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kullback%E2%80%93Leibler_divergence ).
 
I wonder whether Notsosureofit did any further work?

This somehow comes down to showing that gravity is an entropic event. After all, both gravity and entropy are spontaneous processes.

So, when an object falls toward the ground, it spontaneously moves toward where the rate of time is slower, which means relatively longer seconds. If the speed of light (m/s) is to remain constant, longer seconds “s” requires longer space “m”. In other words, the object is actually falling into larger space which is “dispersion”, the hallmark of entropy. Yes, gravity is an entropic process.

Both gravity and entropy share the same type of cause, a differential in the rate of “time-process” which translates as a differential in existence, i.e. motion for us. A different perspective we should all consider.

Marcel,
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.LeBel on 06/12/2017 12:46 am
All:

I ran across a paper on the unification of GRT and QM this morning that IMO we all need to consider in regards to what is real and what is mathematics devoid of physical content.

Best, Paul M.
spupeng7, a lot of similarities to concepts you have proposed, due to a 5D model, whether it is truly complex time or ?? Perhaps there is good food for thought there.

As a non-physicist, his historical/narrative style helped me to visualize where he is trying to go. Of course, in the end, only experiments and correct math matter. He does claim that his theory is falsifiable.

Not sure if his other papers include derivations, or just more talk... more than enough reading already tonight.

mh
Thankyou mh,
       bedtime reading that may disturb your dreams... yes I did like some of it but the 5D argument complicates. I use complex time to argue that interaction is direct and that unification can be achieved by simplification. I agree with Beichler when he argues that a point has extension, because separation of the dimensions is artificial.

The extension of a point charge apparent to me, is the reaction its acceleration causes at separation ict. "What is real and what is mathematics devoid of physical content", is a sticky question for me. I am asking myself to believe that action at a distance is real.

Allowing the vacuum to have properties other than extension with direction, disturbs me. Would it not be simpler to accept action at a distance and see if that allows gravity to be the slightly unequal sum of electrical attractions and repulsions? Looking, of course, for a collaborator with the mathematical fluency required to make this argument properly  :)

Spupeng7

Read again this quote from Bill Unruh;

‘ .. A more accurate way of summarizing the lessons of General Relativity is
that gravity does not cause time to run differently in different places (e.g., faster far from the earth than near it). Gravity is the unequable flow of time from place to place. It is not that there are two separate phenomena, namely gravity and time and that the one, gravity, affects the other. Rather the theory states that the phenomena we usually ascribe to gravity are actually caused by time’s flowing unequably from place to place...  “   arXiv:gr-qc/9312027v2 17 Dec 1993

A time rate differential is the CAUSE for what we call gravity. (The  type of Cause for entropy and....everything else.)   

Marcel,
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/12/2017 01:28 am
All:

I ran across a paper on the unification of GRT and QM this morning that IMO we all need to consider in regards to what is real and what is mathematics devoid of physical content.

Best, Paul M.
spupeng7, a lot of similarities to concepts you have proposed, due to a 5D model, whether it is truly complex time or ?? Perhaps there is good food for thought there.

As a non-physicist, his historical/narrative style helped me to visualize where he is trying to go. Of course, in the end, only experiments and correct math matter. He does claim that his theory is falsifiable.

Not sure if his other papers include derivations, or just more talk... more than enough reading already tonight.

mh
Thankyou mh,
       bedtime reading that may disturb your dreams... yes I did like some of it but the 5D argument complicates. I use complex time to argue that interaction is direct and that unification can be achieved by simplification. I agree with Beichler when he argues that a point has extension, because separation of the dimensions is artificial.

The extension of a point charge apparent to me, is the reaction its acceleration causes at separation ict. "What is real and what is mathematics devoid of physical content", is a sticky question for me. I am asking myself to believe that action at a distance is real.

Allowing the vacuum to have properties other than extension with direction, disturbs me. Would it not be simpler to accept action at a distance and see if that allows gravity to be the slightly unequal sum of electrical attractions and repulsions? Looking, of course, for a collaborator with the mathematical fluency required to make this argument properly  :)

Spupeng7

Read again this quote from Bill Unruh;

‘ .. A more accurate way of summarizing the lessons of General Relativity is
that gravity does not cause time to run differently in different places (e.g., faster far from the earth than near it). Gravity is the unequable flow of time from place to place. It is not that there are two separate phenomena, namely gravity and time and that the one, gravity, affects the other. Rather the theory states that the phenomena we usually ascribe to gravity are actually caused by time’s flowing unequably from place to place...  “   arXiv:gr-qc/9312027v2 17 Dec 1993

A time rate differential is the CAUSE for what we call gravity. (The  type of Cause for entropy and....everything else.)   

Marcel,

<<This is strange. Most people find it very difficult even to imagine how such a statement
could be true. The two concepts, time and gravity, are so different that there would seem to
be no way that they could possibly have anything to do with each other, never mind being
identical. That gravity could affect time, or rather could affect the rate at which clocks run,
is acceptable, but that gravity is in any sense the same as time seems naively unimaginable.
To give a hint about how General Relativity accomplishes this identification, I will use an
analogy. As with any analogy, there will be certain features that will carry the message that
I want to convey, and I will emphasize these. There are other features of the analogy which
may be misleading, and I will point out a few of these. The temptation with any analogy
is to try to extend it, to think about the subject (in this case time and gravity) by means
of the analogy and to ascribe to the theory (General Relativity) all aspects of the analogy,
when in fact only some of the aspects are valid.
>>   W. Unruh

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9312027.pdf
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Notsosureofit on 06/12/2017 02:05 am
Still working on entropy.....looking for a simple enough model to prove the EM Drive a result of entropic force of zero or non-zero magnitude.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.LeBel on 06/12/2017 02:14 pm
All:

I ran across a paper on the unification of GRT and QM this morning that IMO we all need to consider in regards to what is real and what is mathematics devoid of physical content.

Best, Paul M.
spupeng7, a lot of similarities to concepts you have proposed, due to a 5D model, whether it is truly complex time or ?? Perhaps there is good food for thought there.

As a non-physicist, his historical/narrative style helped me to visualize where he is trying to go. Of course, in the end, only experiments and correct math matter. He does claim that his theory is falsifiable.

Not sure if his other papers include derivations, or just more talk... more than enough reading already tonight.

mh
Thankyou mh,
       bedtime reading that may disturb your dreams... yes I did like some of it but the 5D argument complicates. I use complex time to argue that interaction is direct and that unification can be achieved by simplification. I agree with Beichler when he argues that a point has extension, because separation of the dimensions is artificial.

The extension of a point charge apparent to me, is the reaction its acceleration causes at separation ict. "What is real and what is mathematics devoid of physical content", is a sticky question for me. I am asking myself to believe that action at a distance is real.

Allowing the vacuum to have properties other than extension with direction, disturbs me. Would it not be simpler to accept action at a distance and see if that allows gravity to be the slightly unequal sum of electrical attractions and repulsions? Looking, of course, for a collaborator with the mathematical fluency required to make this argument properly  :)

Spupeng7

Read again this quote from Bill Unruh;

‘ .. A more accurate way of summarizing the lessons of General Relativity is
that gravity does not cause time to run differently in different places (e.g., faster far from the earth than near it). Gravity is the unequable flow of time from place to place. It is not that there are two separate phenomena, namely gravity and time and that the one, gravity, affects the other. Rather the theory states that the phenomena we usually ascribe to gravity are actually caused by time’s flowing unequably from place to place...  “   arXiv:gr-qc/9312027v2 17 Dec 1993

A time rate differential is the CAUSE for what we call gravity. (The  type of Cause for entropy and....everything else.)   

Marcel,

<<This is strange. Most people find it very difficult even to imagine how such a statement
could be true. The two concepts, time and gravity, are so different that there would seem to
be no way that they could possibly have anything to do with each other, never mind being
identical. That gravity could affect time, or rather could affect the rate at which clocks run,
is acceptable, but that gravity is in any sense the same as time seems naively unimaginable.
To give a hint about how General Relativity accomplishes this identification, I will use an
analogy. As with any analogy, there will be certain features that will carry the message that
I want to convey, and I will emphasize these. There are other features of the analogy which
may be misleading, and I will point out a few of these. The temptation with any analogy
is to try to extend it, to think about the subject (in this case time and gravity) by means
of the analogy and to ascribe to the theory (General Relativity) all aspects of the analogy,
when in fact only some of the aspects are valid.
>>   W. Unruh

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9312027.pdf

Rodal,

Thank you for the Unruh reference. Of course, the (his) analogy comes after your blue bold highlight and is not shown here.

. The analogy he is offering is to help those who have problem grasping the fact that time and gravity are the same.

EDIT: Actually, Unruh says something true and simple about the the universe  and then build/uses a rather complex analogy to explain it!?

 I say that things have a higher probability to exist or be where the rate of time is relatively slower because they can stay there longer. This perspective consists in changing "motion", which is an observation related to us, by "existence", which is only due to the "thing" itself. This way, we may understand why the universe works the way it does without us in the picture. 



Marcel,
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 06/13/2017 02:27 am
All:

I ran across a paper on the unification of GRT and QM this morning that IMO we all need to consider in regards to what is real and what is mathematics devoid of physical content.

Best, Paul M.
spupeng7, a lot of similarities to concepts you have proposed, due to a 5D model, whether it is truly complex time or ?? Perhaps there is good food for thought there.

As a non-physicist, his historical/narrative style helped me to visualize where he is trying to go. Of course, in the end, only experiments and correct math matter. He does claim that his theory is falsifiable.

Not sure if his other papers include derivations, or just more talk... more than enough reading already tonight.

mh
Thankyou mh,
       bedtime reading that may disturb your dreams... yes I did like some of it but the 5D argument complicates. I use complex time to argue that interaction is direct and that unification can be achieved by simplification. I agree with Beichler when he argues that a point has extension, because separation of the dimensions is artificial.

The extension of a point charge apparent to me, is the reaction its acceleration causes at separation ict. "What is real and what is mathematics devoid of physical content", is a sticky question for me. I am asking myself to believe that action at a distance is real.

Allowing the vacuum to have properties other than extension with direction, disturbs me. Would it not be simpler to accept action at a distance and see if that allows gravity to be the slightly unequal sum of electrical attractions and repulsions? Looking, of course, for a collaborator with the mathematical fluency required to make this argument properly  :)

Spupeng7

Read again this quote from Bill Unruh;

‘ .. A more accurate way of summarizing the lessons of General Relativity is
that gravity does not cause time to run differently in different places (e.g., faster far from the earth than near it). Gravity is the unequable flow of time from place to place. It is not that there are two separate phenomena, namely gravity and time and that the one, gravity, affects the other. Rather the theory states that the phenomena we usually ascribe to gravity are actually caused by time’s flowing unequably from place to place...  “   arXiv:gr-qc/9312027v2 17 Dec 1993

A time rate differential is the CAUSE for what we call gravity. (The  type of Cause for entropy and....everything else.)   

Marcel,

Thankyou M,
I can visualize GR no other way. Bill Unruh is correct in this IMO. The extension of a location in spacetime which allows resonance between or energy transfer between remote charges, exists across this unequable (unequal rate of) flow.

The argument that gravity is entropic does not appeal to me. The concentration of matter consequent upon gravity would surely decrease the 'entropy'. Truth is I can find no use for entropy unless you are improving the efficiency of a steam engine.

Corrected spelling  :-[
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.LeBel on 06/13/2017 03:11 am
All:

I ran across a paper on the unification of GRT and QM this morning that IMO we all need to consider in regards to what is real and what is mathematics devoid of physical content.

Best, Paul M.
spupeng7, a lot of similarities to concepts you have proposed, due to a 5D model, whether it is truly complex time or ?? Perhaps there is good food for thought there.

As a non-physicist, his historical/narrative style helped me to visualize where he is trying to go. Of course, in the end, only experiments and correct math matter. He does claim that his theory is falsifiable.

Not sure if his other papers include derivations, or just more talk... more than enough reading already tonight.

mh
Thankyou mh,
       bedtime reading that may disturb your dreams... yes I did like some of it but the 5D argument complicates. I use complex time to argue that interaction is direct and that unification can be achieved by simplification. I agree with Beichler when he argues that a point has extension, because separation of the dimensions is artificial.

The extension of a point charge apparent to me, is the reaction its acceleration causes at separation ict. "What is real and what is mathematics devoid of physical content", is a sticky question for me. I am asking myself to believe that action at a distance is real.

Allowing the vacuum to have properties other than extension with direction, disturbs me. Would it not be simpler to accept action at a distance and see if that allows gravity to be the slightly unequal sum of electrical attractions and repulsions? Looking, of course, for a collaborator with the mathematical fluency required to make this argument properly  :)

Spupeng7

Read again this quote from Bill Unruh;

‘ .. A more accurate way of summarizing the lessons of General Relativity is
that gravity does not cause time to run differently in different places (e.g., faster far from the earth than near it). Gravity is the unequable flow of time from place to place. It is not that there are two separate phenomena, namely gravity and time and that the one, gravity, affects the other. Rather the theory states that the phenomena we usually ascribe to gravity are actually caused by time’s flowing unequably from place to place...  “   arXiv:gr-qc/9312027v2 17 Dec 1993

A time rate differential is the CAUSE for what we call gravity. (The  type of Cause for entropy and....everything else.)   

Marcel,

Thankyou M,
I can visualize GR no other way. Bill Unruh is correct in this IMO. The extension of a location in spacetime which allows resonance between or energy transfer between remote charges, exists across this unequable (unequal rate of) flow.

The argument that gravity is entropic dose not appeal to me. The concentration of matter consequent upon gravity would surely decrease the 'entropy'. Truth is I can find no use for entropy unless you are improving the efficiency of a steam engine.

Spupeng7,

The "gravity is entropic" argument was offered only as an example to show that the type of cause is universal and unique. As such, entropy is only our "rocket way" to deal with gravity. We can do better with EM waves in producing a differential in the rate of the time-process.

Unruh's "lesson" is in fact a partial metaphysical rendering of GR. He doesn't say why this unequable flow of time from place to place makes things to exist more (move) toward slower time. On the other hand, he reifies or makes real "time" as something already existing here and there waiting for us to measure it, i.e. he makes it a substance!

In order to abide by truth, your discourse must sit entirely either in physics or metaphysics and don't be intimidated by those who see it as still a matter of fairies and unicorns. Philosophy is too important to be left  to philosophers (Einstein) 

 Marcel,

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 06/13/2017 04:42 am
Spupeng7,

The "gravity is entropic" argument was offered only as an example to show that the type of cause is universal and unique. As such, entropy is only our "rocket way" to deal with gravity. We can do better with EM waves in producing a differential in the rate of the time-process.

Unruh's "lesson" is in fact a partial metaphysical rendering of GR. He doesn't say why this unequable flow of time from place to place makes things to exist more (move) toward slower time. On the other hand, he reifies or makes real "time" as something already existing here and there waiting for us to measure it, i.e. he makes it a substance!

In order to abide by truth, your discourse must sit entirely either in physics or metaphysics and don't be intimidated by those who see it as still a matter of fairies and unicorns. Philosophy is too important to be left  to philosophers (Einstein) 

 Marcel,

Marcel,

the concept of time lacks brevity. The term 'development' may be a better descriptor for what time does, than is 'flow'. Circumstances for an individual charge, develop at a rate relative to everything with which it is connected, ie; all other charges at separation ict.

'Time' is a name for a regular measure of that development against known rates of chemical and mechanical reaction. In my opinion, the divergence in the rate of development of time which we know as gravity causes acceleration of mass by altering the motion of electrons within the atom, extending and reducing their duration at the extremes of vertical displacement.

If inertia is a an inductive relationship with the universe, then it should act within the atom also  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/13/2017 02:02 pm
...
 I say that things have a higher probability to exist or be where the rate of time is relatively slower because they can stay there longer. This perspective consists in changing "motion", which is an observation related to us, by "existence", which is only due to the "thing" itself. This way, we may understand why the universe works the way it does without us in the picture. 



Marcel,
Einstein's way to look at this, which is still the prevalent way to look at this by most people in General Relativity, is as, beautifully and succently stated by John Wheeler:

Quote from: Wheeler
Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve.

[Wheeler's succinct summary of Einstein's theory of general relativity, in "Geons, Black Holes, and Quantum Foam" (2000), p. 235]

Please notice that matter (or energy in general, since m = E/c2) curves spacetime: matter (energy) curves both time (what you are referring to) and curves space as well.  Both space and time get warped by matter-energy.  The magnitude of matter dictates the amount of warping of time and warping of space in the vicinity of the matter.

As you get close to a matter source (whether the Sun, a Neutron star, or a black hole for example), time slows down (time gets curved) and space gets curved as well.

Both things are going on, both things (curvature of space and curvature of time) have to be taken into account when one calculates the geodesic motion of an object near the source of matter-energy (the geodesic is the "straightest" path in curved spacetime).
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/K7czr.png)(http://cr4.globalspec.com/PostImages/201106/Spacetime_Curvature1_70189939-D683-F998-125F103B12495157.jpg)(https://plus.maths.org/issue18/features/thorne/i6.gif)

Credit for last image (curvature of space, warping of time): Prof. Kip Thorne (Caltech)




Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.LeBel on 06/13/2017 02:43 pm
Spupeng7,

The "gravity is entropic" argument was offered only as an example to show that the type of cause is universal and unique. As such, entropy is only our "rocket way" to deal with gravity. We can do better with EM waves in producing a differential in the rate of the time-process.

Unruh's "lesson" is in fact a partial metaphysical rendering of GR. He doesn't say why this unequable flow of time from place to place makes things to exist more (move) toward slower time. On the other hand, he reifies or makes real "time" as something already existing here and there waiting for us to measure it, i.e. he makes it a substance!

In order to abide by truth, your discourse must sit entirely either in physics or metaphysics and don't be intimidated by those who see it as still a matter of fairies and unicorns. Philosophy is too important to be left  to philosophers (Einstein) 

 Marcel,

Marcel,

the concept of time lacks brevity. The term 'development' may be a better descriptor for what time does, than is 'flow'. Circumstances for an individual charge, develop at a rate relative to everything with which it is connected, ie; all other charges at separation ict.

'Time' is a name for a regular measure of that development against known rates of chemical and mechanical reaction. In my opinion, the divergence in the rate of development of time which we know as gravity causes acceleration of mass by altering the motion of electrons within the atom, extending and reducing their duration at the extremes of vertical displacement.

If inertia is a an inductive relationship with the universe, then it should act within the atom also  :)

--- First, let`s not do what philosophers do; invent a new word when there is already a good one that does the job. I call it the “time-process” in order to differentiate it from all other matter of meaning associated with the word “time”.

Second, this time-process and its variations make the whole universe. So, it is not surprising to find out we already had a name for it in one form or another. Time is a substance, not an experience, so we do not perceive time directly. We deduce it from motion and change.

Third, electricity and magnetism are variations of the time-process.

Fourth, the simple rule of logic that drives the universe is the cause which tells where things to exist; toward a place (gravity), away from a place (anti-gravity) or stay (structures, atoms, galaxies etc.). The only way time can logically affect a clock is if they are both operational i.e. they are of the same nature/substance or, the clock is also made of time!

Fifth,   inertia is a higher probability of existence in one direction resulting from the associated differential in the rate of the time-process i.e. the associated wave (pilot wave).   

The question is this. We have on one hand electricity, magnetism and electro-magnetism which we control and on the other hand we have the time-process which we don’t understand, but that makes everything and that is what we must control in order to get things going.  How do we connect the dots? The time-process/causal structure of the photon with its classic electromagnetic representation is the Rosetta Stone for achieving this translation. Meaning, what forms of the time-process makes electricity and magnetism.

Marcel,
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.LeBel on 06/13/2017 06:39 pm
...
 I say that things have a higher probability to exist or be where the rate of time is relatively slower because they can stay there longer. This perspective consists in changing "motion", which is an observation related to us, by "existence", which is only due to the "thing" itself. This way, we may understand why the universe works the way it does without us in the picture. 



Marcel,
Einstein's way to look at this, which is still the prevalent way to look at this by most people in General Relativity, is as, beautifully and succently stated by John Wheeler:

Quote from: Wheeler
Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve.

[Wheeler's succinct summary of Einstein's theory of general relativity, in "Geons, Black Holes, and Quantum Foam" (2000), p. 235]

Please notice that matter (or energy in general, since m = E/c2) curves spacetime: matter (energy) curves both time (what you are referring to) and curves space as well.  Both space and time get warped by matter-energy.  The magnitude of matter dictates the amount of warping of time and warping of space in the vicinity of the matter.

As you get close to a matter source (whether the Sun, a Neutron star, or a black hole for example), time slows down (time gets curved) and space gets curved as well.

Both things are going on, both things (curvature of space and curvature of time) have to be taken into account when one calculates the geodesic motion of an object near the source of matter-energy (the geodesic is the "straightest" path in curved spacetime).
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/K7czr.png)(http://cr4.globalspec.com/PostImages/201106/Spacetime_Curvature1_70189939-D683-F998-125F103B12495157.jpg)(https://plus.maths.org/issue18/features/thorne/i6.gif)

Credit for last image (curvature of space, warping of time): Prof. Kip Thorne (Caltech)

Thank you Dr Rodal for the nice and well illustrated expression of our present state of knowledge. As physics is concerned, I agree with it.

At the frontier between knowledge and ignorance, great men and women recognize being there by using philosophy or poetry to express the still unknown before them.

Space doesn’t really exist because it is a representation in one moment (drawing, illustrations etc.) of points that are not at the same moment (spacetime) except in our minds. The Earth-Moon “distance” is approximately 1 light second. No two points of this “distance” are at the same moment, or else light would not take any time to travel the distance.  We may use kilometers (or geodesics) for convenience but it doesn’t make space real. “Space” is a dimension of consciousness, not a dimension of the universe. So, we may forget the poetics of “curving space” or “this telling that” what to do.

In conclusion, “space” is a necessary tool for representing concepts of physical knowledge but it plays no part in the universe since it doesn’t exist. IMO, we should replace the “false cause” for motion as “curvature” or “geodesics” by the true and logical cause for motion, a higher probability of existence due to a differential in the rate of time. I don’t dispute any of the representations used in physics. Here, I only want to remind us to carefully remove our own observer contributions from our knowledge before we say that the universe is this or that.

 Marcel,
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 06/13/2017 07:12 pm
....

Einstein's way to look at this, which is still the prevalent way to look at this by most people in General Relativity, is as, beautifully and succently stated by John Wheeler:

Quote from: Wheeler
Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve.

[Wheeler's succinct summary of Einstein's theory of general relativity, in "Geons, Black Holes, and Quantum Foam" (2000), p. 235]

Please notice that matter (or energy in general, since m = E/c2) curves spacetime: matter (energy) curves both time (what you are referring to) and curves space as well.  Both space and time get warped by matter-energy.  The magnitude of matter dictates the amount of warping of time and warping of space in the vicinity of the matter.

As you get close to a matter source (whether the Sun, a Neutron star, or a black hole for example), time slows down (time gets curved) and space gets curved as well.

Both things are going on, both things (curvature of space and curvature of time) have to be taken into account when one calculates the geodesic motion of an object near the source of matter-energy (the geodesic is the "straightest" path in curved spacetime).

Dr. Rodal,

I have long felt that Wheeler's choice of phrasing in the above quote, was unfortunate. Out of the context of the greater discussion.., of GR itself.., it lends itself to a misunderstanding, which it seems you (subtlety) clean up in your later explanation.

I believe it would have been more accurate had Wheeler phrased that as, "Spacetime describes how matter moves; matter tells Spacetime how to curve." Out of the greater context that first portion of the quote, "Spacetime tells matter how to move;..." implies both, that Spacetime has some independent substance of its own and that describing how objects interact gravitationally, is the cause of gravitation... at least in many lay oriented discussions, and even some not so lay...

GR and thus Spacetime in the context of GR, is a geometric description of how massive objects interact due to gravitation. We could say that the presence of matter is the cause of gravity, because that is observable, and still not know what the underlying mechanism is. IOW Spacetime curvature is descriptive not causative and the presence of matter is at least a component of the underlying mechanism, that remains unknown.

The curvature of both space and time are descriptive of observable changes, in the way objects move and the rate of change, relative to an object's location in or motion through a gravity well. That is not the same as saying that curvature, another way of describing a location within a gravity well or perhaps the location specific effect of a gravity well on an object, is the cause of either.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.LeBel on 06/13/2017 07:31 pm

In summary, keep "space" for what it is, just a tool. But don’t let “space” play any part in the working of the universe because it doesn’t exist. This means removing “space” from any explanatory or causality schemes.

Marcel,
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/13/2017 07:36 pm
...

Dr. Rodal,

I have long felt that Wheeler's choice of phrasing in the above quote, was unfortunate. Out of the context of the greater discussion.., of GR itself.., it lends itself to a misunderstanding, which it seems you (subtlety) clean up in your later explanation.

I believe it would have been more accurate had Wheeler phrased that as, "Spacetime describes how matter moves; matter tells Spacetime how to curve." Out of the greater context that first portion of the quote, "Spacetime tells matter how to move;..." implies both, that Spacetime has some independent substance of its own and that describing how objects interact gravitationally, is the cause of gravitation... at least in many lay oriented discussions, and even some not so lay...

...
Wheeler wrote that

Quote from: Wheeler
Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve

Referring to the General Relativity's field equation:

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/7da0def1c2c8d85120b36307ccbab4ee5a4766bf)

To understand what Wheeler means by "Spacetime tells matter how to move" one has to set the source terms on the right hand side to zero, so that all you have left are the Ricci curvature tensor, the curvature scalar, and the cosmological constant.

Einstein's field equations admit dynamic solutions of the field equations even with no source: without any matter whatsoever in spacetime to be responsible for the spacetime disturbance.

These solutions are gravitational waves.  (Of course, the majority of gravitational waves are supposed to be due to matter sources, and certainly the gravitational waves that have been measured have been due to massive black hole collisions, but it is theoretically tenable in GR to have gravitational wave disturbances that are not due to matter sources.) Theoretically (this has not been experimentally proven of course), gravitational waves can occur in spacetime without being due to a matter source.

In any case, certainly gravitational waves transport energy through space empty of matter.


Now, envision gravitational wave disturbances in spacetime (traveling in space empty of matter, such that it is not relevant whether these gravitational waves were sourced by matter or not, what matters is that they transport energy in empty space), and suddenly a body with matter m travels in the path of such gravitational wave.  In such a case, spacetime (the gravitational wave) will tell matter how to move (albeit usually infinitesimally since such gravitational waves in empty space have small amplitude).  This fulfills Wheeler's statement, which I share (as well as being shared by much more important people  ;) like Leonard Susskind and many others).

Now, I do know that you may prefer to adopt a Machian viewpoint: under a Machian viewpoint any gravitational wave can only occur if it is due to matter (as in Hoyle Narlikar's theory for example).  Under a Machian viewpoint, without matter there is no spacetime.   

But even under a Machian viewpoint, where the gravitational wave originated due to a matter source (for example black hole collision), when the gravitational wave encounters a body with mass m, the gravitational wave will tell the body how to move (actually it will produce a small strain on the body), thus fulfilling Wheeler's statement, since the gravitational wave is just a disturbance in spacetime.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star One on 06/13/2017 08:26 pm
This could be relevant here.

Cosmology at at Crossroads: Tension with the Hubble Constant

Quote
We are at an interesting juncture in cosmology. With new methods and technology, the accuracy in measurement of the Hubble constant has vastly improved, but a recent tension has arisen that is either signaling new physics or as-yet unrecognized uncertainties.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.02739
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 06/14/2017 12:25 am
...

Dr. Rodal,

I have long felt that Wheeler's choice of phrasing in the above quote, was unfortunate. Out of the context of the greater discussion.., of GR itself.., it lends itself to a misunderstanding, which it seems you (subtlety) clean up in your later explanation.

I believe it would have been more accurate had Wheeler phrased that as, "Spacetime describes how matter moves; matter tells Spacetime how to curve." Out of the greater context that first portion of the quote, "Spacetime tells matter how to move;..." implies both, that Spacetime has some independent substance of its own and that describing how objects interact gravitationally, is the cause of gravitation... at least in many lay oriented discussions, and even some not so lay...

...
Wheeler wrote that

Quote from: Wheeler
Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve

Referring to the General Relativity's field equation:

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/7da0def1c2c8d85120b36307ccbab4ee5a4766bf)

To understand what Wheeler means by "Spacetime tells matter how to move" one has to set the source terms on the right hand side to zero, so that all you have left are the Ricci curvature tensor, the curvature scalar, and the cosmological constant.

Einstein's field equations admit dynamic solutions of the field equations even with no source: without any matter whatsoever in spacetime to be responsible for the spacetime disturbance.

These solutions are gravitational waves.  (Of course, the majority of gravitational waves are supposed to be due to matter sources, and certainly the gravitational waves that have been measured have been due to massive black hole collisions, but it is theoretically tenable in GR to have gravitational wave disturbances that are not due to matter sources.) Theoretically (this has not been experimentally proven of course), gravitational waves can occur in spacetime without being due to a matter source.

In any case, certainly gravitational waves transport energy through space empty of matter.


Now, envision gravitational wave disturbances in spacetime (traveling in space empty of matter, such that it is not relevant whether these gravitational waves were sourced by matter or not, what matters is that they transport energy in empty space), and suddenly a body with matter m travels in the path of such gravitational wave.  In such a case, spacetime (the gravitational wave) will tell matter how to move (albeit usually infinitesimally since such gravitational waves in empty space have small amplitude).  This fulfills Wheeler's statement, which I share (as well as being shared by much more important people  ;) like Leonard Susskind and many others).

Now, I do know that you may prefer to adopt a Machian viewpoint: under a Machian viewpoint any gravitational wave can only occur if it is due to matter (as in Hoyle Narlikar's theory for example).  Under a Machian viewpoint, without matter there is no spacetime.   

But even under a Machian viewpoint, where the gravitational wave originated due to a matter source (for example black hole collision), when the gravitational wave encounters a body with mass m, the gravitational wave will tell the body how to move (actually it will produce a small strain on the body), thus fulfilling Wheeler's statement, since the gravitational wave is just a disturbance in spacetime.

".... since the gravitational wave is just a disturbance in spacetime.

My point was that instead of the above in bold, it would be better to say, (my words) "since a gravitational wave is described by Spacetime." And yes both a gravitational field and gravitional waves, exist and/or propagate through space empty of matter, without respect to their fundamental source.

I did not start out there but I do tend toward a more (loosely) Machian view of late, but that really is not a significant issue. What I would contend is that whether a gravitational field (or wave) is or can originate from the presence of a massive source or in the absence of a massive component, GR (and Spacetime within the context of GR) are descriptive, rather than causative. The underlying casitive mechanism remains unknown, even while our theoretical model(s) accurately describe the observable (and unobserved) dynamics. The wave itself may just be descriptive of some aspect of the fundamental mechanism.


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/14/2017 01:27 am
...

".... since the gravitational wave is just a disturbance in spacetime.

My point was that instead of the above in bold, it would be better to say, (my words) "since a gravitational wave is described by Spacetime." And yes both a gravitational field and gravitional waves, exist and/or propagate through space empty of matter, without respect to their fundamental source.

I did not start out there but I do tend toward a more (loosely) Machian view of late, but that really is not a significant issue. What I would contend is that whether a gravitational field (or wave) is or can originate from the presence of a massive source or in the absence of a massive component, GR (and Spacetime within the context of GR) are descriptive, rather than causative. The underlying casitive mechanism remains unknown, even while our theoretical model(s) accurately describe the observable (and unobserved) dynamics. The wave itself may just be descriptive of some aspect of the fundamental mechanism.
In General Relativity there is energy in both sides of the equation: there is energy in the left hand side of the equation that deals with the curvature of spacetime.  Even when the left hand side of the equation is zero, when the Ricci tensor is zero, there still can be curvature in 4-dimensional spacetime because the Riemann curvature tensor can be non-zero when the Ricci tensor is zero. This is why energy conservation issues are particularly difficult in General Relativity.  The energy is not only associated with the source, but is also present in spacetime itself.  This is the reason for Wheeler's description, and that's why many physicists also like it and repeat it.   :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.LeBel on 06/14/2017 03:07 am
My second point will address this general repulsion for the fact of “substance”. This situation is exactly the same as before Galileo, when there was this sense of being at the center of the universe. Physics is also anthropocentric because of its empirical credo which only recognizes the experience of things and events as criteria for existence. Strangely, the universe has existed and evolved by itself for the past 13.7 billion years before we ever showed up to “experience it.”  The universe is not made of our experience of it. The universe is made of substance that exists without the need for our experience. In other words, the universe is impossible without a substance. The substance is the source of our experience and is what guarantees that things do not disappear outside our experience.

Granted, by definition, physics specifically studies our experience of the universe. But physics must realize the meaning of these limits and shall overcome them by understanding what it is missing, the substance that supports both his experience and the existence of the universe. Although it was originally ascribed to philosophy, the concept of substance and existence are too important to keep them separated from science. This early analytic partitioning has no place anymore and the substance has to be made part of a synthesis greater than physics. The universe is what exists and happens by itself, not what is experienced. Sure, science, physics, astronomy, cosmology etc. have done great advances in our experience of the universe. But, we can do much better than that. We can understand logically what we are actually doing, not just empirically.

Marcel,

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 06/14/2017 04:32 pm
Mode frequency change due to loops

-- advice needed (I will mention you in my Acknowledgements!) --
I have an adaptable cavity with a loop on both endplates. One of the endplates is not in contact with the cavity wall and can be moved in order to change the length. I measured the transmission (S21) with a network analyzer (I posted about this earlier). The loops have a diameter of 15 mm and a separation from the endplate of 32 mm.
(these loops are not usable for exciting frustums etc., not narrow band enough)

My problem is now: I am uncertain which modes I am seeing.
E.g., the following (cavity diam. 98 mm, length 98 mm):
Frequency
 [MHz]                Mode       F calculated [MHz]
 3617                TE112?          3546
 3251                TE211?          3344
 2948                TM011?         2779

I expect them to be mainly TE-modes, due to the exciting loops. And, since they shift with changing cavity length, p≠0 (TE_mnp).
Or do I also see an interaction with 'the other cavity'? (behind the movable endplate)
More on this project later, I first need to know what modes it are.
Thanks, Peter
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 06/14/2017 04:34 pm
Mode frequency change due to loops

-- advice needed (I will mention you in my Acknowledgements!) --
I have an adaptable cavity with a loop on both endplates. One of the endplates is not in contact with the cavity wall and can be moved in order to change the length. I measured the transmission (S21) with a network analyzer (I posted about this earlier). The loops have a diameter of 15 mm and a separation from the endplate of 32 mm.
(these loops are not usable for exciting frustums etc., not narrow band enough)

My problem is now: I am uncertain which modes I am seeing.
E.g., the following (cavity diam. 98 mm, length 98 mm):
Frequency
 [MHz]                Mode       F calculated [MHz]
 3617                TE112?          3546
 3251                TE211?          3344
 2948                TM011?         2779

I expect them to be mainly TE-modes, due to the exciting loops. And, since they shift with changing cavity length, p≠0 (TE_mnp).
Or do I also see an interaction with 'the other cavity'? (behind the movable endplate)
More on this project later, I first need to know what modes it are.
Thanks, Peter

The spectrum.
[the frequencies differ a little from one measurement to another at the same given cavity lenght, since this latter parameter is not completely reproducable).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/14/2017 06:57 pm
I was listening to the Estes Park discussions and frequency scaling comes up. What do people think is the practical limit to frequency scaling in a device? Thanks.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/14/2017 09:10 pm
...

Dr. Rodal,

I have long felt that Wheeler's choice of phrasing in the above quote, was unfortunate. Out of the context of the greater discussion.., of GR itself.., it lends itself to a misunderstanding, which it seems you (subtlety) clean up in your later explanation.

I believe it would have been more accurate had Wheeler phrased that as, "Spacetime describes how matter moves; matter tells Spacetime how to curve." Out of the greater context that first portion of the quote, "Spacetime tells matter how to move;..." implies both, that Spacetime has some independent substance of its own and that describing how objects interact gravitationally, is the cause of gravitation... at least in many lay oriented discussions, and even some not so lay...

...
Wheeler wrote that

Quote from: Wheeler
Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve

Referring to the General Relativity's field equation:

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/7da0def1c2c8d85120b36307ccbab4ee5a4766bf)

To understand what Wheeler means by "Spacetime tells matter how to move" one has to set the source terms on the right hand side to zero, so that all you have left are the Ricci curvature tensor, the curvature scalar, and the cosmological constant.

Einstein's field equations admit dynamic solutions of the field equations even with no source: without any matter whatsoever in spacetime to be responsible for the spacetime disturbance.

These solutions are gravitational waves.  (Of course, the majority of gravitational waves are supposed to be due to matter sources, and certainly the gravitational waves that have been measured have been due to massive black hole collisions, but it is theoretically tenable in GR to have gravitational wave disturbances that are not due to matter sources.) Theoretically (this has not been experimentally proven of course), gravitational waves can occur in spacetime without being due to a matter source.

In any case, certainly gravitational waves transport energy through space empty of matter.


Now, envision gravitational wave disturbances in spacetime (traveling in space empty of matter, such that it is not relevant whether these gravitational waves were sourced by matter or not, what matters is that they transport energy in empty space), and suddenly a body with matter m travels in the path of such gravitational wave.  In such a case, spacetime (the gravitational wave) will tell matter how to move (albeit usually infinitesimally since such gravitational waves in empty space have small amplitude).  This fulfills Wheeler's statement, which I share (as well as being shared by much more important people  ;) like Leonard Susskind and many others).

Now, I do know that you may prefer to adopt a Machian viewpoint: under a Machian viewpoint any gravitational wave can only occur if it is due to matter (as in Hoyle Narlikar's theory for example).  Under a Machian viewpoint, without matter there is no spacetime.   

But even under a Machian viewpoint, where the gravitational wave originated due to a matter source (for example black hole collision), when the gravitational wave encounters a body with mass m, the gravitational wave will tell the body how to move (actually it will produce a small strain on the body), thus fulfilling Wheeler's statement, since the gravitational wave is just a disturbance in spacetime.
There is another issue that just occurred to me that makes Wheeler's statement

Quote from: Wheeler
Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve

particularly true, now that we know for a fact (from cosmological measurements) that the expansion of the universe is accelerating and that the cosmological constant is real (and so is dark energy).

Referring again to the General Relativity's field equation:

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/7da0def1c2c8d85120b36307ccbab4ee5a4766bf)

A spacetime completely free of any matter sources (Tμν=0) with a positive cosmological constant Λ>0 must always be curved , because for Tμν=0, the Ricci tensor Rμν will not vanish.

For Tμν=0, we have

Rμν - ½ R g μν  = - Λ g μν

In essence, you can think of the cosmological constant Λ as a source of energy, by bringing this Λ term to the right hand side.  That is one of the reasons is it called dark energy,  it curves space.

Thus Wheeler was right once again, considering dark energy, spacetime tells matter how to move: it tells matter to move as spacetime accelerates its expansion and carries matter with it. 

General Relativity is not just a geometric description of gravity: spacetime itself has energy (both dark energy and is capable of having gravitational waves carrying energy).  That is why Wheeler, Kip Thorne and others refer to General Relativity as "Geometrodynamics".  Spacetime without matter in General Relativity is not empty (it has gravitational waves and dark energy).   Spacetime tells matter how to move [due to dark energy and due to gravitational waves]; and matter tells spacetime how to curve as well (gravitation due to matter).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 06/14/2017 09:22 pm
...
General Relativity is not just a geometric description of gravity: spacetime itself has energy (both dark energy and is capable of having gravitational waves carrying energy).
 ...

But... dark energy does not follow from GR, if I am right. For the rest you are right, good to emphasize: GR is not just a geometric description of gravity.
[or you must take the cosmological term to be dark energy]
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/14/2017 09:25 pm
...
General Relativity is not just a geometric description of gravity: spacetime itself has energy (both dark energy and is capable of having gravitational waves carrying energy).
 ...

But... dark energy does not follow from GR, if I am right. For the rest you are right, good to emphasize: GR is not just a geometric description of gravity.
It depends on what definition of dark energy you ascribe to.  Prof. Leonard Susskind and others conceive of dark energy as just the cosmological constant.  According to this view, it is easy to see my argument above, as a non-zero lambda  curves space and tells matter how to move (it carries matter with it as spacetime expands).(http://wwwcdn.skyandtelescope.com/wp-content/uploads/darkenergy-500px1.jpg)



However, others, for example those suscribing to the Chameleon field, propose this field, and hence a 5th force field as the nature of dark energy.  (See http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/is-dark-energy-a-chameleon-0824201523/ ).

There is no definite experimental confirmation yet as to which view is correct.  Prof. Leonard Susskind (last time I heard him give a lecture) expressed the firm opinion about the cosmological constant viewpoint.  Of course an outstanding problem to be explained is that quantum field theories predict a huge cosmological constant, more than 100 orders of magnitude too large.  But that is a problem with quantum theory, not a problem with General Relativity.  People in General Relativity and Cosmology take the experimental value of the cosmological constant as an experimental fact in Cosmology and the calculation problem with quantum mechanics as something that will only be resolved once there is an acceptable theory of quantum gravity.  So, this view takes the cosmological constant as an experimental fact.  After all the nature of the Gravitation constant G, is also taken as an experimental fact of nature, and there is still no definite explanation as to the size of G.

When I was last week at the NIAC Orientation meeting at NASA Washington DC, I found this project most fascinating:

https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2017_Phase_I_Phase_II/Dark_energy_interactions_solar_system_laboratory

I talked to Dr. Nan Yu (https://scienceandtechnology.jpl.nasa.gov/people/n_yu) , from NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory.  His proposal is fascinating, very impressive, as it would provide experimental confirmation as to whether dark energy is not just the cosmological constant but whether it is a separate field.  One of the ways it would verify this experimentally is by placing spaceship(s) at the saddle gravitational point between the Moon, the Earth (and the Sun), that lies between the Moon and the Earth, and conduct experiments (with lasers) with screened atomic particles inside a shielded container and with unscreened atomic particles outside the spaceship in free space.

(http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/niac2017_phase_i_nan_yu.jpg)


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 06/15/2017 03:10 am

from Reply #242,

Space doesn’t really exist because it is a representation in one moment (drawing, illustrations etc.) of points that are not at the same moment (spacetime) except in our minds. The Earth-Moon “distance” is approximately 1 light second. No two points of this “distance” are at the same moment, or else light would not take any time to travel the distance.  We may use kilometers (or geodesics) for convenience but it doesn’t make space real. “Space” is a dimension of consciousness, not a dimension of the universe. So, we may forget the poetics of “curving space” or “this telling that” what to do.

(...)
from Reply #244,

In summary, keep "space" for what it is, just a tool. But don’t let “space” play any part in the working of the universe because it doesn’t exist. This means removing “space” from any explanatory or causality schemes.

(...)

from Reply #249,

My second point will address this general repulsion for the fact of “substance”. This situation is exactly the same as before Galileo, when there was this sense of being at the center of the universe. Physics is also anthropocentric because of its empirical credo which only recognizes the experience of things and events as criteria for existence. Strangely, the universe has existed and evolved by itself for the past 13.7 billion years before we ever showed up to “experience it.”  The universe is not made of our experience of it. The universe is made of substance that exists without the need for our experience. In other words, the universe is impossible without a substance. The substance is the source of our experience and is what guarantees that things do not disappear outside our experience.

Granted, by definition, physics specifically studies our experience of the universe. But physics must realize the meaning of these limits and shall overcome them by understanding what it is missing, the substance that supports both his experience and the existence of the universe. Although it was originally ascribed to philosophy, the concept of substance and existence are too important to keep them separated from science. This early analytic partitioning has no place anymore and the substance has to be made part of a synthesis greater than physics. The universe is what exists and happens by itself, not what is experienced. Sure, science, physics, astronomy, cosmology etc. have done great advances in our experience of the universe. But, we can do much better than that. We can understand logically what we are actually doing, not just empirically.

(...)

Marcel,

Good points in a fabulous discussion (pinching self to believe that I am a part of this) but...

to state that space does not exist, is such an immense leap of logic that it will not be logical at all to the unconvinced. Can we agree that human perception, the empirical experience, is valid yet incomplete within strict physical reality. If we accept GR then we owe it to the discussion to understand it. If we believe in a Machian universe it may help to agree that the vacuum is empty of anything other than charges.

Maybe we need a method of declaring our standpoints, so that we may defend them in a more transparent manner. I am a Machian, I don't believe in photons, I think that charge interactions explain inertia, gravity and electromagnetic action by coincidence of location in complex time. This allows me to interpret polarization and fringe effects as alignments through the dilations of spacetime that exist in the path that a photon would take if it had extension in time from any other than a single remote point perspective with an undefinable stationary location.

No, I do not expect anyone else to jump on board this twisted set of beliefs but I pursue them because they are the only ones that make any sense to me. Space exists in human perception and cannot be removed without destruction of our own argument. If energy conservation within GR is so complex then maybe there exists an explanation for emdrive thrust within GR but if that is not the case, we must explore every other logically feasible reality to make sense of it, in preference to throwing the baby out with the bathwater...

Well done everyone, all this is valid debate. jmn..
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.LeBel on 06/15/2017 04:36 am
Thanks JMM (spupeng7)

Allow me to repeat myself. The universe is logical and works according to logic. This fact requires that it be made of only one type of “stuff” or substance in order to work or be “operational” under logic. This means that the magnetic field, the electric field (and charges), the EM fields and Time are all various forms of this single substance. This is why I said earlier that in order for time to affect a clock, they both must be logically operational i.e. they must be of the same nature or same stuff i.e. the clock is made of time.

This is essentially why logic based mathematics are so efficient in describing natural processes (Wigner 1963). Up to now we didn’t need to know what the identity of the stuff is because it is all the same everywhere in various forms. Numbers, not identity mattered. But when our computations extend to the whole universe, we need to know what the stuff (substance) is because we are missing a lot of it i.e. dark energy, dark matter. We now need to know the identity of that stuff so that we can factor it into our computations

Marcel,
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 06/15/2017 05:47 am
Thanks JMM (spupeng7)

Allow me to repeat myself. The universe is logical and works according to logic. This fact requires that it be made of only one type of “stuff” or substance in order to work or be “operational” under logic. This means that the magnetic field, the electric field (and charges), the EM fields and Time are all various forms of this single substance. This is why I said earlier that in order for time to affect a clock, they both must be logically operational i.e. they must be of the same nature or same stuff i.e. the clock is made of time.

This is essentially why logic based mathematics are so efficient in describing natural processes (Wigner 1963). Up to now we didn’t need to know what the identity of the stuff is because it is all the same everywhere in various forms. Numbers, not identity mattered. But when our computations extend to the whole universe, we need to know what the stuff (substance) is because we are missing a lot of it i.e. dark energy, dark matter. We now need to know the identity of that stuff so that we can factor it into our computations

Marcel,

My 2 cents...

I appreciate the desire to insist that the universe be logical and things work according to logic. IMO however, statements like "the clock is made of time" or "in order for time to affect a clock", are highly illogical to me. The very notion that spacetime is more than a mathematical convenience, seems to me to be absurd.

Let's try to find some common ground, based on logic. As a scientific community, we have a perfectly good quantum field theory (QFT) referred to as; The Standard Model of Particle Physics. It describes what makes up all observable matter and energy in the Universe, i.e., Quantum Fields, not classical particles and waves.

Is this acceptable?

With this in mind, I offer you to choose anything by which to measure space and time. In other words; Choose your ruler and your clock.

I guarantee that whatever you choose, it can be tediously described by the Standard Model, or more simply by the macroscopic, classical approximation to it. It doesn't matter if you choose a wooden ruler or a laser beam, it's all the same. All Rulers and clocks are made of quantum fields and may be described by the QFT.

Logically, Space is what we measure with our ruler and Time is what we measure with our clock. There is no other choice. Therefore, variations in spacetime (i.e. curvature, waves, etc.) are variations in the quantum fields that Set The Scale of our Rulers and Clocks.

In my own theory, the interaction between quantum fields leads to power dissipation, which affects the scale of our instruments. The more densely packed the matter and energy becomes, the more dissipation there will be and this causes rulers to contract and oscillators (clocks) to slow down.

There is no need to quantize gravity. It is simply the natural evolution of the SM. I think, what is missing from GR is the notion that matter and vacuum are in equilibrium. Quantum fields are not billiard balls in an empty box. It is a dynamical system where the quantum vacuum and the matter fields are constantly exchanging photons, electrons, gluons and quarks, in equilibrium. (Power Radiated = Power Absorbed) When the power is not in a long term equilibrium state, we have gravitational drift (acceleration).

Todd
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 06/15/2017 02:50 pm
An improved method to perform EmDrive experiments

Dear NSF members,
I think to have developed an alternative method to perform measurements with EmDrives on torsion balances and weighing scales. I found it to be possible to supply microwave signals contactless to these devices. This has te following advantages:

– The heat generation on the measurement device will be one to even two orders of magnitude smaller;
– No DC currents (Lorentz forces), except for the microwave power detector,
– No need for magnetic materials (e.g., a microwave circulator) on the balance;
– A substantial reduction of the mass, by several kg’s, which improves the response time of the measurement device;
– Easier control of the frequency and power (no need for wireless control);
– No need for special amplifiers when measuring in a vacuum.

I have uploaded a technical report to Researchgate today: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317600132_An_improved_method_to_measure_microwave_induced_impulsive_forces_with_a_torsion_balance_or_weighing_scale
(also to arxiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.04999).
Yes, my real name is on it, Peter Lauwer is my pseudonym (but Peter is my second name), I had my reasons.

If you have any remarks, questions, suggestions, etc., please let me know.
I will be on holiday 17-27 June (and part of the time hiking&camping in England, so not everyday able to respond during that period).

Best regards,
Peter
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 06/15/2017 07:04 pm
….

There is another issue that just occurred to me that makes Wheeler's statement

Quote from: Wheeler
Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve

particularly true, now that we know for a fact (from cosmological measurements) that the expansion of the universe is accelerating and that the cosmological constant is real (and so is dark energy).

Referring again to the General Relativity's field equation:

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/7da0def1c2c8d85120b36307ccbab4ee5a4766bf)

A spacetime completely free of any matter sources (Tμν=0) with a positive cosmological constant Λ>0 must always be curved , because for Tμν=0, the Ricci tensor Rμν will not vanish.

For Tμν=0, we have

Rμν - ½ R g μν  = - Λ g μν

In essence, you can think of the cosmological constant Λ as a source of energy, by bringing this Λ term to the right hand side.  That is one of the reasons is it called dark energy,  it curves space.

Thus Wheeler was right once again, considering dark energy, spacetime tells matter how to move: it tells matter to move as spacetime accelerates its expansion and carries matter with it. 

General Relativity is not just a geometric description of gravity: spacetime itself has energy (both dark energy and is capable of having gravitational waves carrying energy).  That is why Wheeler, Kip Thorne and others refer to General Relativity as "Geometrodynamics".  Spacetime without matter in General Relativity is not empty (it has gravitational waves and dark energy).   Spacetime tells matter how to move [due to dark energy and due to gravitational waves]; and matter tells spacetime how to curve as well (gravitation due to matter).

Dr. Rodal,

The following portions of your above comment concern me, in that they represent assertions of certainty or fact, based on inherently theoretical conclusions and/or interpretations. And please accept that I am not challenging here whether these conclusions and/or interpretations represent reality, just that they should not be represented as having attained the status of facts.

“… now that we know for a fact (from cosmological measurements) …”

“… A spacetime completely free of any matter sources … must always be curved , …”

First, and without comment on validity of those conclusions and interpretations.., as I am sure your know, virtually all of cosmology is, or at least at present is, inherently theoretical and relies heavily on the interpretation and projection of locally defined understanding of gravitation and the propagation of light, both of which occur within an essentially flat Spacetime, to the larger context of galaxies and the universe which can only be thought of and evaluated within the variable time and spacial scales, of GR and its associated 4D Spacetime metric. What we believe to be true, even if it is true should not be referred to as having attained the status of fact, until it has been directly observe to be fact.

In the second, instance noted above, when you reference, “A spacetime completely free of any matter sources…” you stear the discussion into an area that is inherently beyond our ability to ever test and confirm the theoretical assertion and perhaps, since it is understood that a gravitational field, propagating at the speed of light, extends at least to the light horizon beyond the location of any massive object, there is and can be no space within our observable universe completely free of any matter source. The argument is based on a theoretical extension of a portion of the involved math, to a hypothetical space or Spacetime, which cannot exist within the observable universe. Again though exploring the implications this portion of your comments can and almost certainly has value, in our attempts to understand the physical reality of the universe around us, it should not be thought of even approaching the status of a fact, or that it provides a basis to assert that this interpretation of General Relativity's field equation, represents reality.., as a matter of fact.

Setting my above interpretation (comments about what may or may not be fact) aside and attempting to return to my original intent…

In your later or following comments (quoted above), you seem to equate the existence of dark energy and gravitational waves with evidence that Spacetime exists as a causative component of gravitation. In response I would assert that whether we are talking about the presence of, matter, dark energy, gravitational waves or even the quantum vacuum or vacuum energy, a ZPF etc., we are talking about things that exist or may exist in space over time, and whose dynamic interaction can be or is described by the Spacetime model. It is the distribution of matter and energy that are at least a causative component of gravitation, not the Spacetime model that describes that distribution.

Step back for a moment and imagine a room containing a clock which can be seen from anywhere in the room. The clock represents an indication of the progression of time and the length, width and height of the room establish a 4D special frame of reference. Since the room is small relative to the speed of light both with respect to time and the 4 spatial dimensions the room can be treated as defining a flat Minkowski spacetime. It is unlikely that anyone would assert that by describing the location or motion of any object inside the room as being the result of the time and spatial measurements. In effect when one asserts that Spacetime, within the context of GR, is the cause of the location of or how an object moves, they are asserting that just because the time and spatial dimensions involved are variable, endows that Spacetime with causative attributes.

My assertion has been and remains that, it is the effect of the distribution of matter and energy that affects how an object will move through a gravitational field and what the location specific potential of the gravitational field may be… And that GR and Spacetime are descriptive of just how the distribution of matter and energy affect both the location specific potential and the motion over time, of matter and perhaps even energy, due to a gravitational field. In a lay context the words, "Spacetime tells matter how to move..." seems to suggest that Spacetime itself has some physical or sudo-physical property that allows it to directly affect the path of an object through a gravitational field, it is the distribution of matter and energy, rather than a description of its distribution that affects the path of an object through a gravitational field.

I believe that when WarpTech says,


….

... The very notion that spacetime is more than a mathematical convenience, seems to me to be absurd.

….

he goes a little to far, only in his assertion that Spacetime is reduced to a mathematical convenience. I do agree that both GR and spacetime are descriptive rather than causative, but more than just convenient, they have proven to be both descriptive and predictive, useful and powerful tools.

I don't believe that most of this discussion would be important if the discussion were not open to the lay public. Though theoretical physicists of differing views may use these terms and arguments without detailed clarifications, they generally understand the differing definitions and interpretations of one another, at least to a greater extent than the lay reader. Where the discussion is being held in a open forum some greater clarity of the difference between what has been proven and what remains a matter of interpretation is more important.

You are correct when you list physicists who share the interpretation you have presented. It is not a perspective I have not shared in the past. What I would say today is that, that perspective/interpretation is one that is generally made while interpreting the world through rose colored glasses, in that the interpretations and conclusions seem limited to evaluation within the context of a modern interpretation of GR, and without care as too lay interpretations.

One further point, it seems to me that if one accepts GR and Spacetime as descriptive rather than causative it does nothing to undermine the success of GR and Spacetime. What it might do is open the way to the possibility of, if not a unification of GR and quantum mechanics, at lest the inclusion of mechanisms originating within some part of quantum mechanics, as functional components of an underlying mechanism, resulting in what we experience as gravitation. IOW as a desiptive model Spacetime could incorporate mechanisms originating as quantum phenomena, as sources of the energy component of the field equations. The equations of the quantum mechanisms do not have to lead to or even be consistent with the field equation of General Relativity, as long as the energy associated with the quantum mechanism can be incorporated.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/15/2017 08:03 pm
...

My assertion has been and remains that, it is the effect of the distribution of matter and energy that affects how an object will move through a gravitational field and what the location specific potential of the gravitational field may be… And that GR and Spacetime are descriptive of just how the distribution of matter and energy affect both the location specific potential and the motion over time, of matter and perhaps even energy, due to a gravitational field. In a lay context the words, "Spacetime tells matter how to move..." seems to suggest that Spacetime itself has some physical or sudo-physical property that allows it to directly affect the path of an object through a gravitational field, it is the distribution of matter and energy, rather than a description of its distribution that affects the path of an object through a gravitational field.

I believe that when WarpTech says,


….

... The very notion that spacetime is more than a mathematical convenience, seems to me to be absurd.

….

he goes a little to far, only in his assertion that Spacetime is reduced to a mathematical convenience. I do agree that both GR and spacetime are descriptive rather than causative, but more than just convenient, they have proven to be both descriptive and predictive, useful and powerful tools.

I don't believe that most of this discussion would be important if the discussion were not open to the lay public. Though theoretical physicists of differing views may use these terms and arguments without detailed clarifications, they generally understand the differing definitions and interpretations of one another, at least to a greater extent than the lay reader. Where the discussion is being held in a open forum some greater clarity of the difference between what has been proven and what remains a matter of interpretation is more important.

...
Since you still disagree with Wheeler's statement

Quote
Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve.

let me make one last attempt  8) at convincing you how correct Wheeler is (co-author of  -arguably- the most highly regarded textbook in General Relativity  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation_(book); and everybody would agree.. the heaviest text  :)  ).

Try to put yourself in the shoes of somebody trying to solve Einstein's field equations:

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/7da0def1c2c8d85120b36307ccbab4ee5a4766bf)

These equations contain covariant derivatives and other tensor expressions containing the spacetime metric gμν

But for a yet unsolved problem, you do not know at all what the spacetime metric gμν is.  The spacetime metric is a function of the energy-momentum.  You do not know the structure of spacetime before solving the field equation !  And this structure of spacetime may change dynamically, as a function of time, as in gravitational waves

It is therefore in principle impossible first for you to specify the spacetime distribution of matter and from this to calculate the spacetime structure.  The structure of space (curvature) and the motion of any matter in this space constitutes a dynamical system whose elements are so closely coupled with one another that they can only be solved simultaneously !.

The space is not the stage for the physical event, but rather an aspect of the interaction and motion of matter in General Relativity.
(Stephani)

It is inaccurate to assert that

Quote from: OnlyMe
"Spacetime describes how matter moves"
in General Relativity.  You cannot solve problems in General Relativity that way, because you would be ignoring the close coupling.

How do you know what is the structure of spacetime? what is the metric of spacetime? It is not a matter of description.  Spacetime itself is deformed by matter, and this curvature of spacetime is unknown ahead of solving the field equation.   

In General Relativity one is not describing something in terms of a known geometry.  The geometry itself is unknown, and this geometry has to be solved in a highly coupled nonlinear differential equation.

Think for a moment about the following fact:

The stress-energy-momentum tensor Tμν which you may regard as the source of the curvature of spacetime, itself contains the unknown spacetime metric gμν

What Wheeler is talking about when he wrote:

Quote
Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve.

is this dynamic close coupling of all terms in the GR equations:  the structure of spacetime is itself unknown prior to solving the problem.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/15/2017 08:24 pm
I think to have developed an alternative method to perform measurements with EmDrives on torsion balances and weighing scales. I found it to be possible to supply microwave signals contactless to these devices.

This would be best performed in a vacuum. Since the coupling cavity has one end-plate that is free-floating, I would bet the air inside the cavity expands - simply because the antennas will heat up - pushing on the scale or torsional pendulum, which would obscure and/or cast doubts on the results. 



Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.LeBel on 06/15/2017 08:41 pm
Todd,
A clock is not different from any other measuring instrument, like a voltmeter for example. It has to interact with or be “affected” in some way by what it measures. A clock will do so when moved up or down in a gravitational field where it is “affected” by the local rate of time where it is placed. That is logical. Otherwise, we are talking Magic.

“Logically, Space is what we measure with our ruler and Time is what we measure with our clock.” Practical, not logical.

Seriously, Todd. These are all place names; energy, mass, time, gravity, the quantum, etc. We measure and calculate them all to the highest precision but no one knows exactly what energy is, what mass is or even how gravity really works etc. We create “definitions” in order to make their meaning as “finite” as we can, but they are just restraining orders, not understanding.

Take E=MC2 for example. A magic formula? No, but it works! Although it apparently is illogical by equating different things, it is accepted as “logical” under the unspoken understanding that all these things are in fact, deep down, different forms of a single type of stuff that can operate logically on each other. Without this admission, the empiricism of physics is no different from believing in magic, and its stubbornness is akin to a dogmatic religion.

  The above equation is one of the great steps in reductionnism that science has made in the last 300 years. Logically we already know where it is going to end, only one type of stuff. But physics can’t go there because being an observer based science, the observer and its contribution will always be part of it. The “space” and “time” as defined above are true and choiceless in the observer’s reality which is its own and ultimate barrier. If we could just get out of the way for a moment, we would understand this underlying reality.

I don’t call for any change, removal of anything in physics. This is a necessary add on. Just to be conscious of the real limits of physics and to advance knowingly beyond them. And, maybe, we won’t have to sit good men and women anymore on tons of explosives to send them into space and casually expect them to return as burning meteor or crashing in Kazakhstan,...... and still think we are smart.
 
Yes, this discourse has its place with the EM drive development. Keep pounding at it!  Per aspera ad astra!

Marcel,
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 06/15/2017 08:56 pm
I think to have developed an alternative method to perform measurements with EmDrives on torsion balances and weighing scales. I found it to be possible to supply microwave signals contactless to these devices.

This would be best performed in a vacuum. Since the coupling cavity has one end-plate that is free-floating, I would bet the air inside the cavity expands - simply because the antennas will heat up - pushing on the scale or torsional pendulum, which would obscure and/or cast doubts on the results.

I have tested it on a scale, like described in the article, and found no sign of pushing. I will further test it on my torsion balance (next month). It is quite easy to test, you just put a dummy load on the balance and see whether there is any deflection if it is powered.
Also, the mantle (cavity wall) can easily be cooled with water flow.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/15/2017 09:33 pm
I have tested it on a scale, like described in the article, and found no sign of pushing. I will further test it on my torsion balance (next month). It is quite easy to test, you just put a dummy load on the balance and see whether there is any deflection if it is powered.
Also, the mantle (cavity wall) can easily be cooled with water flow.

I was able to roughly simulate your coupling cavity/waveguide. With the coax and connectors in the cavity, which are hard to quantify since I don't have exact dimensions, it won't be exact. I'm pretty sure the second image below shows TM011. I'm not sure about the first, but it looks like the two antennas are coupling better with that mode. I would need to do more setup to run a proper S21.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 06/15/2017 09:39 pm
...
What Wheeler is talking about when he wrote:

Quote
Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve.

is this dynamic close coupling of all terms in the GR equations:  the structure of spacetime is itself unknown prior to solving the problem.
One of the most enduring works in physics, with the pithy statements that convey so much, so accurately.

While the mathematics expresses this deftly, the way we express mathematics to convey it says as much about the way we represent mathematics itself. Often disagreement here is more about form than substance, because there are many that either are distracted by the form and miss the substance, or because the way they "understand" the substance puts them at odds with the form it is expressed with.

In abstract mathematics one considers numerous different ways to represent the same thing, yet some of them hold unique advantages in form, a simple example is that of operators like Hamiltonian's.

In mathematical physics, developments of consistent systems/geometries/other retain these as advantages, often to consider unifying disparate areas. Huge arguments erupt from this kind of work.

So its fine to "have issues". As long as you can work, like these above cited disciplines, in "equivalence" to the same work.

Which in the case of Wheeler is a hard act to top. It still ends up:

Quote
Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve.

Now, keep in mind, that "move" and "curve" here to an abstract mathematician or in the field of mathematical physics ... are of enormous scope and effect, non trivial.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: zen-in on 06/16/2017 06:58 am
A friend suggested the following experimental method to me when I told him about the EM drive research using torsion pendulums.   I don't know if he has done any tests with a torsion pendulum.

One way to cancel out DC biases due to heating, Lorentz forces etc. is to drive the torsion pendulum so that it oscillates with a constant amplitude.   The driving force has to be closely regulated and angular displacement data vs time would be collected.    According to my friend this is the method used by present day researchers who attempt to measure small forces with a torsion pendulum.   He worked at HP for most of his career (when it really was HP) and has always had good technical insight.   I asked him if he would like to join this forum and explain this idea but he declined.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 06/16/2017 09:31 am
A friend suggested the following experimental method to me when I told him about the EM drive research using torsion pendulums.   I don't know if he has done any tests with a torsion pendulum.

One way to cancel out DC biases due to heating, Lorentz forces etc. is to drive the torsion pendulum so that it oscillates with a constant amplitude.   The driving force has to be closely regulated and angular displacement data vs time would be collected.    According to my friend this is the method used by present day researchers who attempt to measure small forces with a torsion pendulum.   He worked at HP for most of his career (when it really was HP) and has always had good technical insight.   I asked him if he would like to join this forum and explain this idea but he declined.

This usually applies to very small torsion balances. The balances we are working with, have periods of several minutes. I don't think it is useful to operate these in oscillating mode (yes, for veééérrrryyyy small forces, like when measuring the gravitational constant, a few orders of magnitude smaller forces then we are talking about, then you usually measure in the free swinging mode).
But measuring these small forces is not the problem (mine has a threshold of the order of 0.2 micronewton), it are the disturbing influences (heat, currents) that are the problem.
So when I wrote 'Improved method to measure...' I meant the whole setup (and mainly having the disturbing components (rf amplifier etc.) outside the measurement device.
Cheers, 'Peter'
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 06/16/2017 09:32 am
I have tested it on a scale, like described in the article, and found no sign of pushing. I will further test it on my torsion balance (next month). It is quite easy to test, you just put a dummy load on the balance and see whether there is any deflection if it is powered.
Also, the mantle (cavity wall) can easily be cooled with water flow.

I was able to roughly simulate your coupling cavity/waveguide. With the coax and connectors in the cavity, which are hard to quantify since I don't have exact dimensions, it won't be exact. I'm pretty sure the second image below shows TM011. I'm not sure about the first, but it looks like the two antennas are coupling better with that mode. I would need to do more setup to run a proper S21.
Fantastic, Jamie! I will come back to this later.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Quantum Gravity on 06/16/2017 03:01 pm
All:

I ran across a paper on the unification of GRT and QM this morning
that IMO we all need to consider in regards to what is real
and what is mathematics devoid of physical content.

Best, Paul M.


On the unification of GRT and QM :

Gravity is neither a fundamental force, nor a spacetime curvature.
There are no physical, empirically detectable graviton particles,
for the same reason that there are no magneton particles
of the magnetic field. Magnetons and gravitons are at best
virtual particles only.

As we shall see below, quantum gravity and quantum antigravity
are essentially not so much different from electromagnetism.
This would explain the reason why there has not been a successful
unification
of Einsteinian gravity with electromagnetism.

Well, it is simply impossible to unify electromagnetism,
or quantum mechanics, with gravity,
when gravity is not properly understood.

   
The theoretical basis for quantum gravity
and quantum antigravity are the Minkowski’s equations :
 
https://quantumantigravity.wordpress.com/quantum-gravity/ (https://quantumantigravity.wordpress.com/quantum-gravity/)
 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/16/2017 05:40 pm
I have tested it on a scale, like described in the article, and found no sign of pushing. I will further test it on my torsion balance (next month). It is quite easy to test, you just put a dummy load on the balance and see whether there is any deflection if it is powered.
Also, the mantle (cavity wall) can easily be cooled with water flow.

I was able to roughly simulate your coupling cavity/waveguide. With the coax and connectors in the cavity, which are hard to quantify since I don't have exact dimensions, it won't be exact. I'm pretty sure the second image below shows TM011. I'm not sure about the first, but it looks like the two antennas are coupling better with that mode. I would need to do more setup to run a proper S21.
Fantastic, Jamie! I will come back to this later.

Having the RF source and main power off the test rig may solve some of my noise issues. We could simplify your coupling cavity to a rectangular waveguide with E-probe. That way only a small hole is required. And that small hole is small enough that 2.45Ghz barely leaks out. This is a simplified sim of the concept that seems to check out. In reality, the waveguide and E-probe would be located at the center of the torsional pendulum, feeding RF through the bottom to a SMA cable that leads to the frustum.  There wouldn't even be the need for battery operated power detectors as reflected power could be monitored off-rig by using a circulator before the waveguide.   
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 06/16/2017 06:12 pm
I have tested it on a scale, like described in the article, and found no sign of pushing. I will further test it on my torsion balance (next month). It is quite easy to test, you just put a dummy load on the balance and see whether there is any deflection if it is powered.
Also, the mantle (cavity wall) can easily be cooled with water flow.

I was able to roughly simulate your coupling cavity/waveguide. With the coax and connectors in the cavity, which are hard to quantify since I don't have exact dimensions, it won't be exact. I'm pretty sure the second image below shows TM011. I'm not sure about the first, but it looks like the two antennas are coupling better with that mode. I would need to do more setup to run a proper S21.
Fantastic, Jamie! I will come back to this later.

Having the RF source and main power off the test rig may solve some of my noise issues. We could simplify your coupling cavity to a rectangular waveguide with E-probe. That way only a small hole is required. And that small hole is small enough that 2.45Ghz barely leaks out. This is a simplified sim of the concept that seems to check out. In reality, the waveguide and E-probe would be located at the center of the torsional pendulum, feeding RF through the bottom to a SMA cable that leads to the frustum.  There wouldn't even be the need for battery operated power detectors as reflected power could be monitored off-rig by using a circulator before the waveguide.   

Briljant!  8)

[edit: it was a hasty reply just before I went of for holiday. I see you already mentioned this But depends a bit on how much you want the pendulum arm allow to move.
If you apply this at the center of the pendulum, disturbing (electromagnetic) forces may be less.
]
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/16/2017 09:50 pm
Guys,

Email from Roger Shawyer and Power Point presentation as received.
Please circulate as per Roger's request.

Enjoy,
Phil


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 12:04 AM
Subject: Defence Academy EmDrive presentation
To: [email protected]


Hi Phil

Thought you might like to see an edited version of an EmDrive presentation that I made in Feb this year to the UK Defence Academy at Shrivenham. Some slides describing defence applications of second and third generation EmDrive technology have been removed.

I have recently been given clearance to put this version of the presentation into the public domain, so feel free to forward this to anyone who may be interested.

Note that in slide 12, I have revealed that a representative of your RAAF was present at the Pentagon briefing.

Best regards

Roger
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/16/2017 10:19 pm
Guys,

Email from Roger Shawyer and Power Point presentation as received.
Please circulate as per Roger's request.

Enjoy,
Phil

Guys,

Interesting image in the presentation which may indicate why Prof Tajmar build the EmDrive he did?

Question is did Prof Yang build this or did Roger? From what looks like stepbacks on each end plate and the signs of high heating, it may be the 1st public image of a Prof Yang EmDrive?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/16/2017 10:40 pm
Question is did Prof Yang build this or did Roger? From what looks like stepbacks on each end plate and the signs of high heating, it may be the 1st public image of a Prof Yang EmDrive?

The way the slide is written and the image placed, it definitely looks like Prof Yang's. This would be the first public image and one I have been waiting for a long time.

I also noticed one of my renderings made it into Roger's presentation on slide 13!  ;D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Flyby on 06/16/2017 11:02 pm
Although there are some minor differences in details and dimensions, the general buildup of the device does indeed match best with Yang's first experiment.
(fe the 2 regulator screws on the wave guide)

and if it is not Yang's device, it sure bears a striking resemblance...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/16/2017 11:02 pm
Question is did Prof Yang build this or did Roger? From what looks like stepbacks on each end plate and the signs of high heating, it may be the 1st public image of a Prof Yang EmDrive?

The way the slide is written and the image placed, it definitely looks like Prof Yang's. This would be the first public image and one I have been waiting for a long time.

I also noticed one of my renderings made it into Roger's presentation on slide 13!  ;D
Shawyer should have given you and NasaSpaceFlight.com forum credit for using your image !
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/16/2017 11:05 pm
Although there are some minor differences in details and dimensions, the general buildup of the device does indeed match best with Yang's first experiment.
(fe the 2 regulator screws on the wave guide)

and if it is not Yang's device, it sure bears a striking resemblance...

Agree.

At least we probably now know why Prof Tajmar built what he did.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/17/2017 12:11 am
Should add that Roger was invited to present the PPT at the UK Defence Academy:
http://www.da.mod.uk/

Informing future UK Defence officers of that they will need to deal with in coming years?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/17/2017 01:43 am
Higher quality image of Yang's emdrive extracted from the ppt. Does it look like they tried to solder the big end-plate?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/17/2017 03:02 am
Higher quality image of Yang's emdrive extracted from the ppt. Does it look like they tried to solder the big end-plate?
I find it most fascinating how much thicker are Yang's EM Drive walls (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1433765;image) compared to the NASA and DIY builds.  If I recall correctly Minotti's scalar tensor gravitation theory (see: https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.00454 and https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.5690 ) calculates a force proportional to the wall thickness times the metal's mass density (for reasonably thin builds much thicker than the penetration depth)
(http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/2015-04-19-010043-350x274.jpg)

the Yang EM drive is more reminiscent of Shawyer's Boeing Flight Thruster heavy wall thickness construction:(http://emdrive.com/images/thruster1.jpg)


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 06/17/2017 10:00 am
I also noticed one of my renderings made it into Roger's presentation on slide 13!  ;D

Without referring to the maker?
Tjsk, tjsk, tjsk. Not so nice of Roger.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/17/2017 01:41 pm

There are no physical, empirically detectable graviton particles,
for the same reason that there are no magneton particles
of the magnetic field.
There is a particle associated with the magnetic force. It is called the photon.
Well, it is simply impossible to unify electromagnetism,
or quantum mechanics, with gravity,
when gravity is not properly understood.

As just demonstrated​, you don't understand electromagnetism up to the current level of science. Before you make suggestions about unifying forces, you should learn some more. (I would need to learn more too before I can make such suggestions too. At least beyond stating that either gravity​ or quantum will probably need to be reformulated. I don't have an educated position on gravitons.)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/17/2017 02:36 pm
I have tested it on a scale, like described in the article, and found no sign of pushing. I will further test it on my torsion balance (next month). It is quite easy to test, you just put a dummy load on the balance and see whether there is any deflection if it is powered.
Also, the mantle (cavity wall) can easily be cooled with water flow.

I was able to roughly simulate your coupling cavity/waveguide. With the coax and connectors in the cavity, which are hard to quantify since I don't have exact dimensions, it won't be exact. I'm pretty sure the second image below shows TM011. I'm not sure about the first, but it looks like the two antennas are coupling better with that mode. I would need to do more setup to run a proper S21.
Fantastic, Jamie! I will come back to this later.

Having the RF source and main power off the test rig may solve some of my noise issues. We could simplify your coupling cavity to a rectangular waveguide with E-probe. That way only a small hole is required. And that small hole is small enough that 2.45Ghz barely leaks out. This is a simplified sim of the concept that seems to check out. In reality, the waveguide and E-probe would be located at the center of the torsional pendulum, feeding RF through the bottom to a SMA cable that leads to the frustum.  There wouldn't even be the need for battery operated power detectors as reflected power could be monitored off-rig by using a circulator before the waveguide.   

Jamie:

I would steer clear of this isolated feed approach to testing the EMdrives due to the complaint that if any element of the RF source is mounted in the laboratory frame of reference, the argument can be made that any unbalanced forces developed by the frustum are just leveraged off the RF power supply and its mounts to the lab via its RF feed lines.  The only convincing way to demonstrate these EMdrives is to treat them as "free flyers" with the controls, RF source and battery flying WITH the frustum as they would in free space.  That recommendation came out of the July 2014 Eagleworks (EW) Blue Ribbon PhD panel and that was the primary reason we built the Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) and Cavendish Balance test article the way we did. 

Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/17/2017 03:01 pm
Higher quality image of Yang's emdrive extracted from the ppt. Does it look like they tried to solder the big end-plate?
I find it most fascinating how much thicker are Yang's EM Drive walls (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1433765;image) compared to the NASA and DIY builds.  If I recall correctly Minotti's scalar tensor gravitation theory (see: https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.00454 and https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.5690 ) calculates a force proportional to the wall thickness times the metal's mass density (for reasonably thin builds much thicker than the penetration depth)
(http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/2015-04-19-010043-350x274.jpg)

the Yang EM drive is more reminiscent of Shawyer's Boeing Flight Thruster heavy wall thickness construction:(http://emdrive.com/images/thruster1.jpg)


Jose':

Please note the apparent use of aluminum for the body of this maybe Chinese frustum AND its small OD end-cap, whereas the designers used a thick copper plate for the big OD end-cap of the frustum.  Looks like the designers were trying to maximize the mass differential between the ends of the frustum in hopes of maximizing the force rectification of this frustum design.  So the question now is this really Yang's 2.5kW frustum used in her initial 2013 report that produced 720 milli-Newton (mN)?  And then why did she recant these results in a follow-on report about an experiment that IMO was just thrown together with very little attention to detail if it was done at all??

Add:

BTW, Yang's 2010 and 2013 reports indicated that they made their frustum out of brass, not aluminum and copper.  This makes me wonder if this picture is just a later version of Shawyer's 3.85 GHz flight frustum for Boeing.

Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/17/2017 03:10 pm
...
Jose':

Please note the apparent use of aluminum for the body of this maybe Chinese frustum AND its small OD end-cap, whereas the designers used a thick copper plate for the big OD end-cap of the frustum.  Looks like the designers were trying to maximize the mass differential between the ends of the frustum in hopes of maximizing the force rectification of this frustum design.  So the question now is this really Yang's 2.5kW frustum used in her initial 2013 report that produced 720 milli-Newton (mN)?  And then why did she recant these results in a follow-on report about an experiment that IMO was just thrown together with very little attention to detail if it was done at all??

Add:

BTW, Yang's 2010 and 2013 reports indicated that they made their frustum out of brass, not aluminum and copper.  This makes me wonder if this picture is just a later version of Shawyer's 3.85 GHz flight frustum for Boeing.

Best, Paul M.
Thanks Paul.  Excellent points.  Thank you for pointing out the thick copper plate for the big OD end-cap, a different metal than used for the rest of the construction.  Also the inconsistency between this photograph and and the statements in Yang's 2010 and 2013 reports about the frustum being made of brass.

We have:

* designer(s) used much thicker walls and end plates that NASA and DIY builds (this would enhance force according to Minotti's gravitational theory)

* designer(s) made the big end of a different material: apparently copper.  Thereby increasing the mass density by a factor of 3.3 times and the conductivity of the big end by a factor of 1.7 times.

metal   density (g/cm3)   Conductivity σ (S/m) at20 °C

aluminum   2.70                                           3.50×107
copper        8.96                                          5.96×107


(density of copper)/(density of aluminum): 3.32

(conductivity of copper)/(conductivity of aluminum): 1.70
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Augmentor on 06/17/2017 03:51 pm
Quote from: Quantum Gravity on 06/16/2017 03:01 PM
Well, it is simply impossible to unify electromagnetism,
or quantum mechanics, with gravity,
when gravity is not properly understood.


My distinguished Quantum Gravity,

LOL...none of the above is fully understood either. We barely can explain 5% of the universe so apparently we have a long ways to go.

Impossible? No. Improbable. Yes. (ref. Holmes Law)

Invoking Clarke's First Law: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.


We are discussing emDrive producing a change in momentum. Where's inertia? Inertia is not understood. The assumption that gravity is "equivalent" to inertia keeps one from understanding the universe. Where are the closely coupled equations for gravity and inertia, especially in view of entanglement.

Is inertia equivalent to gravity? Equivalence has a limit. Keep in mind that equivalence works in gedanken where one is free to think anything. One has to look at Mach theory and perhaps other theories to understand Inertia.

Instead of Maxwell's unbalanced EM equations, try using the Dirac version where the inclusion of the magnetic monopole is what permits quantum mechanics to stand on a solid foundation even if philosophically different from well proven relativistic theory.

Some scientists suggest a 5th force, magnetism, separate from the EM type. And there may be more forces that cannot be explained nor fit.

Did you like Gravitation and Inertia (Cuifolini and Wheeler, 1995 pp. 498)

For QG, do you prefer the QG version of Susskind or of Smolin?

David M
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/17/2017 04:03 pm
...
Jose':

Please note the apparent use of aluminum for the body of this maybe Chinese frustum AND its small OD end-cap, whereas the designers used a thick copper plate for the big OD end-cap of the frustum.  Looks like the designers were trying to maximize the mass differential between the ends of the frustum in hopes of maximizing the force rectification of this frustum design.  So the question now is this really Yang's 2.5kW frustum used in her initial 2013 report that produced 720 milli-Newton (mN)?  And then why did she recant these results in a follow-on report about an experiment that IMO was just thrown together with very little attention to detail if it was done at all??

Add:

BTW, Yang's 2010 and 2013 reports indicated that they made their frustum out of brass, not aluminum and copper.  This makes me wonder if this picture is just a later version of Shawyer's 3.85 GHz flight frustum for Boeing.

Best, Paul M.
Thanks Paul.  Excellent points.  Thank you for pointing out the thick copper plate for the big OD end-cap, a different metal than used for the rest of the construction.  Also the inconsistency between this photograph and and the statements in Yang's 2010 and 2013 reports about the frustum being made of brass.

Jose':

Reflecting further on this picture from the Wilson / Shawyer, the size of the wave guide indicates that this frustum was designed for 2.45 GHz not 3.85 GHz, and looking back at Shawyer's presentation that Phil supplied us, see below excerpt from page 12, I'm now going back to thinking that this may be Yang's actual test article that produced the documented 720 mN. 

"Fear.  China and the US take an interest.

Following the 2006 New Scientist article, NWPU in China started work on EmDrive

In April 2010 NWPU revealed that they had measured 720mN of thrust for 2.5kW input

In 2012 NWPU published their first peer reviewed paper"

Now the question becomes why did not Shawyer use a thick copper end-cap on the large OD end-cap on his 3.85 GHz flight test article?  Too much mass??

BTW, I'm appending a 2.45 GHz frustum design created by Jerry Vera before he left the EW lab and NASA in 2015 that shows the internal workings of this kind of 2.45 GHz frustum wave-guide system.

Best,
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 06/17/2017 08:08 pm
I think to have developed an alternative method to perform measurements with EmDrives on torsion balances and weighing scales. I found it to be possible to supply microwave signals contactless to these devices.

This would be best performed in a vacuum. Since the coupling cavity has one end-plate that is free-floating, I would bet the air inside the cavity expands - simply because the antennas will heat up - pushing on the scale or torsional pendulum, which would obscure and/or cast doubts on the results.

I have tested it on a scale, like described in the article, and found no sign of pushing. I will further test it on my torsion balance (next month). It is quite easy to test, you just put a dummy load on the balance and see whether there is any deflection if it is powered.
Also, the mantle (cavity wall) can easily be cooled with water flow.

I think your trying to transfer energy from one antenna in the cavity to another.  The other antenna is free to move in the cavity and connected to the EM Drive?  This allows for contactless transfer of energy to the EM Drive? 

One problem may be if the 2nd-ary antenna is free to move, and resides in a part of the cavity where a magnetic field exists, then by nature the antenna will be repelled by the changing magnetic field.  Only when the antenna resides between two changing magnetic fields B-min (E-max) will it not experience any push.  If the EM drive does experience a thrust it may push it into a changing magnetic field, which will push back reducing the magnitude of displacement.  For very small displacements it may be negligible, so practical. 

I'm not quite sure I fully understand your configuration but am making a guess at what it appears to be. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 06/17/2017 08:46 pm
I thought I had suggested this before but in light, I am bringing it up again.  The image I will attach as a method of testing the EM Drive. 

"EMDrive mu-shield resonance.png"

It works by using the resonance of a pendulum to maximize the displacement for small impulses.  Low damping is desirable to maximize displacement at small impulse.  A one direction impulse has the effect of offsetting the swing a bit but it won't do much.  This is for small displacements of a pendulum but that is all that will be needed. 

The mu-metal shielding is supposed to isolate the EM drive from outside Electric/magnetic interference and keep the EM drive from attracting it self to the mu-metal container.  One box can swing the other is stationary. 

Sensitive equipment detects any osculation of the pendulum. 

The equation I used to predict the maximum displacement of the pendulum is also attached below as, "EMDrive mu-shield resonance function.png"  The symbol meanings are discussed in the green highlighted text. 

The blue line is a pendulum released at an offset where the force is out of phase so the force slows it down.  After some time the pendulum reverses direction and the applied force is now storing energy in the pendulum.  The green line is the applied force (small force).  The red osculation is the maximum amplitude the pendulum will reach.  Notice the force is only in one direction, or is positive. 

The maximum amplitude is given approximately in the green text as Edited:A_max = A/(2*c*w) where c is the damping constant, if I remember correct (w) is the resonant frequency, A should be a force and A/(2*c*w) = displacement = A_max or amplitude.  Large forces and low damping constants and frequencies desirable, it appears, to maximize displacement. 

The damping constant (c) can be found by c=A_force/(A_max*w), applying some known force to the pendulum at its resonant frequency and observing the maximum displacement, plug in values.  If I am correct it can be simplified to c=1/(2*w) sorry this would be incorrect

The solution is for a sinusoidal applied force, in the form of the green line plot I believe is A/2*sin(sqrt(k/m)*t)+A/2 which came from the solution for: ode2(m*diff(y(t),t,2)+c*diff(y(t),t,1)+k*y(t)=A/2*sin(sqrt(k/m)*t)+A/2, y(t), t);. 

The entire apparatus itself could be damped so as to prevent impulses from outside.  Maybe sitting on rubber stoppers or something of the like. 

It's been a while since I looked back at this.

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1431993;image)
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1431995;image)

I thought I would add this in as a way of detecting small deflections in angle.  See attached graphic file. 
Edited graphic to display correct equation for change in angle.  Sorry for multiple changes.  Should be correct now. 

 using 30 reflections and the equation for dh  and dl or change in position of the pendulum we can get an amplification factor dh/dl pluging this in to wXmaxima :
t1: atan(z/(n*2*L));
dl: 0.000001;
L: 1;
z: 1;
n:30;
"dh/dl"=L*(tan(t1)+2*tan(t1+2*atan(dl/z))+2*tan(t1+3*atan(dl/z))+...   ...+tan(t1+31*atan(dl/z))-z)/dl;
"dh/dl"=959.267
 959.267*0.000001 = 9.59267*10^-4 change in height or about 1mm if using SI units
 50 cycles gives a sensitivity of about 0.000001m*2600 dl/dh = 0.00259m~2.6mm

It may be better to use an interferometer which has a little better sensitivity depending on the wavelength of the light.  The dual mirror might come close to visible light if I increase the number of reflections.
 There is also an interferometer that uses multiple reflections to increase its sensitivity orders of magnitude which might be worth while.

 Increasing the Sensitivity of the Michelson Interferometer through Multiple Reflection
W Youn - 2015 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=3226451701232513783&hl=en&as_sdt=0,26)


(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1432358;image)

I did some more work in combining the amplification of resonant force on a pendulum and the amplification of displacement via a laser reflected off a pendulum multiple times. 

The ratio of displacement of the laser beam over a displacement of the pendulum give a multiplication factor showing an increased sensitivity for observation.  The equation was simplified a bit to the attached image below as "dh-dl.png.  z = height beam travels after many reflections, r = number of cycles the laser makes in returning to its originating mirror, dl = the physical displacement of the bottom of the pendulum, L = distance of pendulum mirror from wall mirror, t1 = initial upward angle of laser = atan(z/(r*2*L))

For 100 cycles of the laser up two parallel mirrors, counted by adjusting the angle of the laser from 1 reflection cycle to 100, we have a dh/dl amplification of displacement of the pendulum about 10200 times amplification. 

a displacement of the pendulum bottom of 0.000001m would cause a deflection of the laser of about 1.02cm. 

Combining this with the pendulum amplification of force to cause displacement "displacement_max"=A/(2*c*w) where A is force, c is pendulum damping constant, and "w" is resonant frequency*2*pi in radians.  Assuming maximum resolvable laser beam displacemnet is 0.002m or 2mm = "displacement_max", c=0.01, w=0.5 this gives us a force sensitivity of about :

(0.002)=10200*A/(2*c*w) solving --> A=0.002*2*c*w/10200 ~ 1.96E-9 newtons using si units +- multiples of this force.

Hopefully no glaring errors here. 

The device may possibly be incorporated into a vacuum and in air the resonant behavior should eliminate thermal thrust.  Mu-Metal shielding should eliminate EM interference from outside/inside sources. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 06/17/2017 09:44 pm

Jose':

Please note the apparent use of aluminum for the body of this maybe Chinese frustum AND its small OD end-cap, whereas the designers used a thick copper plate for the big OD end-cap of the frustum.  Looks like the designers were trying to maximize the mass differential between the ends of the frustum in hopes of maximizing the force rectification of this frustum design.  So the question now is this really Yang's 2.5kW frustum used in her initial 2013 report that produced 720 milli-Newton (mN)?  And then why did she recant these results in a follow-on report about an experiment that IMO was just thrown together with very little attention to detail if it was done at all??

It is more like a silver coated article than an aluminum one. If Yang made her article with brass, it makes sense to coat it with silver for lower surface electrical resistance. Look at the black residues on it. It might be silver sulfide that we often see on silverware.

Quote

Add:

BTW, Yang's 2010 and 2013 reports indicated that they made their frustum out of brass, not aluminum and copper.  This makes me wonder if this picture is just a later version of Shawyer's 3.85 GHz flight frustum for Boeing.

Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/17/2017 09:59 pm
...
Jose':

Please note the apparent use of aluminum for the body of this maybe Chinese frustum AND its small OD end-cap, whereas the designers used a thick copper plate for the big OD end-cap of the frustum.  Looks like the designers were trying to maximize the mass differential between the ends of the frustum in hopes of maximizing the force rectification of this frustum design.  So the question now is this really Yang's 2.5kW frustum used in her initial 2013 report that produced 720 milli-Newton (mN)?  And then why did she recant these results in a follow-on report about an experiment that IMO was just thrown together with very little attention to detail if it was done at all??

Add:

BTW, Yang's 2010 and 2013 reports indicated that they made their frustum out of brass, not aluminum and copper.  This makes me wonder if this picture is just a later version of Shawyer's 3.85 GHz flight frustum for Boeing.

Best, Paul M.
Thanks Paul.  Excellent points.  Thank you for pointing out the thick copper plate for the big OD end-cap, a different metal than used for the rest of the construction.  Also the inconsistency between this photograph and and the statements in Yang's 2010 and 2013 reports about the frustum being made of brass.

Jose':

Reflecting further on this picture from the Wilson / Shawyer, the size of the wave guide indicates that this frustum was designed for 2.45 GHz not 3.85 GHz, and looking back at Shawyer's presentation that Phil supplied us, see below excerpt from page 12, I'm now going back to thinking that this may be Yang's actual test article that produced the documented 720 mN. 

"Fear.  China and the US take an interest.

Following the 2006 New Scientist article, NWPU in China started work on EmDrive

In April 2010 NWPU revealed that they had measured 720mN of thrust for 2.5kW input

In 2012 NWPU published their first peer reviewed paper"

Now the question becomes why did not Shawyer use a thick copper end-cap on the large OD end-cap on his 3.85 GHz flight test article?  Too much mass??

BTW, I'm appending a 2.45 GHz frustum design created by Jerry Vera before he left the EW lab and NASA in 2015 that shows the internal workings of this kind of 2.45 GHz frustum wave-guide system.

Best,

Paul,

I agree with FlyBy that the imaged thruster is probably the unit built by Prof Yang for her last reported test. That unit was powered via a coax feed from a soild state rf amp with freq control. Her earlier units were feed via waveguide. It is clear there is a high power coax connector on the unit and a E field sensor through the big end plate.

Attached is the image FlyBy produced, which shows how close Prof Yang's build was to her drawing of the coax fed unit.

We both understand why that unit would produce little thrust, as did Prof Tajmar's very similar unit. Not a good idea to cut a large hole in the frustum side wall.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Flyby on 06/17/2017 10:50 pm
There are a few differences :

1) the waveguide regulator screws on the drawing sit at the top, where as the real thing has them on the side.

2) the flanges that hold the "waveguide coupling window" are a lot larger on the real thing, as opposed to the drawing.

However, at first impression, the overall proportions do seem to matchup with the drawing...

It could be they've altered the drawing slightly to make it more "readable" and easier to understand what all the components are. A top drawing the regulator screws doesn't tell much, you know.

If it is not Yang's device, then they are most certainly related, or one served as guideline for the other.

It is hard to judge whether it is brass or not. As suggested above, it could have been coated, giving it a different visual aspect then what we're expecting from brass...



Maybe our Chinese friend, who claims to be a former student of prof. Yang, could confirm if this is the device he has been working on?


Anyway, interesting to see some new data, after all this time...

Now, if only TT would throw in some video of his "amazing results", a lot of us would be happy campers, no?

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/17/2017 11:32 pm
Now, if only TT would throw in some video of his "amazing results", a lot of us would be happy campers, no?

There is a paper and patent in the works. Do hope the paper will make it through peer review, via the same journal as Dr. White used. Do note that Dr. White's paper is yet to make it into print. It seems that being in the Articles in Advance of JOPP is maybe as far as it will go.

Will confirm that 50g at 100W or approx 5N/kW has been achieved. Working to increase that by 10x with an ultimate goal of 100-200N/kW (10-20kgf/kW) without using cryo cooling or superconducting cavities.

Can share that the number of transits of the dual travelling waves (really photon wavelets) is the driver and not the Q, which while important, is really just one of the factors that determines the number of transits.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/17/2017 11:49 pm
....
It is hard to judge whether it is brass or not. As suggested above, it could have been coated, giving it a different visual aspect then what we're expecting from brass...
...
Also, what would be the reason to make the big end out of copper, if the rest of the construction is silver coated?
If the rest is silver coated, why not make the whole thing silver coated?

if it (silver coating) is good for the goose, why isn't it good for the gander ?

(Silver has 6% higher conductivity than copper)

Material   σ (S/m) at20 °C
Silver     6.30×107
Copper   5.96×107

Ratio of (conductivity of silver)/(conductivity of copper) = 1.06 

only 6% difference in conductivity
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 06/18/2017 02:32 am

(...)

Instead of Maxwell's unbalanced EM equations, try using the Dirac version where the inclusion of the magnetic monopole is what permits quantum mechanics to stand on a solid foundation even if philosophically different from well proven relativistic theory.

(...)


solid? All I see in QM is unresolved paradox. I do, however, like your quotes  :)

Quote from: Quantum Gravity on 06/16/2017 03:01 PM
Well, it is simply impossible to unify electromagnetism,
or quantum mechanics, with gravity,
when gravity is not properly understood.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 06/18/2017 02:41 am

(...)

Working to increase that by 10x with an ultimate goal of 100-200N/kW (10-20kgf/kW) without using cryo cooling or superconducting cavities.

(...)


In which case you could power it with your piston engine backup generator and it could fly  :-\
I like Shawyer's comment that we may end up building the airframes out of pressed steel.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/18/2017 04:55 am
Reply from Oyzw in reference to the possible image of a Prof Yang coax Rf driven EmDrive build.

Seems he has confirmed it is Prof Yang's coax fed EmDrive build.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mark7777777 on 06/18/2017 05:41 am
Thanks for your post. In the future if you could use complete sentences http://study.com/academy/lesson/complete-and-incomplete-sentences-examples-lesson-quiz.html in posts that would be appreciated -- meaning people don't have extra cognitive load associated with trying to summize a logical meaning.

Tia

Now, if only TT would throw in some video of his "amazing results", a lot of us would be happy campers, no?

There is a paper and patent in the works. Do hope the paper will make it through peer review, via the same journal as Dr. White used. Do note that Dr. White's paper is yet to make it into print. It seems that being in the Articles in Advance of JOPP is maybe as far as it will go.

Will confirm that 50g at 100W or approx 5N/kW has been achieved. Working to increase that by 10x with an ultimate goal of 100-200N/kW (10-20kgf/kW) without using cryo cooling or superconducting cavities.

Can share that the number of transits of the dual travelling waves (really photon wavelets) is the driver and not the Q, which while important, is really just one of the factors that determines the number of transits.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Flyby on 06/18/2017 08:01 am
Now, if only TT would throw in some video of his "amazing results", a lot of us would be happy campers, no?

There is a paper and patent in the works. Do hope the paper will make it through peer review, via the same journal as Dr. White used. Do note that Dr. White's paper is yet to make it into print. It seems that being in the Articles in Advance of JOPP is maybe as far as it will go.

Will confirm that 50g at 100W or approx 5N/kW has been achieved. Working to increase that by 10x with an ultimate goal of 100-200N/kW (10-20kgf/kW) without using cryo cooling or superconducting cavities.

Can share that the number of transits of the dual travelling waves (really photon wavelets) is the driver and not the Q, which while important, is really just one of the factors that determines the number of transits.
Are you sure you did not make any magnitude error there?
These numbers, (50gf/100W) do seem HUGE, compared to what we've seen so far...

My first reaction is a certain degree of disbelieve, mainly because apart from words , you did not show anything yet.
But at the same time, I can not believe that you, as an experienced engineer, would make all these things up as a fantasy. You often make big  (sometimes inaccurate) claims and make a lot of noise/fuzz. But i can  not imagine that you would deliberately lie on this...

So.... I'm perplexed by the numbers you put forward, not knowing what to make of it...

IF - and i can't stress the conditional enough - your numbers reflect a reality that you got an EMdrive producing 5N/kW, then this is a huge paradigm shift. All dedicated forum dwellers inhere know that...
I wish i could believe it, but my modest science education dictates i need proof before I can accept this a real thing...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 06/18/2017 09:46 am
I concur on what has been said already.
Moreover:
Have you seen how in Yang's drawing those angled lines, showing where plain materials are located, are considerably thinner only for the big end plate, explicitly suggesting a different material used in here than the rest of the construction? Although it was right there under our nose for years, we missed that. This is exactly like in the picture of the test article with a thick copper big end plate sitting on top of a cavity + waveguide made of a different material (maybe aluminum or heated/plated brass).

I am almost certain it is indeed Yang's EmDrive.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 06/18/2017 10:13 am
Dr.Rodal -

A simple reason to have one end of the frustum with a Copper surface and the other Silver is to deliberately produce more electrical asymmetry. By all accounts geometrical asymmetry is important, as may be asymmetry introduced by dielectrics. Introducing further asymmetry by using metals with different resistivity might help. Seems to imply someone knows, or at least has a theory, as to how the asymmetry drives the force. Or maybe they have been listening here, because I did suggest something similar a few ?thousand? posts back🙂 !
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/18/2017 12:56 pm
Dr.Rodal -

A simple reason to have one end of the frustum with a Copper surface and the other Silver is to deliberately produce more electrical asymmetry. By all accounts geometrical asymmetry is important, as may be asymmetry introduced by dielectrics. Introducing further asymmetry by using metals with different resistivity might help. Seems to imply someone knows, or at least has a theory, as to how the asymmetry drives the force. Or maybe they have been listening here, because I did suggest something similar a few ?thousand? posts back🙂 !
Yes, a number of us in early EMDrive threads have previously suggested to build the ends of materials having different electric permittivity or different magnetic permeability (depending on whether the mode is TM or TE), but as I wrote:

Also, what would be the reason to make the big end out of copper, if the rest of the construction is silver coated?
If the rest is silver coated, why not make the whole thing silver coated?

if it (silver coating) is good for the goose, why isn't it good for the gander ?

(Silver has 6% higher conductivity than copper)

Material   σ (S/m) at20 °C
Silver     6.30×107
Copper   5.96×107

Ratio of (conductivity of silver)/(conductivity of copper) = 1.06 

only 6% difference in conductivity
If the purpose was to

Quote from: RERT
deliberately produce more electrical asymmetry
,

and the material for the body was brass, why coat it with silver ? you will have much more electrical asymmetry using brass and copper:



Table of electrical conductivity for different materials considered in Yang's EM Drive

Material   σ (S/m) at 20 °C

Silver        6.30×107    (Silver coating on body, suggested by Potomac Neuron)
Copper      5.96×107     (Copper big end plate evident in photograph)
Aluminum  3.69×107      (Aluminum body suggested by Star-Drive)
Brass        1.59×107      (Brass body stated by Yang in her papers)

Ratio of (conductivity of silver)/(conductivity of copper) = 1.06   
Ratio of (conductivity of copper)/(conductivity of aluminum) = 1.62 
Ratio of (conductivity of copper)/(conductivity of brass) = 3.75



Compared with copper and brass, copper and silver (suggested by Potomac Neuron) have practically identical conductivity (only 6% difference), while copper and (uncoated) brass (specified by Yang) have the greatest difference in conductivity: a factor of 3.75 times.

If the brass would have been coated with silver the " electrical asymmetry" would have been greatly reduced from 3.75 times to only 6% difference in conductivity.

If Yang's EM Drive was made of aluminum (as suggested by Star-Drive) instead of brass, the "electrical asymmetry" between copper and aluminum would have been a factor of 1.62.

Silver and copper have the smallest electrical asymmetry of the possible materials that have been discussed for Yang's EM Drive.

Copper and (uncoated) brass (the material that Yang wrote her EM Drive was made of) -not silver- have the greatest electrical asymmetry.

----------
PS1: finally, if the brass (specified by Yang) would have been coated with silver (as suggested by others),  it would probably be coated on the internal surfaces of the cavity (which are not shown) instead of being coated on the external surfaces of the cavity shown in the photograph.  If the principle was to attain the greatest electrical asymmetry, there would be no such silver coating of the brass (anywhere), as the greatest asymmetry is produced by copper and brass.  And there would be no purpose in coating the outside surface of the brass with silver. The simplest interpretation of the data then appears to be that the body was made of uncoated brass (as specified by Yang in her papers) and that the big end endplate was made of copper (which as pointed out by flux_capacitor https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1691170#msg1691170  was something shown in the drawing).  With a brass body and a copper big end, the greatest asymmetry in electrical conductivity is achieved, and such construction (brass and copper) would be consistent with Yang's papers and her drawing.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 06/18/2017 02:57 pm
Why are we sure that the material shown in the picture looks like silver-coated brass? What if the dark patterns were only due to overheating of uncoated brass (see TheTraveller's post (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1690858#msg1690858))? After all Yang pumped up to 2.5 kW of electric power in the cavity, multiple times. This is quite a lot.

I also think her cavity, if it corresponds to the later one used in her last nullified low-power test, is the same cavity used in her previous high-power tests, retrofitted to use a coaxial feed. If it was another, different cavity, why put a coaxial feed onto a WR340 waveguide? Shawyer used either a waveguide (Demonstrator with a magnetron) or a coaxial feed plugged directly onto the cavity side wall (Flight Thruster with TWTAs), not a combination of both.

So I think Yang used this cavity first with a magnetron feeding RF through the "giant" waveguide (giant wrt the cavity size, like Tajmar's cavity, a not so clever design IMHO) and later fitted a coaxial input onto the existing soldered waveguide to use a lighter and lower power steady state RF power source. Not a smart move in my opinion: the thick wall cavity + its giant waveguide seems very heavy to be used on a low-power torsion pendulum test stand. Maybe the large weight was the reason why Yang had to put not one, but three stiff wires… that maybe ruined the sensitivity of the setup.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: FattyLumpkin on 06/18/2017 03:39 pm
Sim of Yang's frustum wall angles...will have to check back for the frequency. I suppose we could get more energy focused on the small plate by shortening the length? Not to mention (if memory serves) I believe she reported TE012 not 3.   fl
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 06/18/2017 03:59 pm

only 6% difference in conductivity

What if the pics are just some kind of "decoys" (or mockups) ?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/18/2017 06:02 pm
...For the sake of clarification do you mean Dr White has abandoned his interest in EM drive?
Dr. White is giving a 40 minute presentation on the EM Drive and White's QV pilot wave theory, and chairing a Breakthrough Propulsion session next week in New York's workshop:

http://www.citytech.cuny.edu/physicsworkshop/

Foundations of Interstellar Studies
Workshop at City Tech, CUNY
June 13-15, 2017, New York, NY USA

Day 3: Breakthrough Propulsion, June 15, 2017
Time   Topic   Speaker   Organization
08.40   Welcome by Session Chairman: Harold White
08.50   1. Pilot Wave Model for Impulsive Thrust from RF Test Device Measured in Vacuum    Harold G. White   NASA JSC Eagleworks
09.30   2. Mach Effect Gravitational Assist Drive    Heidi Fearn et al.   California State University Fullerton
10.10   3. Entanglement and Chameleon Acceleration    Glen A. Robertson   GAResearch LLC
From what I heard (I was not there), Dr. White only talked about his theory and did not present any further experiments with the EM Drive at the Foundations of Interstellar Studies, Workshop at City Tech, CUNY.

Also, unfortunately no video was taken of the presentations

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lD4mpI9Aryc
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star One on 06/18/2017 06:10 pm
Is it possible his interest has departed from practical experimentation and is now purely theoretical?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.E.T. on 06/18/2017 07:06 pm
Now, if only TT would throw in some video of his "amazing results", a lot of us would be happy campers, no?

There is a paper and patent in the works. Do hope the paper will make it through peer review, via the same journal as Dr. White used. Do note that Dr. White's paper is yet to make it into print. It seems that being in the Articles in Advance of JOPP is maybe as far as it will go.

Will confirm that 50g at 100W or approx 5N/kW has been achieved. Working to increase that by 10x with an ultimate goal of 100-200N/kW (10-20kgf/kW) without using cryo cooling or superconducting cavities.

Can share that the number of transits of the dual travelling waves (really photon wavelets) is the driver and not the Q, which while important, is really just one of the factors that determines the number of transits.
Are you sure you did not make any magnitude error there?
These numbers, (50gf/100W) do seem HUGE, compared to what we've seen so far...

My first reaction is a certain degree of disbelieve, mainly because apart from words , you did not show anything yet.
But at the same time, I can not believe that you, as an experienced engineer, would make all these things up as a fantasy. You often make big  (sometimes inaccurate) claims and make a lot of noise/fuzz. But i can  not imagine that you would deliberately lie on this...

So.... I'm perplexed by the numbers you put forward, not knowing what to make of it...

IF - and i can't stress the conditional enough - your numbers reflect a reality that you got an EMdrive producing 5N/kW, then this is a huge paradigm shift. All dedicated forum dwellers inhere know that...
I wish i could believe it, but my modest science education dictates i need proof before I can accept this a real thing...

I have to concur with Flyby. As someone who has been following this topic off and on since the very first EMDrive thread on this forum, and the Mach Effect discussion before that, I have to say that results on the scale you are reporting represent a fundamental breakthrough, taking this as yet unproven phenomenon to the level where it becomes visible to the naked eye.

NASA, the Pentagon, and who knows who else should be beating your door down soon, if true.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 06/18/2017 09:07 pm
Now, if only TT would throw in some video of his "amazing results", a lot of us would be happy campers, no?

There is a paper and patent in the works. Do hope the paper will make it through peer review, via the same journal as Dr. White used. Do note that Dr. White's paper is yet to make it into print. It seems that being in the Articles in Advance of JOPP is maybe as far as it will go.

Will confirm that 50g at 100W or approx 5N/kW has been achieved. Working to increase that by 10x with an ultimate goal of 100-200N/kW (10-20kgf/kW) without using cryo cooling or superconducting cavities.

Can share that the number of transits of the dual travelling waves (really photon wavelets) is the driver and not the Q, which while important, is really just one of the factors that determines the number of transits.

Q is directly correlated with the number of times the photon transits back and forth yet it seems you imply Q is not important.  I want to argue that what you might be saying is that the number of stored photons is more important than Q.  So stored energy.  This implies more power or energy per sec or larger cavities. 

If Q isn't important then you might agree that increased energy lost to something else would reduce the Q?

Do you have any experimental evidence you could share with is that might indicate cavity specs, energy fed, in what manner, and with indication of resulting forces?  Images also perhaps?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 06/18/2017 10:47 pm
For folks on this thread, a human interest story about a young man who graduated today with a degree in Physics - at age 15:

'Harter’s college thesis, “Implications of the Nambu Jona Lasinio Model with a New
Regularization Renormalization Method,” discusses his work with Professor Guang Jiong Ni to extend an existing model that describes the interactions between subatomic particles. The aim is to bring the model to the point where it would generate specific quantitative results to measure the mass created by two massless particles.'

http://itmakesmecrazy.hardinwoods.com/2017/06/momentum-on-side-of-15-year-old-physics.html (http://itmakesmecrazy.hardinwoods.com/2017/06/momentum-on-side-of-15-year-old-physics.html)

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/18/2017 11:49 pm
Now, if only TT would throw in some video of his "amazing results", a lot of us would be happy campers, no?

There is a paper and patent in the works. Do hope the paper will make it through peer review, via the same journal as Dr. White used. Do note that Dr. White's paper is yet to make it into print. It seems that being in the Articles in Advance of JOPP is maybe as far as it will go.

Will confirm that 50g at 100W or approx 5N/kW has been achieved. Working to increase that by 10x with an ultimate goal of 100-200N/kW (10-20kgf/kW) without using cryo cooling or superconducting cavities.

Can share that the number of transits of the dual travelling waves (really photon wavelets) is the driver and not the Q, which while important, is really just one of the factors that determines the number of transits.

Q is directly correlated with the number of times the photon transits back and forth yet it seems you imply Q is not important.  I want to argue that what you might be saying is that the number of stored photons is more important than Q.  So stored energy.  This implies more power or energy per sec or larger cavities. 

If Q isn't important then you might agree that increased energy lost to something else would reduce the Q?

Do you have any experimental evidence you could share with is that might indicate cavity specs, energy fed, in what manner, and with indication of resulting forces?  Images also perhaps?

The Q is important as it sets the 5xTC decay time that sets the life time of the trapped photon wavelets.

HOWEVER Q and number of transits, end plate adsorb and emit events, are not directly related.

What I have discovered is it is better to go for high Q via using a larger big end plate diameter than in lengthening the cavity. Ie a TE019 cavity has higher Q but lower number of transits over the 5xTC decay time and lower thrust vs a TE013 lower Q but higher number of transits cavity.

My work is now focused on TE011 cavities with big end plates as the modelling shows they can deliver higher Q and higher number of transits.

Have yet to build a TE011 spherical end plate cavity as building the highly curved small and big end plates to a optical tolerance of 1/10 wave accuracy is not an easy nor low cost task.

You might notice this design is similar to Roger's cryo cavity. It seems I'm still a few steps behind him in evolving the design.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 06/19/2017 05:54 am
Do we have technical drawing of the 3G patent (third generation) Mr. Shawyer mentioned in his presentation please? I found only the 2G (second generation).

I wonder how Mr. Shawyer overcame that High Q acceleration problem.

According to common sources Internal Doppler shift was observed by using photonic crystal. Is it possible that they found out way how to modify this photonic crystal for the specific photonic waves? I would love to  read some scientific articles about it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Flyby on 06/19/2017 06:39 am
If you consider the drawing "superconductive cavity with piezoelectric compensation" as a 2.0 EMdrive (as seen in TT's post, last image) design, then I can say that not so long ago, a new drawing surfaced with an YBCO on safire substrate on big end and special shaped small end (was not parabolic, to mu surprise).
Also new to this design is the relocation of the RF feed to the centre of small end and use of a helicoidal antenna. Also to be noted is that the supercooling only happens on the big end of the fustrum.

If that is to be considered a 3.0 design (?), that's something only R.Shawyer can answer...

If not, then he'll need to explain where the difference or evolution is to be observed between 2.0 and 3.0....

(attached is the 3.0 ?)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 06/19/2017 07:00 am

HOWEVER Q and number of transits, end plate adsorb and emit events, are not directly related.


Sorry, proportional to.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 06/19/2017 07:21 am
If you consider the drawing "superconductive cavity with piezoelectric compensation" as a 2.0 EMdrive (as seen in TT's post, last image) design, then I can say that not so long ago, a new drawing surfaced with an YBCO on safire substrate on big end and special shaped small end (was not parabolic, to mu surprise).
Also new to this design is the relocation of the RF feed to the centre of small end and use of a helicoidal antenna. Also to be noted is that the supercooling only happens on the big end of the fustrum.

If that is to be considered a 3.0 design (?), that's something only R.Shawyer can answer...

If not, then he'll need to explain where the difference or evolution is to be observed between 2.0 and 3.0....

(attached is the 3.0 ?)

Exactly my toughts Flyby. I think this is 2G (second generation)

Link for the PDF is here.

https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-find-publication-getPDF.pdf?PatentNo=GB2537119&DocType=A&JournalNumber=6647

Mr. Phil - can you ask Mr. Shawyer about the 3G (third generation) EmDrive? Can he share some technical drawing or not yet? 3rd generation will have very important aspect in it. It is how they overcame that High Q acceleration problem. It is crucial to compare then 2nd generation and 3rd generation desing / technical drawing.

Mod: Flyby. I think you are correct and this can be 3rd generation. The date would suggest it. As Mr. Shawyer wrote that in 2014 Jan it was in theoretical stage. Date of filling of the patent is 7.4.2015.

Also there is a lot of mentions of that High Q problem.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Flyby on 06/19/2017 08:01 am
Btw, I found a pdf version of Shawyer's powerpoint presentation.(more convenient maybe?)
http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Shrivenham-presentation-V.3.pdf

Note that the presentation was held on February 7th 2017.
So why the huge time delay?

And let's stay honest, apart from the new image (potentially Yang's device) , nothing world shocking was revealed in this document.
In all honesty, I found it a bit underwhelming : a lot of hot air and very little beef.

So...Really? Is that supposed to impress the UK military ????

Somebody really has to assist Shawyer with marketing strategies, cause a first year marketing student would get an F for such a presentation...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 06/19/2017 08:19 am
Btw, I found a pdf version of Shawyer's powerpoint presentation.(more convenient maybe?)
http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Shrivenham-presentation-V.3.pdf

Note that the presentation was held on February 7th 2017.
So why the huge time delay?

And let's stay honest, apart from the new image (potentially Yang's device) , nothing world shocking was revealed in this document.
In all honesty, I found it a bit underwhelming : a lot of hot air and very little beef.

So...Really? Is that supposed to impress the UK military ????

Somebody really has to assist Shawyer with marketing strategies, cause a first year marketing student would get an F for such a presentation...

Mr. Shawyer is under strict NDA and it got even worse lately. It got worse with the information release since his start of the cooperation with the Gilo Industries.
I know that most of the interviews need approval of military first and they usualy scrap quite a lot of information he provides there. Yes, it is depressing, that we are not able to aquire more information.  :(

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 06/19/2017 09:31 am
Dear Phil (aka TheTraveller): you went to China for a long time to monitor your large TE013 spherical end EmDrive Mark 3 or quite approaching build, as well as the KISS thruster previously aimed for 3rd party independent tests.

You said a few days ago elsewhere that the KISS thruster is now cancelled:
Quote from: TheTraveller
KISS Thruster project is abandoned. Sorry to say but there is no such thing as a low cost and simple to build EmDrive. My bad mistake.

And you told incredible positive results with a high end spherical end build:
Quote from: TheTraveller
Achieved 5N/kW with 50g thrust using 100W rf. Non cryo and non superconducting.

But now you are again postponing your program, saying you will instead focus on TE011 cavities with very large and very curved big ends:
Quote from: TheTraveller
Believe TE011 mode is the way to go as it increases the number of end plate adsorb & emit events.
Quote from: TheTraveller
My work is now focused on TE011 cavities with big end plates as the modelling shows they can deliver higher Q and higher number of transits.

Have yet to build a TE011 spherical end plate cavity as building the highly curved small and big end plates to a optical tolerance of 1/10 wave accuracy is not an easy nor low cost task.

It is really time now to show us a picture of one of your EmDrive builds recently made in China when you were there, monitoring build process then conducting tests.

I fear nobody, including all of your supporters, will listen to you anymore if you don't publish a single little piece of evidence besides written claims. And this would be perfectly logic and normal.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 06/19/2017 11:48 am
A somewhat "dry" approach, but I agree, TT made a whole lot of claims in time, but he never supported them with documents or images, now, I don't think that showing some images of his prototypes (or the test rig) could violate whatever shady "trade secret" so, given the bold claims he made, I think it's time for him to show us some evidence, otherwise we may conclude that all his claims are just a balloon of fried air
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OttO on 06/19/2017 12:16 pm
On arxiv today:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.04999
An improved method to measure microwave induced impulsive forces with a torsion balance or weighing scale



EDIT Added from a few days ago
https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.08117
A New Torsion Pendulum for Gravitational Reference Sensor Technology Development
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 06/19/2017 01:19 pm
On arxiv today:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.04999
An improved method to measure microwave induced impulsive forces with a torsion balance or weighing scale



EDIT Added from a few days ago
https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.08117
A New Torsion Pendulum for Gravitational Reference Sensor Technology Development

Author is Peter Lauwer. He posted this on page 14 of this thread.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 06/19/2017 01:34 pm
Funny Business at the ArXiv (http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.fr/2017/06/bias-at-arxiv.html)
 
McCulloch is not the only physicist facing this kind of omerta from arXiv anonymous administrators. I know others. Although publishing in peer-review academic, non predatory access journals, they have in common being alternate candidates to standard ΛCDM concordance cosmological model. It's a topsy-turvy world: the arXiv, which used to be a preprint server, now acts like a peer-review postprint club, at least in the field of cosmology.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/19/2017 03:30 pm
Funny Business at the ArXiv (http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.fr/2017/06/bias-at-arxiv.html)
 
McCulloch is not the only physicist facing this kind of omerta from arXiv anonymous administrators. I know others. Although publishing in peer-review academic, non predatory access journals, they have in common being alternate candidates to standard ΛCDM concordance cosmological model. It's a topsy-turvy world: the arXiv, which used to be a preprint server, now acts like a peer-review postprint club, at least in the field of cosmology.
Scientists with breakthrough ideas have to break through and work within the peer review system, just like a patent clerk (Einstein, who in 1906 was promoted to Technical Examiner Second Class) in Switzerland was able to break through more than 100 years ago.  It was even more difficult at that time than it is now to get published and to be heard.  In the end, if one has a real scientific breakthrough it will be known, and in time, be accepted by the peer-review process.

At a time that was more difficult to get paper published, when he was a patent clerk and a young father, in 1905, Einstein wrote five articles and had them published (going through difficult peer review -his paper had to be communicated-) in the prestigious Annalen der Physik (Annals of Physics), including his paper of special relativity http://users.physik.fu-berlin.de/~kleinert/files/1905_17_891-921.pdf  (which broke with the -at the time- practically sacred Newtonian ideas, valiantly claiming that the speed of light is constant).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 06/19/2017 03:40 pm
Dr. Rodal - by silver plating one end of a copper piece, one can increase asymmetry and simultaneously raise Q - if you accept that Q rises as resistance falls.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/19/2017 03:55 pm
Dr. Rodal - by silver plating one end of a copper piece, one can increase asymmetry and simultaneously raise Q - if you accept that Q rises as resistance falls.
Yes, but it is only a 6% difference with copper as I wrote previously, and silver is expensive.  If one wants to do it you only need to silver plate the inner surface of an electromagnetically resonant cavity.  There is no useful purpose in silver plating the outside surface of an electromagnetically resonant cavity, so when this is done, the silver coating and mirror finishing is done on the inner surfaces, not the exterior surfaces. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 06/19/2017 03:56 pm
Funny Business at the ArXiv (http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.fr/2017/06/bias-at-arxiv.html)
 
McCulloch is not the only physicist facing this kind of omerta from arXiv anonymous administrators. I know others. Although publishing in peer-review academic, non predatory access journals, they have in common being alternate candidates to standard ΛCDM concordance cosmological model. It's a topsy-turvy world: the arXiv, which used to be a preprint server, now acts like a peer-review postprint club, at least in the field of cosmology.
Scientists with breakthrough ideas have to break through and work within the peer review system, just like a patent clerk (Einstein) in Switzerland was able to break through more than 100 years ago.  It was even more difficult at that time than it is now to get published and to be heard.  In the end, if one has a real scientific breakthrough it will be known, and in time, be accepted by the peer-review process.

Except Einstein published his founding papers in 1905 in German in Annalen der Physik, a journal with a high acceptance rate (90-95%) with no anonymous referees, but identified editors he could discuss with.

About peer review, Max Planck said:
"To shun much more the reproach of having suppressed strange opinions
than that of having been too gentle in evaluating them."


And the publication of the foundational paper describing the double helical structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953 would have been jeopardised in the context of the classic review system as we know it, because of its speculative nature.*

I maintain that about the lambda-CDM model, all those anonymous referees who are also the same physicists who publish their papers among the same journals have de facto a conflict of interest when facing provoking new ideas that could potentially destroy the thousand of papers already published and on which their career is based upon. According to this, something is rotten in the state of modern science.

Do you know that in order to be able to publish one solid paper based on general relativity (no crackpot theory) but involving a model alternative to the lambda-CDM model, with no conceptual nor mathematical error, with a good correlation to observations, with predictions, you have to make about 50 attempts to various journals? Do you know that 99% of those attempts are refused with the terse sentence "Sorry, we don't publish speculative works" in less than three minutes after the mail has been submitted, meaning the work has not even been read? Why, in your opinion, Heidi Fearn had to resort to a paid open-access journal to manage to publish her Gravitational Absorber Theory about Mach effects in general relativity which – and you know this very well, as I even think you are the one who coined this new name for the non-steady-state Hoyle-Narlikar theory of gravity – has no conceptual error and implies many breakthroughs? (just one example among many others)


*Source: Hate the peer-review process? Einstein did too (http://theconversation.com/hate-the-peer-review-process-einstein-did-too-27405)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/19/2017 04:08 pm
...
Except Einstein published his founding papers in 1905 in German in Annalen der Physik, a journal with a high acceptance rate (90-95%) with no anonymous referees, but identified editors he could discuss with.
...
Annalen der Physik was a most prestigious journal, and papers had to be communicated by experts in the field.  Yes, I certainly agree that the peer review process was very different at that time (1905) than it is now, (and later on while in the US Einstein became upset at the peer review process) but the number of people working in Physics, and the number of journals was also much smaller than it is now.  There has been an explosive number of journals since then, and I for one am very thankful for the peer review process for "cutting down the noise".   :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 06/19/2017 04:23 pm
There has been an explosive number of journals since then, and I for one am very thankful for the peer review process for "cutting down the noise".   :)

The system is indeed so effective that it cuts down both ends of the Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution of works in cosmology: the crackpot noise on the left that wanted to surreptitiously infiltrate its broken concepts, and also any new innovative upcoming revolution on the right, much too quicker for our epoch. Just fit your career within the standard model at the average rate and everything will be alright :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/19/2017 06:22 pm
...
Except Einstein published his founding papers in 1905 in German in Annalen der Physik, a journal with a high acceptance rate (90-95%) with no anonymous referees, but identified editors he could discuss with.
...
Annalen der Physik was a most prestigious journal, and papers had to be communicated by experts in the field.  Yes, I certainly agree that the peer review process was very different at that time (1905) than it is now, (and later on while in the US Einstein became upset at the peer review process) but the number of people working in Physics, and the number of journals was also much smaller than it is now.  There has been an explosive number of journals since then, and I for one am very thankful for the peer review process for "cutting down the noise".   :)

I think it's clear that to the vast majority of scientists, EMDrive, MEGA drives, Mach effects and all such attendant ideas such as propellent-less propulsion are considered noise if not crackpot ideas. These ideas have to fight very very hard for recognition. Those here that do the work in these fields are hero's.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 06/19/2017 06:43 pm

I think it's clear that to the vast majority of scientists, EMDrive, MEGA drives, Mach effects and all such attendant ideas such as propellent-less propulsion are considered noise if not crackpot ideas. These ideas have to fight very very hard for recognition. Those here that do the work in these fields are hero's.

As long as they have empirical evidence and the scientific method (based on open exchange of information and independent replications) on their side, yes, they are.

But failing that, such 'heroic' people would only be strongly deluded -or just persistent- crackpots.

I think both the Emdrive and MEGA thrusters so far fulfill the above requirements for being incipient science, with their replication information freely available and experiments now being out of the control of any single individual.

But it doesn't make them totally free of the pitfalls of cargo cult science. Like people seeing (or asserting to see) things that aren't there, because of over-eagerness or the simple wish for them to be true.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/19/2017 06:52 pm

I think it's clear that to the vast majority of scientists, EMDrive, MEGA drives, Mach effects and all such attendant ideas such as propellent-less propulsion are considered noise if not crackpot ideas. These ideas have to fight very very hard for recognition. Those here that do the work in these fields are hero's.

As long as they have empirical evidence and the scientific method (based on open exchange of information and independent replications) on their side, yes, they are.

But failing that, such 'heroic' people would only be strongly deluded -or just persistent- crackpots.

I think both the Emdrive and MEGA thrusters so far fulfill the above requirements for being incipient science, with their replication information freely available and experiments now being out of the control of any single individual.

But it doesn't make them totally free of the pitfalls of cargo cult science. Like people seeing (or asserting to see) things that aren't there, because of over-eagerness or the simple wish for them to be true.

It's funny that Feynman, who popularized that term, cargo cult science, built his reputation on processes that one cannot observe, of which there is only indirect evidence.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: R.W. Keyes on 06/19/2017 10:28 pm
Some notes on my progress towards construction:

When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. On the flip side of that nugget of wisdom, being adaptive gets the job done. In my case the hammer is a 3D printer of good quality and size, so I will be putting my thoughts into using it. Without going too much into the realm of plastics engineering, let me just say that for purposes other than EMdrive I am going to be printing in a much stiffer, tougher, higher-temp plastic than is normally used. I will be printing in Ultem 1010. This should enable me to overcome any issues with temperature and stiffness with the cheaper, more common ABS (but at a higher cost).

Then there is the plating issue. While electroless plating of ABS is well documented, the same can't be said of Ultem. I'll have to get good at plating Ultem before I can dive into making a cavity out of it.

Why not silver? Yes, it's only 6% more conductive. It's more expensive, but prohibitively so? I checked yesterday and the spot price of silver is $16.69/Ounce (I know I'd be paying more retail). Plating can produce a very thin layer, making the most out of that ounce, depending on surface area and plating thickness. Also, Plating can be restricted to the useful interior surface only, but I may want to plate the outside for better heat dissipation. And, speaking of heat, it is not just the increase in Q that the use of silver provides, but also of course reduction in waste heat, which not only causes measurement issues but could also deform lesser plastics such as ABS, or even, under high power, Ultem.

In other news, my two LimeSDRs have arrived. I'll be doing some VNA tests on my existing 2.4 gHz antennas to get a feel for its capabilities before I tackle any EMdrive cavitities. Which I should do anyhow, as I have too many 2.4 gHz omnis and should sell off most of them (contact me if you are interested).

And yes, I plan to do the plating myself. I've looked at electroless and it doesn't seem too difficult or dangerous.

I plan on having ironed out the difficulties with plating of copper and /or silver on Ultem in a few months. This will enable me to not only try out my own cavity designs, but also take orders from others for their designs. I can't give exact figure on the cost yet, but my Ultem should be much cheaper than what is currently being offered in the 3D printing market.

Other tidbits: skeptical but not dismissive of TT's claims, waiting for his paper & patent. Also, Arxiv's treatment of McCullough is bad but not atypical.  I'll leave out my rants on the deficiencies of the current practice of science.

Best,
RWK
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/19/2017 10:50 pm
Guys,

Interesting breadcrumb from Roger.

Who is the US company, AIM, that has detailed knowledge of EmDrive theory AND has solved the EmDrive high Q acceleration issue?

Why has Roger decided to out AIM?


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/19/2017 11:05 pm
Interesting news from Gilo's FaceBook feed, as attached.

Links with the just posted slide from Roger where he states Gilo Industries Research is officially involved with SPR in solving the EmDrive's high Q acceleration issue.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 06/20/2017 12:01 am
Guys,

Interesting breadcrumb from Roger.

Who is the US company, AIM, that has detailed knowledge of EmDrive theory AND has solved the EmDrive high Q acceleration issue?

Why has Roger decided to out AIM?

Maybe AIM Aerospace Inc. (http://aim-aerospace.com)?
But this is a firm specialized in designing and manufacturing composite substructures for aircraft wings and cabin interior furnitures, notably for Boeing's planes and military customers, as well as UK Ministry of Defence and BAE Systems.


EDIT: Identity of the firm given by TT in a following post (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1691969#msg1691969).

An answer to my previous message about showing us some pictures of your Chinese trip?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: masterharper1082 on 06/20/2017 12:13 am
Some notes on my progress towards construction:

When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. On the flip side of that nugget of wisdom, being adaptive gets the job done. In my case the hammer is a 3D printer of good quality and size, so I will be putting my thoughts into using it. Without going too much into the realm of plastics engineering, let me just say that for purposes other than EMdrive I am going to be printing in a much stiffer, tougher, higher-temp plastic than is normally used. I will be printing in Ultem 1010. This should enable me to overcome any issues with temperature and stiffness with the cheaper, more common ABS (but at a higher cost).

Then there is the plating issue. While electroless plating of ABS is well documented, the same can't be said of Ultem. I'll have to get good at plating Ultem before I can dive into making a cavity out of it.

Why not silver? Yes, it's only 6% more conductive. It's more expensive, but prohibitively so? I checked yesterday and the spot price of silver is $16.69/Ounce (I know I'd be paying more retail). Plating can produce a very thin layer, making the most out of that ounce, depending on surface area and plating thickness. Also, Plating can be restricted to the useful interior surface only, but I may want to plate the outside for better heat dissipation. And, speaking of heat, it is not just the increase in Q that the use of silver provides, but also of course reduction in waste heat, which not only causes measurement issues but could also deform lesser plastics such as ABS, or even, under high power, Ultem.

In other news, my two LimeSDRs have arrived. I'll be doing some VNA tests on my existing 2.4 gHz antennas to get a feel for its capabilities before I tackle any EMdrive cavitities. Which I should do anyhow, as I have too many 2.4 gHz omnis and should sell off most of them (contact me if you are interested).

And yes, I plan to do the plating myself. I've looked at electroless and it doesn't seem too difficult or dangerous.

I plan on having ironed out the difficulties with plating of copper and /or silver on Ultem in a few months. This will enable me to not only try out my own cavity designs, but also take orders from others for their designs. I can't give exact figure on the cost yet, but my Ultem should be much cheaper than what is currently being offered in the 3D printing market.

Other tidbits: skeptical but not dismissive of TT's claims, waiting for his paper & patent. Also, Arxiv's treatment of McCullough is bad but not atypical.  I'll leave out my rants on the deficiencies of the current practice of science.

Best,
RWK
I don't think you should bother with silver plating the outside. The convective thermal resistance dominates the overall thermal resistance (convective & conductive). You will actually slightly *increase* the conductive thermal resistance by doing a thin silver plating on the outside (due to increased path length), and more importantly, you will virtually eliminate any radiation to the environment.  A better solution is a thin layer of lamp black paint. You will slightly increase the conductive thermal resistance (bad), but significantly improve the emissivity at long wavelength IR radiation caused by heating the test article (good).

mh
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 06/20/2017 12:53 am
...
Except Einstein published his founding papers in 1905 in German in Annalen der Physik, a journal with a high acceptance rate (90-95%) with no anonymous referees, but identified editors he could discuss with.
...
Annalen der Physik was a most prestigious journal, and papers had to be communicated by experts in the field.  Yes, I certainly agree that the peer review process was very different at that time (1905) than it is now, (and later on while in the US Einstein became upset at the peer review process) but the number of people working in Physics, and the number of journals was also much smaller than it is now.  There has been an explosive number of journals since then, and I for one am very thankful for the peer review process for "cutting down the noise".   :)

... and for the likes of myself who want to publish experimental philosophical notions in the hope of exposure and/or feedback, there is viXra.org who have allowed me to reach an audience of a thousand since 2014.

Their bar is lower and their tolerance of amateurish presentation allows us amateurs access to something as similar as it needs to be, to publication under peer review. jmn..
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 06/20/2017 02:28 am
Interesting news from Gilo's FaceBook feed, as attached.

Links with the just posted slide from Roger where he states Gilo Industries Research is officially involved with SPR in solving the EmDrive's high Q acceleration issue.

What are these "high Q acceleration" problems you've mentioned?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.LeBel on 06/20/2017 04:24 am
 ... Place the clock time as real time (stuff) into the equations.
dB/dt = E   or dB/E = dt  invert and get E/dB = 1/dt  which is the rate of time. I know it is a rough approx.; you work it out.

With a constant E field and a variable B field you should produce a specific 1/dt or rate of time (stuff), under specific conditions.

Since they are all vectors, the resultant 1/dt is also in one direction. If the resulting 1/dt is different from the local one, you get a local differential in the rate of time i.e. the causal structure for motion.

The problem is that any delta cannot be sustained i.e. it has to hit a plateau and then come back down, just as waves do.

Since we are working with micro “waves”, we have to somehow sync the rise of the dB field with an external stable E field and then shut that E field for the fall of the B field, or the effect is cancelled.... and shutting the E field will of course induce (some) its own B field....     The B/dE = 1/dt should be equally possible...

My 5 cents,   

Marcel,
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 06/20/2017 04:46 am
Interesting news from Gilo's FaceBook feed, as attached.

Links with the just posted slide from Roger where he states Gilo Industries Research is officially involved with SPR in solving the EmDrive's high Q acceleration issue.

That post from Gilo on the Facebook made an edit and added link to this article:

https://www.insidermedia.com/insider/southwest/gilo-expands-with-new-wiltshire-unit

This is very interesting:

"The subsidiary of Gilo Industries Group has taken further space at Chaldicott Barns as an expansion of the business after more investment to develop new technology."

Of course Gilo works on additional technologies, but they mentioned the propulsion with this update. It points to the SPR company.

Also article mentiones Kuang-Chi investment group again. There are also other investors as far as we know. Many of them with considerable assets and interest in space and propulsion technologies.

Mod: SPR site updated with the latest presentation we already know about http://emdrive.com/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/20/2017 05:39 am
... Place the clock time as real time (stuff) into the equations.
dB/dt = E   or dB/E = dt  invert and get E/dB = 1/dt  which is the rate of time. I know it is a rough approx.; you work it out.

With a constant E field and a variable B field you should produce a specific 1/dt or rate of time (stuff), under specific conditions.

Since they are all vectors, the resultant 1/dt is also in one direction. If the resulting 1/dt is different from the local one, you get a local differential in the rate of time i.e. the causal structure for motion.

The problem is that any delta cannot be sustained i.e. it has to hit a plateau and then come back down, just as waves do.

Since we are working with micro “waves”, we have to somehow sync the rise of the dB field with an external stable E field and then shut that E field for the fall of the B field, or the effect is cancelled.... and shutting the E field will of course induce (some) its own B field....     The B/dE = 1/dt should be equally possible...

My 5 cents,   

Marcel,
What you just posted is the mathematical equivalent of gibberish. You can't just break up the parts of a derivative like it was a fraction. There are a few cases where you can correctly write down something similar such as when notating a variable substitution (such as for integration by parts) but even then it is just shorthand for other more rigorous steps. What you did gets even worse when you invert so that you are dividing by infinitesimals, which is basically division by 0.

Also, even ignoring the issues with your use of infinitesimals, the dB/E portion makes no sense, because a vector divided by a vector is simply not a defined operation. This gets to the main problem with the ideas you keep posting here: You can't just ignore the existence of spatial dimensions. They obviously exist, and a single dimension simply cannot contain the information to describe 3 others as well as itself. When you write it out mathematically like this, the problem becomes obvious as you get undefined operations like this to do the magic conversion.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 06/20/2017 06:07 am
Interesting news from Gilo's FaceBook feed, as attached.

Links with the just posted slide from Roger where he states Gilo Industries Research is officially involved with SPR in solving the EmDrive's high Q acceleration issue.

What are these "high Q acceleration" problems you've mentioned?

"What limits thrust in high Q thrusters? Internal Doppler shift." as mentioned in presentation by Mr. Shawyer.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Augmentor on 06/20/2017 07:07 am
... Place the clock time as real time (stuff) into the equations.
dB/dt = E   or dB/E = dt  invert and get E/dB = 1/dt  which is the rate of time. I know it is a rough approx.; you work it out.

With a constant E field and a variable B field you should produce a specific 1/dt or rate of time (stuff), under specific conditions.

Since they are all vectors, the resultant 1/dt is also in one direction. If the resulting 1/dt is different from the local one, you get a local differential in the rate of time i.e. the causal structure for motion.

The problem is that any delta cannot be sustained i.e. it has to hit a plateau and then come back down, just as waves do.

Since we are working with micro “waves”, we have to somehow sync the rise of the dB field with an external stable E field and then shut that E field for the fall of the B field, or the effect is cancelled.... and shutting the E field will of course induce (some) its own B field....     The B/dE = 1/dt should be equally possible...

My 5 cents,   

Marcel,

Except for the statement of the delta, yes, I agree especially for design/builders including magnetics inside or outside the frustum.

To maintain a delta, the pulses have to become shorter and overlap from multiple sources. There are electronic ways to construct and extend an extended peaking wave that looks like a square wave over time. E fields are easy; B field management and applications require knowledgeable magnetics folks.

The B field should be treated independently at first with coupling to Maxwell equations for a fuller picture. One should consider using Dirac's equations which are balanced, and also check out Maxwells' equations with axions added.

Interesting possibilities and dangerous opportunities.

David M



Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Augmentor on 06/20/2017 07:08 am
... Place the clock time as real time (stuff) into the equations.
dB/dt = E   or dB/E = dt  invert and get E/dB = 1/dt  which is the rate of time. I know it is a rough approx.; you work it out.

With a constant E field and a variable B field you should produce a specific 1/dt or rate of time (stuff), under specific conditions.

Since they are all vectors, the resultant 1/dt is also in one direction. If the resulting 1/dt is different from the local one, you get a local differential in the rate of time i.e. the causal structure for motion.

The problem is that any delta cannot be sustained i.e. it has to hit a plateau and then come back down, just as waves do.

Since we are working with micro “waves”, we have to somehow sync the rise of the dB field with an external stable E field and then shut that E field for the fall of the B field, or the effect is cancelled.... and shutting the E field will of course induce (some) its own B field....     The B/dE = 1/dt should be equally possible...

My 5 cents,   

Marcel,
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: R.W. Keyes on 06/20/2017 12:18 pm
Some notes on my progress towards construction:

When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. On the flip side of that nugget of wisdom, being adaptive gets the job done. In my case the hammer is a 3D printer of good quality and size, so I will be putting my thoughts into using it. Without going too much into the realm of plastics engineering, let me just say that for purposes other than EMdrive I am going to be printing in a much stiffer, tougher, higher-temp plastic than is normally used. I will be printing in Ultem 1010. This should enable me to overcome any issues with temperature and stiffness with the cheaper, more common ABS (but at a higher cost).

Then there is the plating issue. While electroless plating of ABS is well documented, the same can't be said of Ultem. I'll have to get good at plating Ultem before I can dive into making a cavity out of it.

Why not silver? Yes, it's only 6% more conductive. It's more expensive, but prohibitively so? I checked yesterday and the spot price of silver is $16.69/Ounce (I know I'd be paying more retail). Plating can produce a very thin layer, making the most out of that ounce, depending on surface area and plating thickness. Also, Plating can be restricted to the useful interior surface only, but I may want to plate the outside for better heat dissipation. And, speaking of heat, it is not just the increase in Q that the use of silver provides, but also of course reduction in waste heat, which not only causes measurement issues but could also deform lesser plastics such as ABS, or even, under high power, Ultem.

In other news, my two LimeSDRs have arrived. I'll be doing some VNA tests on my existing 2.4 gHz antennas to get a feel for its capabilities before I tackle any EMdrive cavitities. Which I should do anyhow, as I have too many 2.4 gHz omnis and should sell off most of them (contact me if you are interested).

And yes, I plan to do the plating myself. I've looked at electroless and it doesn't seem too difficult or dangerous.

I plan on having ironed out the difficulties with plating of copper and /or silver on Ultem in a few months. This will enable me to not only try out my own cavity designs, but also take orders from others for their designs. I can't give exact figure on the cost yet, but my Ultem should be much cheaper than what is currently being offered in the 3D printing market.

Other tidbits: skeptical but not dismissive of TT's claims, waiting for his paper & patent. Also, Arxiv's treatment of McCullough is bad but not atypical.  I'll leave out my rants on the deficiencies of the current practice of science.

Best,
RWK
I don't think you should bother with silver plating the outside. The convective thermal resistance dominates the overall thermal resistance (convective & conductive). You will actually slightly *increase* the conductive thermal resistance by doing a thin silver plating on the outside (due to increased path length), and more importantly, you will virtually eliminate any radiation to the environment.  A better solution is a thin layer of lamp black paint. You will slightly increase the conductive thermal resistance (bad), but significantly improve the emissivity at long wavelength IR radiation caused by heating the test article (good).

mh

Good point. The Ultem I will be using is black anyhow, but I don't know exactly *how* black it is. The bad thing is, Ultem has a low thermal conductivity (.22 W/m). It's pretty much a decent insulator!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/20/2017 12:25 pm
Email received from Roger in regard to who AIM is on the attached slide.

Interesting that the American Institute of Mathematics has a detailed knowledge of EmDrive theory AND a solution to the high Q acceleration problem as does Prof Yang's NWPU.

==============

Hi Phil

AIM is the American Institute of Mathematics. It is funded by the National Science Foundation and is used by a number of US government agencies.

I had a meeting with John Fry at his request, on 19 Jan 2014 in the UK.

Best regards

Roger

==============
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 06/20/2017 01:13 pm
https://aimath.org

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Institute_of_Mathematics

John Fry is the co-founder of Fry's Electronics, California.
And AIM is funded by NSF ;D
(no! not the website of this forum, but the National Science Foundation, a US government agency)

https://www.nsf.gov

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Science_Foundation
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/20/2017 01:36 pm
Interesting news from Gilo's FaceBook feed, as attached.

Links with the just posted slide from Roger where he states Gilo Industries Research is officially involved with SPR in solving the EmDrive's high Q acceleration issue.

What are these "high Q acceleration" problems you've mentioned?

"What limits thrust in high Q thrusters? Internal Doppler shift." as mentioned in presentation by Mr. Shawyer.
Internal Doppler shift limiting Q doesn't actually make sense if you check the math. Lets just pick a Q of 1 million. This means a typical photon lifetime would be about 0.001 s. even at 1 g of acceleration, the total delta v over that time is only 0.01 m/s. Since opposite ends of the frustum would cause opposing Doppler shifts, only the total delta v matters and this is so small compared to the speed of light that the impact on frequency is negligible.

Since all of Shawyer's theory so far has been nonsensical, here is an alternative guess at what led him to this most recent theoretically unsupported statement. He has probably found that the measured anomalous force from his thrusters has not been scaling with Q. This is expected, since based on all other emDrive experiments, his results are out of family, and therefore dominated by errors that would not scale with Q.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 06/20/2017 01:53 pm
Interesting news from Gilo's FaceBook feed, as attached.

Links with the just posted slide from Roger where he states Gilo Industries Research is officially involved with SPR in solving the EmDrive's high Q acceleration issue.

What are these "high Q acceleration" problems you've mentioned?

"What limits thrust in high Q thrusters? Internal Doppler shift." as mentioned in presentation by Mr. Shawyer.
Internal Doppler shift limiting Q doesn't actually make sense if you check the math. Lets just pick a Q of 1 million. This means a typical photon lifetime would be about 0.001 s. even at 1 g of acceleration, the total delta v over that time is only 0.01 m/s. Since opposite ends of the frustum would cause opposing Doppler shifts, only the total delta v matters and this is so small compared to the speed of light that the impact on frequency is negligible.

Since all of Shawyer's theory so far has been nonsensical, here is an alternative guess at what led him to this most recent theoretically unsupported statement. He has probably found that the measured anomalous force from his thrusters has not been scaling with Q. This is expected, since based on all other emDrive experiments, his results are out of family, and therefore dominated by errors that would not scale with Q.

This is interesting. However, when talking about "1g thrusters" Shawyer categorizes them as "low acceleration devices" compatible with primary in-orbit propulsion applications, deep space missions and lift engines for flying cars.

When he talks about "high acceleration thrusters" on the other hand, and the Doppler shift issue, he rather points to a Q around one billion (1×109) and not one million (1×106) as well as accelerations comprised between 2 to 100g.

Maybe you can find out there is indeed a problem with such numbers?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Notsosureofit on 06/20/2017 02:21 pm
For example:  In the Notsosureofit example the thrust NT of the rest frame is reduced by the acceleration of the cavity by the factor (g(photon) - g(cavity))/g(photon).

[off the cuff statement - note the nonlinearity]
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 06/20/2017 02:28 pm
Interesting news from Gilo's FaceBook feed, as attached.

Links with the just posted slide from Roger where he states Gilo Industries Research is officially involved with SPR in solving the EmDrive's high Q acceleration issue.

What are these "high Q acceleration" problems you've mentioned?

"What limits thrust in high Q thrusters? Internal Doppler shift." as mentioned in presentation by Mr. Shawyer.
Internal Doppler shift limiting Q doesn't actually make sense if you check the math. Lets just pick a Q of 1 million. This means a typical photon lifetime would be about 0.001 s. even at 1 g of acceleration, the total delta v over that time is only 0.01 m/s. Since opposite ends of the frustum would cause opposing Doppler shifts, only the total delta v matters and this is so small compared to the speed of light that the impact on frequency is negligible.

Since all of Shawyer's theory so far has been nonsensical, here is an alternative guess at what led him to this most recent theoretically unsupported statement. He has probably found that the measured anomalous force from his thrusters has not been scaling with Q. This is expected, since based on all other emDrive experiments, his results are out of family, and therefore dominated by errors that would not scale with Q.
meberbs,

Well said.

I'm in agreement with you, as the numbers don't make any sense ??? even in very high Q systems it seems like more techno babble. I'm by no means the sharpest mind here, but when even I can see holes in this explanation, it means that they don't have a clue as to what they are doing, or are throwing up smoke screens to potentially protect their IP, or have nothing.

On another note...

I'm currently writing up my application for new provisional patents I'll be submitting. My theories are based on observable results and physics as we know them. This has been a very tough nut to crack and taken me over two years and lots of help (you know who you are)... but you need precise systematic key steps in controlling these high energy events, events that don't violate physics and rely on techno babble.

I'll say this. It's not photons that are the key, not really... well maybe a few bouncing around in the cavity and virtual photons (if you believe in that observation) of decaying evanescent waves, it's simply magnetism and the associated field control.

Sorry, it's taking so long, but this has to be done right. I even took the time (hated to take it), ripped apart my old broken hot tub, rebuilding the electronics and with a can of PC-7 fixed the cracks, just so I could sit and think again. That's where I'm headed now.  ;D

My Very Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/20/2017 02:35 pm
Interesting news from Gilo's FaceBook feed, as attached.

Links with the just posted slide from Roger where he states Gilo Industries Research is officially involved with SPR in solving the EmDrive's high Q acceleration issue.

What are these "high Q acceleration" problems you've mentioned?

"What limits thrust in high Q thrusters? Internal Doppler shift." as mentioned in presentation by Mr. Shawyer.
Internal Doppler shift limiting Q doesn't actually make sense if you check the math. Lets just pick a Q of 1 million. This means a typical photon lifetime would be about 0.001 s. even at 1 g of acceleration, the total delta v over that time is only 0.01 m/s. Since opposite ends of the frustum would cause opposing Doppler shifts, only the total delta v matters and this is so small compared to the speed of light that the impact on frequency is negligible.

Since all of Shawyer's theory so far has been nonsensical, here is an alternative guess at what led him to this most recent theoretically unsupported statement. He has probably found that the measured anomalous force from his thrusters has not been scaling with Q. This is expected, since based on all other emDrive experiments, his results are out of family, and therefore dominated by errors that would not scale with Q.

This is interesting. However, when talking about "1g thrusters" Shawyer categorizes them as "low acceleration devices" compatible with primary in-orbit propulsion applications, deep space missions and lift engines for flying cars.

When he talks about "high acceleration thrusters" on the other hand, and the Doppler shift issue, he rather points to a Q around one billion (1×109) and not one million (1×106) as well as accelerations comprised between 2 to 100g.

Maybe you can find out there is indeed a problem with such numbers?
Thanks for the reminder that some people interpret million and billion differently. Yours are the ones I use.

When I say g, I am talking about gravitational acceleration (about 10 m/s^2). The between 2 and 100g you refer to would make more sense as grams of force. For a low estimate of a 1 kg apparatus, that would be 0.002 to 0.1 m/s^2. This is at best a factor of 100 less acceleration than I was using, and with the factor of 1000 increase in Q you suggested, this is a net factor of 10 increase in the delta v 0.1 m/s is still not going to be very significant.

Shawyer has obviously not demonstrated anything near 100 gs acceleration, or he would have posted a picture of the hole in his wall, and we would be having a very different conversation. We can instead stick with my 1 g number which is still far above demonstrated accelerations, which are the only ones that matter experimentally. That would bump it up to 10 m/s. This would get you up to around 80 Hz shift, which might almost be enough to matter if you had a very good source (I'd have to check the expected bandwidth at that kind of Q) still, for this to come into effect, you would already be accelerating at a sustained 1 g for 1 second, and if there were limitations caused by they would just make it difficult to accelerate much faster, no reason you couldn't keep that rate up though.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 06/20/2017 03:07 pm
...it's simply magnetism and the associated field control.

Pushing against other, local magnetic fields?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 06/20/2017 03:31 pm
...it's simply magnetism and the associated field control.

Pushing against other, local magnetic fields?
No, not that simple as a pushing or local fields.
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 06/20/2017 03:51 pm
Thanks for the reminder that some people interpret million and billion differently. Yours are the ones I use.
Yes, this is a science forum in English, so we are using the short scale. Million is never a problem and is always 106 in any scale. it is billion and trillion which have different meanings in the long scale, but nobody should use the long scale in English and especially in scientific discussions.

When I say g, I am talking about gravitational acceleration (about 10 m/s^2). The between 2 and 100g you refer to would make more sense as grams of force.

Sorry I was not precise enough, thank you for pointing this out. I was citing Shawyer's IAC 2013 paper (http://www.emdrive.com/IAC13paper17254.v2.pdf) and was talking about g as a gravitational acceleration, not grams. So when Shawyer talks about "high-acceleration devices" he indeed talks about accelerations of 2g (~20 m.s-2) to 100g (~1000 m.s-2). These are not practical devices of course, just theoretical ones. Do your numbers show any problems with a Q of 109 using those values with a cavity of say, 30 cm long?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 06/20/2017 04:11 pm
...it's simply magnetism and the associated field control.

Pushing against other, local magnetic fields?
No, not that simple as a pushing or local fields.
Shell

 :o Well then, I look forward to hearing more when you're ready to present it.  ;D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/20/2017 04:14 pm
Interesting news from Gilo's FaceBook feed, as attached.

Links with the just posted slide from Roger where he states Gilo Industries Research is officially involved with SPR in solving the EmDrive's high Q acceleration issue.

What are these "high Q acceleration" problems you've mentioned?

"What limits thrust in high Q thrusters? Internal Doppler shift." as mentioned in presentation by Mr. Shawyer.
Internal Doppler shift limiting Q doesn't actually make sense if you check the math. Lets just pick a Q of 1 million. This means a typical photon lifetime would be about 0.001 s. even at 1 g of acceleration, the total delta v over that time is only 0.01 m/s. Since opposite ends of the frustum would cause opposing Doppler shifts, only the total delta v matters and this is so small compared to the speed of light that the impact on frequency is negligible.

Since all of Shawyer's theory so far has been nonsensical, here is an alternative guess at what led him to this most recent theoretically unsupported statement. He has probably found that the measured anomalous force from his thrusters has not been scaling with Q. This is expected, since based on all other emDrive experiments, his results are out of family, and therefore dominated by errors that would not scale with Q.

And what about Fetta? I strongly suspect Shawyer, Fetta and others have much stronger results than you know about and know what's really going on. Are you considering the possibility that even if you don't accept Shawyer's theory, his equations may in fact work yet need to be put on a firmer footing or shown to be equivalent to better theories.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/20/2017 04:15 pm
When I say g, I am talking about gravitational acceleration (about 10 m/s^2). The between 2 and 100g you refer to would make more sense as grams of force.

Sorry I was not precise enough, thank you for pointing this out. I was citing Shawyer's IAC 2013 paper (http://www.emdrive.com/IAC13paper17254.v2.pdf) and was talking about g as a gravitational acceleration, not grams. So when Shawyer talks about "high-acceleration devices" he indeed talks about accelerations of 2g (~20 m.s-2) to 100g (~1000 m.s-2). These are not practical devices of course, just theoretical ones. Do your numbers show any problems with a Q of 109 using those values with a cavity of say, 30 cm long?
It is linear, so 100 g would equate to 1000 m/s. this would be 8kHz of Doppler (Doppler is still roughly linear this far from c) This is getting into the plausibly significant range, but only would would affect experimental results if you actually accelerated to 1 km/s.  At this point, does it really matter if performance is limited to 100g acceleration? This is solving a non-problem.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/20/2017 05:10 pm
When I say g, I am talking about gravitational acceleration (about 10 m/s^2). The between 2 and 100g you refer to would make more sense as grams of force.

Sorry I was not precise enough, thank you for pointing this out. I was citing Shawyer's IAC 2013 paper (http://www.emdrive.com/IAC13paper17254.v2.pdf) and was talking about g as a gravitational acceleration, not grams. So when Shawyer talks about "high-acceleration devices" he indeed talks about accelerations of 2g (~20 m.s-2) to 100g (~1000 m.s-2). These are not practical devices of course, just theoretical ones. Do your numbers show any problems with a Q of 109 using those values with a cavity of say, 30 cm long?
It is linear, so 100 g would equate to 1000 m/s. this would be 8kHz of Doppler (Doppler is still roughly linear this far from c) This is getting into the plausibly significant range, but only would would affect experimental results if you actually accelerated to 1 km/s.  At this point, does it really matter if performance is limited to 100g acceleration? This is solving a non-problem.

Shawyer's ten tonne interstellar probe design uses an acceleration of 0.1g over ten years earth time to attain 2/3c at 4 light years distance as a flyby mission. An actual 1g probe could benefit from getting very near c since the nuclear power source acts in the slowed time frame of the highly relativistic probe, ten years of ship time at a continuous 1g lasts for about 11 millennia earth time and thus might cover distances at that scale in light years as we measure distances. My main point is that the time frame that matters for such an onboard power source is ship time, not earth time which brings basically the entire universe within reach since we already have multi decade nuclear power sources that could power a 1g ship and a 25 year ship time would reach anywhere in the known universe according to physicist Nick Herbert. Hopefully though, prof. Woodward's stargates or warp drives would obviate such extreme relativistic trips.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/20/2017 06:04 pm
When I say g, I am talking about gravitational acceleration (about 10 m/s^2). The between 2 and 100g you refer to would make more sense as grams of force.

Sorry I was not precise enough, thank you for pointing this out. I was citing Shawyer's IAC 2013 paper (http://www.emdrive.com/IAC13paper17254.v2.pdf) and was talking about g as a gravitational acceleration, not grams. So when Shawyer talks about "high-acceleration devices" he indeed talks about accelerations of 2g (~20 m.s-2) to 100g (~1000 m.s-2). These are not practical devices of course, just theoretical ones. Do your numbers show any problems with a Q of 109 using those values with a cavity of say, 30 cm long?
It is linear, so 100 g would equate to 1000 m/s. this would be 8kHz of Doppler (Doppler is still roughly linear this far from c) This is getting into the plausibly significant range, but only would would affect experimental results if you actually accelerated to 1 km/s.  At this point, does it really matter if performance is limited to 100g acceleration? This is solving a non-problem.

Shawyer's ten tonne interstellar probe design uses an acceleration of 0.1g over ten years earth time to attain 2/3c at 4 light years distance as a flyby mission. An actual 1g probe could benefit from getting very near c since the nuclear power source acts in the slowed time frame of the highly relativistic probe, ten years of ship time at a continuous 1g lasts for about 11 millennia earth time and thus might cover distances at that scale in light years as we measure distances. My main point is that the time frame that matters for such an onboard power source is ship time, not earth time which brings basically the entire universe within reach since we already have multi decade nuclear power sources that could power a 1g ship and a 25 year ship time would reach anywhere in the known universe according to physicist Nick Herbert. Hopefully though, prof. Woodward's stargates or warp drives would obviate such extreme relativistic trips.
You missed the entire point of my posts, as your "main point" has nothing to do with my post.

Also you seem to misunderstand that the velocities I used refer to the change in velocity between when a photon in the cavity is first emitted and when it is absorbed. The performance impacts would only occur with both absurdly high Q and absurdly high acceleration.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/20/2017 06:48 pm
When I say g, I am talking about gravitational acceleration (about 10 m/s^2). The between 2 and 100g you refer to would make more sense as grams of force.

Sorry I was not precise enough, thank you for pointing this out. I was citing Shawyer's IAC 2013 paper (http://www.emdrive.com/IAC13paper17254.v2.pdf) and was talking about g as a gravitational acceleration, not grams. So when Shawyer talks about "high-acceleration devices" he indeed talks about accelerations of 2g (~20 m.s-2) to 100g (~1000 m.s-2). These are not practical devices of course, just theoretical ones. Do your numbers show any problems with a Q of 109 using those values with a cavity of say, 30 cm long?
It is linear, so 100 g would equate to 1000 m/s. this would be 8kHz of Doppler (Doppler is still roughly linear this far from c) This is getting into the plausibly significant range, but only would would affect experimental results if you actually accelerated to 1 km/s.  At this point, does it really matter if performance is limited to 100g acceleration? This is solving a non-problem.

Shawyer's ten tonne interstellar probe design uses an acceleration of 0.1g over ten years earth time to attain 2/3c at 4 light years distance as a flyby mission. An actual 1g probe could benefit from getting very near c since the nuclear power source acts in the slowed time frame of the highly relativistic probe, ten years of ship time at a continuous 1g lasts for about 11 millennia earth time and thus might cover distances at that scale in light years as we measure distances. My main point is that the time frame that matters for such an onboard power source is ship time, not earth time which brings basically the entire universe within reach since we already have multi decade nuclear power sources that could power a 1g ship and a 25 year ship time would reach anywhere in the known universe according to physicist Nick Herbert. Hopefully though, prof. Woodward's stargates or warp drives would obviate such extreme relativistic trips.
You missed the entire point of my posts, as your "main point" has nothing to do with my post.

Also you seem to misunderstand that the velocities I used refer to the change in velocity between when a photon in the cavity is first emitted and when it is absorbed. The performance impacts would only occur with both absurdly high Q and absurdly high acceleration.

I took your post as a jumping off point about 1g ships to the community. I didn't misunderstand you, I'm just not responding to your cavity argument at this time. I referred to them elsewhere. But my post does respond indirectly to your last sentences of your post which agrees with and emphasizes your argument that it's a non issue.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mark7777777 on 06/20/2017 09:01 pm
Can we take it then that you believe the Emdrive effect is real (however you explain it in your patent application) and can be used to power spacecraft? And flying cars :)?

...it's simply magnetism and the associated field control.

Pushing against other, local magnetic fields?
No, not that simple as a pushing or local fields.
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThinkerX on 06/21/2017 04:20 am
Interesting news from Gilo's FaceBook feed, as attached.

Links with the just posted slide from Roger where he states Gilo Industries Research is officially involved with SPR in solving the EmDrive's high Q acceleration issue.

What are these "high Q acceleration" problems you've mentioned?

"What limits thrust in high Q thrusters? Internal Doppler shift." as mentioned in presentation by Mr. Shawyer.
Internal Doppler shift limiting Q doesn't actually make sense if you check the math. Lets just pick a Q of 1 million. This means a typical photon lifetime would be about 0.001 s. even at 1 g of acceleration, the total delta v over that time is only 0.01 m/s. Since opposite ends of the frustum would cause opposing Doppler shifts, only the total delta v matters and this is so small compared to the speed of light that the impact on frequency is negligible.

Since all of Shawyer's theory so far has been nonsensical, here is an alternative guess at what led him to this most recent theoretically unsupported statement. He has probably found that the measured anomalous force from his thrusters has not been scaling with Q. This is expected, since based on all other emDrive experiments, his results are out of family, and therefore dominated by errors that would not scale with Q.
meberbs,

Well said.

I'm in agreement with you, as the numbers don't make any sense ??? even in very high Q systems it seems like more techno babble. I'm by no means the sharpest mind here, but when even I can see holes in this explanation, it means that they don't have a clue as to what they are doing, or are throwing up smoke screens to potentially protect their IP, or have nothing.

On another note...

I'm currently writing up my application for new provisional patents I'll be submitting. My theories are based on observable results and physics as we know them. This has been a very tough nut to crack and taken me over two years and lots of help (you know who you are)... but you need precise systematic key steps in controlling these high energy events, events that don't violate physics and rely on techno babble.

I'll say this. It's not photons that are the key, not really... well maybe a few bouncing around in the cavity and virtual photons (if you believe in that observation) of decaying evanescent waves, it's simply magnetism and the associated field control.

Sorry, it's taking so long, but this has to be done right. I even took the time (hated to take it), ripped apart my old broken hot tub, rebuilding the electronics and with a can of PC-7 fixed the cracks, just so I could sit and think again. That's where I'm headed now.  ;D

My Very Best,
Shell

'it's simply magnetism and the associated field control.'

No real chance finding it now, and the posters name escapes me, but I do recollect a purely magnetic explanation for the EM Drive being put forth a few months back.  In conjunction with Warp Techs theory, if I remember correctly.  Something about precisely timed and placed magnetic or electromagnetic fields playing off each other in a repeating sequence.  A bit like the 'rail-gun' concept. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Left Field on 06/21/2017 08:50 am
Interesting news from Gilo's FaceBook feed, as attached.

Links with the just posted slide from Roger where he states Gilo Industries Research is officially involved with SPR in solving the EmDrive's high Q acceleration issue.

What are these "high Q acceleration" problems you've mentioned?

"What limits thrust in high Q thrusters? Internal Doppler shift." as mentioned in presentation by Mr. Shawyer.
Internal Doppler shift limiting Q doesn't actually make sense if you check the math. Lets just pick a Q of 1 million. This means a typical photon lifetime would be about 0.001 s. even at 1 g of acceleration, the total delta v over that time is only 0.01 m/s. Since opposite ends of the frustum would cause opposing Doppler shifts, only the total delta v matters and this is so small compared to the speed of light that the impact on frequency is negligible.

Since all of Shawyer's theory so far has been nonsensical, here is an alternative guess at what led him to this most recent theoretically unsupported statement. He has probably found that the measured anomalous force from his thrusters has not been scaling with Q. This is expected, since based on all other emDrive experiments, his results are out of family, and therefore dominated by errors that would not scale with Q.
meberbs,

Well said.

I'm in agreement with you, as the numbers don't make any sense ??? even in very high Q systems it seems like more techno babble. I'm by no means the sharpest mind here, but when even I can see holes in this explanation, it means that they don't have a clue as to what they are doing, or are throwing up smoke screens to potentially protect their IP, or have nothing.

On another note...

I'm currently writing up my application for new provisional patents I'll be submitting. My theories are based on observable results and physics as we know them. This has been a very tough nut to crack and taken me over two years and lots of help (you know who you are)... but you need precise systematic key steps in controlling these high energy events, events that don't violate physics and rely on techno babble.

I'll say this. It's not photons that are the key, not really... well maybe a few bouncing around in the cavity and virtual photons (if you believe in that observation) of decaying evanescent waves, it's simply magnetism and the associated field control.

Sorry, it's taking so long, but this has to be done right. I even took the time (hated to take it), ripped apart my old broken hot tub, rebuilding the electronics and with a can of PC-7 fixed the cracks, just so I could sit and think again. That's where I'm headed now.  ;D

My Very Best,
Shell

'it's simply magnetism and the associated field control.'

No real chance finding it now, and the posters name escapes me, but I do recollect a purely magnetic explanation for the EM Drive being put forth a few months back.  In conjunction with Warp Techs theory, if I remember correctly.  Something about precisely timed and placed magnetic or electromagnetic fields playing off each other in a repeating sequence.  A bit like the 'rail-gun' concept.
That was dustinthewind I think.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1338339.msg#1338339
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 06/21/2017 03:28 pm
...it's simply magnetism and the associated field control.

Pushing against other, local magnetic fields?
No, not that simple as a pushing or local fields.
Shell

So basically you introduce a resonant EM field into an asymmetric frustum. Due to the asymmetry of the frustum, the resonant EM field is concentrated or focused in a predictable asymmetric pattern inside the frustum. Second the presence of the resonant EM field inside the frustum would result in an associated and again asymmetric manner, to match the asymmetry of the resonant field, electric currents and “EM/magnetic fields” in the frustum wall and endplates.

For simplicity assume that the frustum and manner that the resonant EM field is introduced into the frustum, result in the highest concentration/focus of the resonant EM field at or near the small end plate. In a manner similar to effects associated with Lenz’s law, the interaction between the resonant EM field and the induced “EM/magnetic field” in the frustum wall and end plates… and because the rate that the resonant EM field and the induced field in the frustum, update are not equivalent, would cause the frustum to attempt to slide toward the small end. The resonant EM field would move to the location within the frustum of best resonance at the speed of light, while the induced field in the frustum itself changes at the rate that current flows through the material the frustum is composed of…. The force would be very small and primarily based on the intensity of the resonant EM field and the construction of the frustum itself, to the extent that the materials and design improve or accentuate the “EM/magnetic field” in the frustum wall and endplates.

It would seem at this time that the frustum design and materials play two important roles. First the design should focus the resonant EM field toward the small endplate. And second the eletrical conductive rate of the coating inside the frustum, when compared to the frequency of the resonant field may be important. Assuming the resonant field moves with movement of the frustum at the speed of light, the rate that the induced field in the frustum wall/endplates relative to the frequency of the resonant field may be important.., to maximize the interaction between the two and result in an annomolus force...

There has been speculation of building these drive systems with a wide range of frequencies, while the best frequency may be better defined by the conductive properties of the available coatings, if one is seeking a device that can provide a continuous thrust. That may not be as important if a pulsed system is the objective.


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 06/21/2017 04:37 pm
... snip ...

 ;D

The Matrix's Nebuchadnezzar had an intriguing design with EM thrusters (even producing arcing when close to other objects). I always assumed those were ionic/plasma thrusters only working on an atmosphere, but now I wonder if they were of a now more familiar (for people on this thread, at least) kind...  8)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/21/2017 05:26 pm
...And what about Fetta?...

Fetta has come out with absolutely no news since:  http://cannae.com/cubesat-mission-clarification/

SEPTEMBER 26, 2016

That is a very long 8 months with no news.  And that was just a clarification.  The last news from Fetta's Cannae is really now 9 months ago:

http://cannae.com/press-release-from-cannae/

AUGUST 17, 2016

PRESS RELEASE FROM CANNAE
Cannae Inc. is demonstrating its proprietary thruster technology on an upcoming satellite mission. Cannae’s technology requires no on-board propellant to generate thrust and will provide station-keeping for a cubesat flying below a 150 mile orbital altitude. The demonstration satellite will remain in this orbit for a minimum of six months.

Cannae formed Theseus Space Inc. to work with its commercial partners to execute the technology demonstration mission. LAI International of Tempe. AZ continues to provide manufacturing and project support. SpaceQuest Ltd. of Fairfax, VA is providing system integration, technical support and program management for the satellite mission.


(https://www.mememaker.net/static/images/memes/4178826.jpg)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/21/2017 06:24 pm
Interesting news from Gilo's FaceBook feed, as attached.

Links with the just posted slide from Roger where he states Gilo Industries Research is officially involved with SPR in solving the EmDrive's high Q acceleration issue.

What are these "high Q acceleration" problems you've mentioned?

"What limits thrust in high Q thrusters? Internal Doppler shift." as mentioned in presentation by Mr. Shawyer.
Internal Doppler shift limiting Q doesn't actually make sense if you check the math. Lets just pick a Q of 1 million. This means a typical photon lifetime would be about 0.001 s. even at 1 g of acceleration, the total delta v over that time is only 0.01 m/s. Since opposite ends of the frustum would cause opposing Doppler shifts, only the total delta v matters and this is so small compared to the speed of light that the impact on frequency is negligible.

Since all of Shawyer's theory so far has been nonsensical, here is an alternative guess at what led him to this most recent theoretically unsupported statement. He has probably found that the measured anomalous force from his thrusters has not been scaling with Q. This is expected, since based on all other emDrive experiments, his results are out of family, and therefore dominated by errors that would not scale with Q.

Shawyer says that the Doppler shift is enhanced by Q and not linearly but by Q squared.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 06/21/2017 06:39 pm
I was wondering if a patent can be refuted on the grounds that the filer improperly characterized how his invention worked.  But then I remembered the famous case of Lee DeForest and Edwin Armstrong, back in the 1920's.   DeForest did not really understand how his vacuum tube worked, but anyway claimed a "previous invention" that conflicted with Armstrong's later invention of the Regenerative detection circuits.  It was a long drawn out court case, with multiple deep-pockets investors involved.  DeForest eventually won out, even though it was Armstrong who did all the theoretical work showing how DeForest's "invention" actually worked.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/21/2017 07:06 pm
Interesting news from Gilo's FaceBook feed, as attached.

Links with the just posted slide from Roger where he states Gilo Industries Research is officially involved with SPR in solving the EmDrive's high Q acceleration issue.

What are these "high Q acceleration" problems you've mentioned?

"What limits thrust in high Q thrusters? Internal Doppler shift." as mentioned in presentation by Mr. Shawyer.
Internal Doppler shift limiting Q doesn't actually make sense if you check the math. Lets just pick a Q of 1 million. This means a typical photon lifetime would be about 0.001 s. even at 1 g of acceleration, the total delta v over that time is only 0.01 m/s. Since opposite ends of the frustum would cause opposing Doppler shifts, only the total delta v matters and this is so small compared to the speed of light that the impact on frequency is negligible.

Since all of Shawyer's theory so far has been nonsensical, here is an alternative guess at what led him to this most recent theoretically unsupported statement. He has probably found that the measured anomalous force from his thrusters has not been scaling with Q. This is expected, since based on all other emDrive experiments, his results are out of family, and therefore dominated by errors that would not scale with Q.

Shawyer says that the Doppler shift is enhanced by Q and not linearly but by Q squared.
Presumably the Q^2  would be the factor of Q I used in my calculations, plus the one he would include in the equation for acceleration. All effects from the second factor of Q are accounted for in the acceleration term I used. In most practical applications, if you increased the force high enough to get much past 1-2 g of acceleration, you would want to either reduce the power or increase system mass (higher payload). While technically accurate, the scaling with Q^2 only matters for systems where you have no reason to limit the acceleration, otherwise it scales linearly.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 06/21/2017 09:05 pm
Even if the thrust remains in the milli-Newtons per Kilowatt in the long term, it would be a boon for in space applications just because it's not using any fuel.

Besides, any proven propelantless thruster with an efficiency above a photon rocket would be a scientific revolution in itself, by showing such things are even possible.

Most people wants flying cars and star ships ASAP, but that's just wishful thinking and lack of vision of the whole picture and of what's at stake here IMO.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 06/21/2017 10:20 pm
Even if the thrust remains in the milli-Newtons per Kilowatt in the long term, it would be a boon for in space applications just because it's not using any fuel.

Besides, any proven propelantless thruster with an efficiency above a photon rocket would be a scientific revolution in itself, by showing such things are even possible.

Most people wants flying cars and star ships ASAP, but that's just wishful thinking and lack of vision of the whole picture and of what's at stake here IMO.

At the level of mN/Kw it completely changes satellite design - no more reaction wheels, thrusters, magnetic torque rods, fuel, fuel tanks, fuel lines, valves, catalyst beds or heaters.  It's a complete revolution.
(I design and build satellites for a living).
At the level of N/Kw it opens up the entire solar system.
Flying cars are actually harder :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Flyby on 06/21/2017 10:52 pm
agreed.... with a N/kW level, we can start exploring and colonizing the entire solar system in less then 100 years.
Imagine space access to be just as mundane as air flight is today.
A trip to the moon, to visit you son or daughter who's working there as an astro-geologist.
A 2week flight to mars to conclude a business deal
A Jupiter flyby honeymoon trip...

Why would I need a flying car when my grandchildren could be standing on Europa (the moon) ?

BUT but but... we're not there yet... we first gotta prove the damn thing works as some claim it does...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 06/22/2017 02:45 am
Also see Harry Harrison's 1970 SF novel "The Daleth Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daleth_Effect)" about the development of a "space drive" and the futility of trying to keep a physics breakthrough secret.  The lesson was, once everyone knows that such a device is possible, somebody will quickly figure out how to make one, or improve on it, no matter how much you try to keep the details secret.  In the book, the secret space drive technology is reverse-engineered by the Honda motor company, resulting in flying cars.  :)

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 06/22/2017 03:27 am
Click left fields link to see previous quotes:

That was dustinthewind I think.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1338339.msg#1338339

That started out entirely as a separate topic from the EM drive.  At the time I didn't know about the EM drive.  I had this idea I thought was original, from understanding delayed EM signals, which really is propellant-less propulsion in a sense but it turns out it's just a phased array.  However the patent I posted I realized was the same thing (little did I realize it was a little more) so my idea wasn't all that original.  I was excited about the idea and had found this  website, so thought I would try and share it. 

I was approached or found the EM drive thread later.  Some others wondered if it could be related,  I wondered myself but the cavity give no emission of radiation as would a phased array and a phased array is weaker than a laser in thrust so its not a likely candidate. 

Later I began to understand how the phased array actually fights against it self.  The delayed electric fields from charge separation are different from magnetic fields of charge in motion.  The time retarded forces from charge separation actually oppose time retarded forces from magnetic effects.  Some how a phased array still can project radiation in a single direction so one of the forces is weaker than the other.

Also, there is a strong correlation with work.  Positive work is done at the back of the phased array with magnetic forces while negative work is done toward the front of the phased array.  This almost corresponds to negative energy at the front and positive energy at the back (similar to a diametric drive) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_Propulsion_Physics_Program but doesn't use mass but rather work or energy.  Problem is the phased array fights against it self and actually does opposing work so its not efficient.  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1459290#msg1459290

I would later realize in this video they are making the magnetic force work with the static electric force http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1342799#msg1342799
I designed this circuit here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1455292#msg1455292  I realized that was what they were doing in the video was the same as my circuit and was excited to realize this. 

I then would later realize a cavity in a transverse electric mode http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1460370#msg1460370 has no charge separation to fight against the magnetic effects.  I had an idea to either make an array that had the electric fields from the charge separation working with the magnetic effects or, eliminate (magnetism or charge separation altogether). The TE mode in the cavities eliminate charge separation. 

One problem is in a phased array you can control the current and make one wire do negative work.  However in a cavity it does what it would when encountering light so I would assume it normally does negative work (metal blocks the radiation).  I never quite put it out of the back of my mind that maybe however there could be some effect where the cavity was doing negative work at one end and positive work at the other while eliminating charge separation then maybe there would be some force greater than photon propulsion.  But wait a phased array in a cavity?  No radiation can escape!  However, even if we were to build a phased array where only magnetic effects are there and not charge separation how is it that there would suddenly be an increase in propulsive force when all we know about is radiation.  If its really possible then maybe there would be some other type of emission.  I have wondered if it were possible to generate some type of space time wave this way.  If some phased array could be made where charge separation works with the magnetic effects. 

I also worked on what I called a reverse magnetic phased array that I already linked here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1459290#msg1459290 I would use a dielectric between them that would slow the speed of light to very low velocity so as to allow the arrays to be as close together as possible.  There is another trick I haven't stated yet so as to further amplify forces between arrays also. 

WarpTech would later bring to my attention that radiation passing through the dielectric should create an opposing force.  While I admit this may be possible I have a suspicion that such an array may generate something else other than just light as it should provide a force greater than photon propulsion, because it should surpass a phased array, having magnetic forces with with charge separation. 

Would it work?  I have no guarantee, just a suspicion.   Does the EM drive work on such an effect?  I can't tell you that for sure either.  I don't know how the EM drive would do positive work one one side, as opposed to the other by just introducing radiation. 

The Doppler shifting of light, change in mass of light, is an idea I was toying with on the side.  I might be able to give an answer on how much change in frequency would occur given that light changed in mass by some factor on one side as opposed to the other.  The whole premise that light changed in mass was based on the apparent change in wavelength in radiation in the cavity along the z axis.  With constant frequency then if the mass changes the speed should change almost as if the index of space is changing which would effect massive objects.  Some microwave engineers seemed to think the index appeared to change also.  I remain uncertain this is actually happening. 

I am looking into how much frequency change would actually happen via a photon accelerating the cavity via 2nd order Doppler shift after many reflections.  I have a paper I derive this 2nd order Doppler shift in but it has a typo in equation 13 which should read 4*m_2*f*h was (4*f*h).  I am not confident the change in frequency will be significant.  I do believe it occurs however.  I suspect this is how energy is transferred from photons to a mirror in recycled photon thrusters or photonic laser thrusters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photonic_laser_thruster

I also wonder if a photon accelerating a single electron would be more effective at transferring energy given the much smaller mass of the electron. 

I still have no real idea how or why the mass of a photon would change in such a manner inside an EM drive or if it would even really be an effective form of propulsion if possible.  https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dustin_Macdermott  I'll update that paper to fix that typo I caught soon. 

The phased array is really a separate idea from light changing in mass. 

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 06/22/2017 05:17 am
When I say g, I am talking about gravitational acceleration (about 10 m/s^2). The between 2 and 100g you refer to would make more sense as grams of force.

Sorry I was not precise enough, thank you for pointing this out. I was citing Shawyer's IAC 2013 paper (http://www.emdrive.com/IAC13paper17254.v2.pdf) and was talking about g as a gravitational acceleration, not grams. So when Shawyer talks about "high-acceleration devices" he indeed talks about accelerations of 2g (~20 m.s-2) to 100g (~1000 m.s-2). These are not practical devices of course, just theoretical ones. Do your numbers show any problems with a Q of 109 using those values with a cavity of say, 30 cm long?
It is linear, so 100 g would equate to 1000 m/s. this would be 8kHz of Doppler (Doppler is still roughly linear this far from c) This is getting into the plausibly significant range, but only would would affect experimental results if you actually accelerated to 1 km/s.  At this point, does it really matter if performance is limited to 100g acceleration? This is solving a non-problem.

I tried with the 2nd order doppler effect for equations:

(https://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?df=f\left(&space;\frac{2\,v_2}{c&plus;v_2}&plus;\frac{2\,c^3&space;\frac{f\,h}{c^2}}{m_2&space;{{\left(&space;c&plus;v_2\right)&space;}^{3}}}-\frac{4\,c^5&space;\frac{f^{2}\,h^{2}}{c^4}}{m_2^{2}\left(c&plus;v_2\right)^{5}}&plus;...\right))

Assuming the mass of the photon at one end is twice at the other in a cavity

if v_2 > 0 then the regular Doppler shift appears to dwarf the other terms if m_2 very large like 1kg. 
c = 3E8 = speed of light m/s
V = 1 = some starting velocity in m/s or use v_2 = 0 to eliminate the normal Doppler effect
f = 2.45E9 = microwave frequency
h = 6.626E-34 = planks constant
m_2 = 9E-31 kg; ~ mass of electron
n = 1000000; = number of reflections, I just multiply it all by n (not shown)

if m_2 is very small like the mass of an electron and you expect 10k reflections then things get interesting.  The change in frequency could almost be 1khz  which brings up a question.  At what point do we assume the collision is with the cavity rather than the electron?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 06/22/2017 09:24 am
Imagine space access to be just as mundane as air flight is today.
A trip to the moon, to visit you son or daughter who's working there as an astro-geologist.
A 2week flight to mars to conclude a business deal
A Jupiter flyby honeymoon trip...

Why would I need a flying car when my grandchildren could be standing on Europa (the moon) ?

With a pressurized and confortable flying car, at home, you could walk down your backyard, open the door, sit down, and ask Siri to go directly to the Moon, Mars or Europa. No need to go to a spaceport, register and wait for a shuttle.

But even if such trips were technologically feasible at a personal level, probably every country regulation would prevent anybody to travel outside their airspace and even more the boundary of Earth atmosphere. Not as long as countries of Earth still undergo political, economical, religious and resource-based conflicts, with territory colonization, oil wars, terror attacks and massive migration problems. I can't imagine this era to happen for humans of Earth, sadly.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 06/22/2017 02:10 pm
When I say g, I am talking about gravitational acceleration (about 10 m/s^2). The between 2 and 100g you refer to would make more sense as grams of force.

Sorry I was not precise enough, thank you for pointing this out. I was citing Shawyer's IAC 2013 paper (http://www.emdrive.com/IAC13paper17254.v2.pdf) and was talking about g as a gravitational acceleration, not grams. So when Shawyer talks about "high-acceleration devices" he indeed talks about accelerations of 2g (~20 m.s-2) to 100g (~1000 m.s-2). These are not practical devices of course, just theoretical ones. Do your numbers show any problems with a Q of 109 using those values with a cavity of say, 30 cm long?
It is linear, so 100 g would equate to 1000 m/s. this would be 8kHz of Doppler (Doppler is still roughly linear this far from c) This is getting into the plausibly significant range, but only would would affect experimental results if you actually accelerated to 1 km/s.  At this point, does it really matter if performance is limited to 100g acceleration? This is solving a non-problem.

I tried with the 2nd order doppler effect for equations:

(https://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?df=f\left(&space;\frac{2\,v_2}{c&plus;v_2}&plus;\frac{2\,c^3&space;\frac{f\,h}{c^2}}{m_2&space;{{\left(&space;c&plus;v_2\right)&space;}^{3}}}-\frac{4\,c^5&space;\frac{f^{2}\,h^{2}}{c^4}}{m_2^{2}\left(c&plus;v_2\right)^{5}}&plus;...\right))

Assuming the mass of the photon at one end is twice at the other in a cavity

if v_2 > 0 then the regular Doppler shift appears to dwarf the other terms if m_2 very large like 1kg. 
c = 3E8 = speed of light m/s
V = 1 = some starting velocity in m/s or use v_2 = 0 to eliminate the normal Doppler effect
f = 2.45E9 = microwave frequency
h = 6.626E-34 = planks constant
m_2 = 9E-31 kg; ~ mass of electron
n = 1000000; = number of reflections, I just multiply it all by n (not shown)

if m_2 is very small like the mass of an electron and you expect 10k reflections then things get interesting.  The change in frequency could almost be 1khz  which brings up a question.  At what point do we assume the collision is with the cavity rather than the electron?
Things are interesting but not addressable. 10k reflections at 1ns travel time (typical ballpark frustum size in the Y direction) for the photon equates to a whooping 10 microseconds. I can bake a cake in that amount time  :o or seriously control the shifting frequency with a variety of techniques.

On another item. I loved your post, what a keen perception you have.  8) https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1692527#msg1692527

My Very Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Notsosureofit on 06/22/2017 03:55 pm
FYI:

General properties of entropy
Alfred Wehrl
Rev. Mod. Phys. 50, 221 (1978) - Published 1 April 1978
It is rather paradoxical that, although entropy is one of the most important quantities in physics, its main properties are rarely listed in the usual textbooks on statistical mechanics. In this paper we try to fill this gap by discussing these properties, as, for instance, invariance, additivity, concavity, subadditivity, strong subadditivity, continuity, etc., in detail, with reference to their implications in statistical mechanics. In addition, we consider related concepts such as relative entropy, skew entropy, dynamical entropy, etc. Taking into account that statistical mechanics deals with large, essentially infinite systems, we finally will get a glimpse of systems with infinitely many degrees of freedom.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/22/2017 05:40 pm
Also see Harry Harrison's 1970 SF novel "The Daleth Effect" about the development of a "space drive" and the futility of trying to keep a physics breakthrough secret.  The lesson was, once everyone knows that such a device is possible, somebody will quickly figure out how to make one, or improve on it, no matter how much you try to keep the details secret.  In the book, the secret space drive technology is reverse-engineered by the HONDA (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/benjamin-t-solomon/hondas-gravity-modification-research_b_7531260.html) motor company, resulting in flying cars.  :)


" ... futility of trying to keep a physics breakthrough secret.
somebody will quickly figure out how to make one, or improve on it,
no matter how much you try to keep the details secret. "
   
   
     
I wish I had this problem!  :) 
 
So far, nobody wants to steal my physics breakthrough space drive technology.
It has been futile ....   :'( 
You missed the part about people having to know that it is possible. When I look at you website I see neither demonstrations that it works, nor any compelling reason to think it should work. As best as I can tell your idea is basically that you don't understand gyroscopes, so they must be magic antigravity devices. This is a surprisingly common train of logic on the internet despite being completely wrong. Physicists and engineers (including me) generally do understand gyroscopes, and recognize they have nothing to do with antigravity.

If you want I could try to explain gyroscopes to you, but this is probably not the right place. (PM or maybe the Q&A section, under the rational that gyroscopes are important for spacecraft control)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 06/22/2017 06:05 pm
Click left fields link to see previous quotes:

That was dustinthewind I think.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1338339.msg#1338339

...

WarpTech would later bring to my attention that radiation passing through the dielectric should create an opposing force.  While I admit this may be possible I have a suspicion that such an array may generate something else other than just light as it should provide a force greater than photon propulsion, because it should surpass a phased array, having magnetic forces with with charge separation. 

Would it work?  I have no guarantee, just a suspicion.   Does the EM drive work on such an effect?  I can't tell you that for sure either.  I don't know how the EM drive would do positive work one one side, as opposed to the other by just introducing radiation. 


To be clear. Even if the momentum of photons inside the dielectric were much greater than it is in vacuum. When those photons exit the back-end of the device, they will return to their free-space momentum value. Any excess momentum must be transferred to the dielectric, and that "push" is in the wrong direction -- toward the rear.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: birchoff on 06/22/2017 06:14 pm
Also see Harry Harrison's 1970 SF novel "The Daleth Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daleth_Effect)" about the development of a "space drive" and the futility of trying to keep a physics breakthrough secret.  The lesson was, once everyone knows that such a device is possible, somebody will quickly figure out how to make one, or improve on it, no matter how much you try to keep the details secret.  In the book, the secret space drive technology is reverse-engineered by the Honda motor company, resulting in flying cars.  :)

that depends on how you go about monetizing the discovery. For example, if you immediately patented and licensed the technology to current players. that does two things first it disincentivizes the licensee from spending the money on reverse engineering. While at the same time increasing the community dependent on reverse engineered knockoffs from being allowed into the marketplace.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 06/22/2017 07:58 pm
It seems the mod moms have nuked a block of posts, including my update and summary. I don't have time right now to rewrite it all but I will tonight or tomorrow morning.

My Very Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: qraal on 06/22/2017 08:36 pm
Interesting and maybe relevant bit of science news:
A 100-year-old physics problem has been solved (https://phys.org/news/2017-06-year-old-physics-problem.html)

and paper...

Breaking Lorentz reciprocity to overcome the time-bandwidth limit in physics and engineering (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6344/1260)

Seems the resonance limit on Q isn't inviolable.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 06/22/2017 09:18 pm
Interesting and maybe relevant bit of science news:
A 100-year-old physics problem has been solved (https://phys.org/news/2017-06-year-old-physics-problem.html)

and paper...

Breaking Lorentz reciprocity to overcome the time-bandwidth limit in physics and engineering (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6344/1260)

Seems the resonance limit on Q isn't inviolable.

Anyone have access to the full paper?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Notsosureofit on 06/22/2017 09:31 pm
" As a system becomes more asymmetric in its transport properties, the degree to which the limit can be surpassed becomes greater. "

Note the inclusion of asymmetric transport properties.  These could be a property of the wall materials.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/22/2017 09:35 pm
The cavity photons, once emitted by the coupler / antenna, immediately start to lose energy to wall eddy current heating. As they do that their wavelength permanently ref shifts as their frequency drops.

Here is an interesting table based on an individual 2.45GHz photon losing 63.2% of it's energy every TC and red shifting inside the cavity as attached.

Of course their lost eddy current heating energy is remitted as much higher freq and energy IR photons.

 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/23/2017 01:48 am
" As a system becomes more asymmetric in its transport properties, the degree to which the limit can be surpassed becomes greater. "

Note the inclusion of asymmetric transport properties.  These could be a property of the wall materials.

Also the information (entropy) of things in nature (black holes, the universe) can be shown to be on the exterior surface as a hologram of everything inside the volume.  The maximum possible entropy depends on the boundary area instead of the volume.   From what we learned from information theory, the information content in the volume of the system cannot exceed that of the description on the boundary.  So thinking about information theory (entropy) the walls are most important:  and this works for the EM Drive: all the losses are on the copper surface
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Notsosureofit on 06/23/2017 02:04 am
I prefer "description of the boundary".    And, yes the electrical activity of the wall is "holographic" to the fields in the volume.  I might add that the boundary goes shape independent as the number of states goes to infinity.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 06/23/2017 02:06 am

(...)

You can't just ignore the existence of spatial dimensions. They obviously exist,

(...)

meberbs,
please forgive this extraction from your argument but SR exposes a flaw in the notion of orthogonal spatial dimensions. You may define them but they cannot retain their orthogonality across a dilation of time.

Distance and direction remain relevant descriptors but Euclidian space is redundant no matter how well Rutherford defines it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/23/2017 02:25 am
The cavity photons, once emitted by the coupler / antenna, immediately start to lose energy to wall eddy current heating. As they do that their wavelength permanently ref shifts as their frequency drops.

Here is an interesting table based on an individual 2.45GHz photon losing 63.2% of it's energy every TC and red shifting inside the cavity as attached.

Of course their lost eddy current heating energy is remitted as much higher freq and energy IR photons.
In case there are any bystanders curious, the flaw in the above is that it ignores that the decrease in energy over time would be from individual photons being absorbed. If the above were true it would obviously show up in various experiments such as a 2 port measurement tracking the energy stored in the cavity. Also, trivially, if you went into a dark room and shined a blue light on a black (but not 100% absorptive) piece of paper the above logic implies that the reflected light would be red.


(...)

You can't just ignore the existence of spatial dimensions. They obviously exist,

(...)

meberbs,
please forgive this extraction from your argument but SR exposes a flaw in the notion of orthogonal spatial dimensions. You may define them but they cannot retain their orthogonality across a dilation of time.

Distance and direction remain relevant descriptors but Euclidian space is redundant no matter how well Rutherford defines it.
We are in complete agreement here. I did not used any modifiers like Euclidean or orthogonal, or even linear. The dimensions in general are curved, non-orthogonal, and mixed in with the fourth (temporal) dimension. All of the dimensions exist, 3 spatial and 1 temporal, and you need all of them to properly describe the motions of objects (which is the essence of physics in a way). There is no sensible way to boil 4 dimensions down to just 1.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 06/23/2017 10:28 am
Interesting and maybe relevant bit of science news:
A 100-year-old physics problem has been solved (https://phys.org/news/2017-06-year-old-physics-problem.html)

and paper...

Breaking Lorentz reciprocity to overcome the time-bandwidth limit in physics and engineering (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6344/1260)

Seems the resonance limit on Q isn't inviolable.

Attached is a snippet from the paper. All credit where it is due.

Some discussion on the paper...

So wave packets may occasionally propagate in one direction and simply gain amplitude when hitting a boundary with magnetic fields blocking back-propagation. The entire information of the wave is conserved at the boundary. The authors used a combination of a Si dielectric, InSb semiconductor and Ag conductor. This heterostructure had a "static"* magnetic field applied in the -y direction. This would be akin to increasing the electron pressure on the outermost boundary. In fact it is the E field (see orthogonality in diagram) which provides the directional force to prevent the wave packet from escaping its resonant oscillation at the point of incidence. The wave becomes sandwiched between two e fields (electron seas/phonon soup) until it decays. Supposing the power to the repulsive B field is turned off, then with back scattering and back propagation it can of course assume a longer closed path again.

Here's yet another analogy then of how I currently view the cavity in light of this renewed confirmation of the discrete and unidirectional nature of photonic propagation given the repulsive (TE directional aligned, remember B does not repel E but instead overlaps) E field. The inside of the cavity is like a plasma onion. Each electron sheet has photons bouncing (until absorption, dissipative losses or propagation (tunneling/however) through the wall) along paths not too dissimilar from that of a vacuum filled cavity. As each electron is excited, it in turn can emit a photon or collide to continue the propagation of the energy.

At certain points, however, due to magnetohydrodynamic shearing and torque from the time evolution of the resonant fields, and of course some splatter and chaos, specific areas will experience magnetic reconnection and transfer energy directionally. Before the reconnection occurs, individual photons, carrying information as a wave packet, will resonate between layers. This buffer of sorts will release a cascade of energy down to the weaker e field/onion layer upon reconnection and create more asymmetry further ensuring energy propagation towards the walls. The more excited the medium gets the stronger the E field (OBVIOUSLY) in each of the modal peaks and the greater the difference and therefore the statistical likelihood of prevention of back propagation between layers. Wave packets do not ignore the internal electrons, and internal electrons do not ignore the wave packets. Each area of high energy density will act just like any other ExB field in relation to light. This paper just confirms that fields can concentrate an arbitrary wave packet into a dense volume of space and therefore increases the entire system's capacity for energy storage. Instead of Q being a limitation based on the entire wave path, we understand that Q is determined by any number of arbitrary temporary resonances the packet enters during its lifetime (before leaving the system). When will we accept that the same physical laws governing plasmonic propagation in metals also govern plasmonic propagation in air just on a different time and energy magnitude?   

Two topics which I brushed on earlier come to mind: plasmonics in zero dimensional metals/nanowires and (de)coherency of the system. Upon trapping the light it is actually made temporarily coherent as the path is closed. In theory, decohering a large amount of the photons stuck between sheets/wall (the wall is just a denser sheet) by no longer introducing new waves into the cavity, will lead to a reactionary force in the exact opposite direction of the relaxation events and the pressure gradient because the gradient is time dependent and forms a sequence of discrete quanta which repel weaker (younger) fields. If the thrust is caused from wall to wall reactions and largely ignores internal atmosphere, this reactionary force should be close to or equal to the instantaneous forward force. If the thrust is caused by electron/ionic pressures, then this reactionary force should be less than the forward force due to vortices, eddies, evanescence and more. The only issue is whether it decoheres instantaneously or over time and whether it has a tangible effect on system acceleration: a question of how important the gain medium actually is. If the gain medium is a cold plasma then we can begin to consider the different layers as discrete. Plasmonics in nanowires are so interesting because they also show asymmetry and pseudo-momentum naturally. Waves which resonate along such a structure naturally shift the mass and charge to one end of the structure, these resonances and oscillations seem eerily similar to field vectors and electrical currents inside a cavity.               

I leave you with a quote for some of the other theorists from the paper:
Quote
The small increase in the total optical losses that we observed in our simulations for this latter case is
because the slope of the band (i.e., the pulse’s group velocity) reduces with increasing B0, leading to higher overall optical losses(27**)


*As proven before, true static fields do not exist! Minor oscillations are unavoidable, anything else is a mathematical flight of fancy. 

** 27. R. W. Boyd, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 28, A38–A44 (2011)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/23/2017 05:26 pm
Imagine space access to be just as mundane as air flight is today.
A trip to the moon, to visit you son or daughter who's working there as an astro-geologist.
A 2week flight to mars to conclude a business deal
A Jupiter flyby honeymoon trip...

Why would I need a flying car when my grandchildren could be standing on Europa (the moon) ?

With a pressurized and confortable flying car, at home, you could walk down your backyard, open the door, sit down, and ask Siri to go directly to the Moon, Mars or Europa. No need to go to a spaceport, register and wait for a shuttle.

But even if such trips were technologically feasible at a personal level, probably every country regulation would prevent anybody to travel outside their airspace and even more the boundary of Earth atmosphere. Not as long as countries of Earth still undergo political, economical, religious and resource-based conflicts, with territory colonization, oil wars, terror attacks and massive migration problems. I can't imagine this era to happen for humans of Earth, sadly.

You are not going to be allowed to fly over houses or neighborhoods and FAA rules will apply. Flying cars will have to be flown from airports of some kind, not just anywhere to anywhere. Airspace and it's uses will be tightly controlled.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/23/2017 05:30 pm
The cavity photons, once emitted by the coupler / antenna, immediately start to lose energy to wall eddy current heating. As they do that their wavelength permanently ref shifts as their frequency drops.

Here is an interesting table based on an individual 2.45GHz photon losing 63.2% of it's energy every TC and red shifting inside the cavity as attached.

Of course their lost eddy current heating energy is remitted as much higher freq and energy IR photons.
In case there are any bystanders curious, the flaw in the above is that it ignores that the decrease in energy over time would be from individual photons being absorbed. If the above were true it would obviously show up in various experiments such as a 2 port measurement tracking the energy stored in the cavity. Also, trivially, if you went into a dark room and shined a blue light on a black (but not 100% absorptive) piece of paper the above logic implies that the reflected light would be red.

When cavity photons are absorbed by the electrons on surface metallic atoms, they are also reemitted back into the cavity The process is called radiation pressure. Any lost energy and/or momentum transfer results in the reemittted photon being red shifted to reflects it's lower level of energy.

A photon can not lose energy and have the same wavelength or frequency. As it loses energy, it red shifts. Photon wavelength = hc / photon energy.

Once a cavity is filled, the per cycle J input from the Rf source equals the per cycle photon J loss due to all loss sources. When the Rf input into the cavity is stopped, the stored photon energy decays over 5 x TC and the photon wavelengths increase.

The predominant photon energy loss in a cavity is from the photon's H fields inducing eddy current flow into the metallic walls and end plates which results in ohmic heating. The energy to generate the heating is sourced from the photon's energy. Photon absord and emit events are not required to generate skin depth eddy currents and related heating.

Don't believe shinning a blue light on a black piece of paper has anything to do with the above, especially as there is no eddy current heating involved. However if the event occurred in space and the black paper gained momentum and energy from the blue light, the reemitted light would be very slighlty red shifted to reflect the lost momentum and energy.

Radiation pressure = (2 * E) / c

The 2 represents 2 momentum and energy transfer, from photon to mass, events. 1st for the absord event and 2nd for the emit event.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/23/2017 05:44 pm
Interesting and maybe relevant bit of science news:
A 100-year-old physics problem has been solved (https://phys.org/news/2017-06-year-old-physics-problem.html)

and paper...

Breaking Lorentz reciprocity to overcome the time-bandwidth limit in physics and engineering (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6344/1260)

Seems the resonance limit on Q isn't inviolable.

Attached is a snippet from the paper. All credit where it is due.

Some discussion on the paper...

So wave packets may occasionally propagate in one direction and simply gain amplitude when hitting a boundary with magnetic fields blocking back-propagation....

Is this implying what I think it is, that EMDrive type cavities might be designed to resonate  in a very wide frequency range and thus not have to chase the narrow band for resonance?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 06/23/2017 06:40 pm

Is this implying what I think it is, that EMDrive type cavities might be designed to resonate  in a very wide frequency range and thus not have to chase the narrow band for resonance?

In the remote case this proves to work as Roger Shawyer says, yes, it would be heavily regulated.

As it should, given the potential uses as a weapon of any vehicle with enough kinetic energy.

But in this case all evidence seems to point towards more modest thrusts in the milli Newton range, if anything at all.

That level of thrust, if confirmed, would be mostly of use for space applications, with no impact for Earth based transportation.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 06/23/2017 07:43 pm
These experiments were done at atmospheric pressure and should be done in vacuum. My understanding is that others who have done it in vacuum have not seen the effect.

As for me too, the BB effect was a case closed since the 1990s. But I am happy we can discuss here some peculiar points.

Contrary to the belief, experiments have also been done in a vacuum, but maybe it was not high enough (10-6 torr) and a plasma was still flowing between electrodes? Another thing: if the Biefeld-Brown effect is just electrohydrodynamic in nature (ionic wind), can someone explain why a measurable force is still detected when those asymmetric capacitors are put inside a closed metallic box immersed in insulating oil?

This kind of test had been conducted by Townsend Brown himself, as well as Takaaki Musha on behalf of Honda Motor Co. who detected up to 2 grams of change on the balance with 8kVAC and 18KVDC currents (Musha's paper"Explanation of dynamical Biefeld-Brown effect from the standpoint of ZPF field" published in JBIS in 2008 is attached below as long as a schematic diagram of his experiment).

Info seen after this post of Quantum Gravity (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22120.msg1692673#msg1692673) in the other topic.

Were there major flaws in Brown and Musha's experiments? EMI/HV interference with the setup? Ionic wind in the air around the whole setup?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/23/2017 10:16 pm
The cavity photons, once emitted by the coupler / antenna, immediately start to lose energy to wall eddy current heating. As they do that their wavelength permanently ref shifts as their frequency drops.

Here is an interesting table based on an individual 2.45GHz photon losing 63.2% of it's energy every TC and red shifting inside the cavity as attached.

Of course their lost eddy current heating energy is remitted as much higher freq and energy IR photons.
In case there are any bystanders curious, the flaw in the above is that it ignores that the decrease in energy over time would be from individual photons being absorbed. If the above were true it would obviously show up in various experiments such as a 2 port measurement tracking the energy stored in the cavity. Also, trivially, if you went into a dark room and shined a blue light on a black (but not 100% absorptive) piece of paper the above logic implies that the reflected light would be red.

When cavity photons are absorbed by the electrons on surface metallic atoms, they are also reemitted back into the cavity The process is called radiation pressure. Any lost energy and/or momentum transfer results in the reemittted photon being red shifted to reflects it's lower level of energy.

A photon can not lose energy and have the same wavelength or frequency. As it loses energy, it red shifts. Photon wavelength = hc / photon energy.

Once a cavity is filled, the per cycle J input from the Rf source equals the per cycle photon J loss due to all loss sources. When the Rf input into the cavity is stopped, the stored photon energy decays over 5 x TC and the photon wavelengths increase.

The predominant photon energy loss in a cavity is from the photon's H fields inducing eddy current flow into the metallic walls and end plates which results in ohmic heating. The energy to generate the heating is sourced from the photon's energy. Photon absord and emit events are not required to generate skin depth eddy currents and related heating.

Don't believe shinning a blue light on a black piece of paper has anything to do with the above, especially as there is no eddy current heating involved. However if the event occurred in space and the black paper gained momentum and energy from the blue light, the reemitted light would be very slighlty red shifted to reflect the lost momentum and energy.

Radiation pressure = (2 * E) / c

The 2 represents 2 momentum and energy transfer, from photon to mass, events. 1st for the absord event and 2nd for the emit event.
Radiation pressure as you described is for the photons that are reflected not absorbed. The energy losses are almost entirely from absorbed photons (which apply half the radiation pressure.). The absorbed photons are not re-emitted. Reflected photons do not change frequency (and therefore energy) unless there is a difference in velocity between the source and what it is reflected from. There is a tiny effect from the radiation pressure if it is causing acceleration as well. If you go look up some of my earliest posts on this site you would see I calculated it and the effect is negligible.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 06/24/2017 01:21 am

(...)

You can't just ignore the existence of spatial dimensions. They obviously exist,

(...)

meberbs,
please forgive this extraction from your argument but SR exposes a flaw in the notion of orthogonal spatial dimensions. You may define them but they cannot retain their orthogonality across a dilation of time.

Distance and direction remain relevant descriptors but Euclidian space is redundant no matter how well Rutherford defines it.
We are in complete agreement here. I did not used any modifiers like Euclidean or orthogonal, or even linear. The dimensions in general are curved, non-orthogonal, and mixed in with the fourth (temporal) dimension. All of the dimensions exist, 3 spatial and 1 temporal, and you need all of them to properly describe the motions of objects (which is the essence of physics in a way). There is no sensible way to boil 4 dimensions down to just 1.
Thanks meberbs,
do we also agree that those four dimensions are descriptors of 'spacetime' which have no independent existence, that the three spatial dimensions are entirely artificial constructs which have limited application to physical science?
       Can spacetime be reconciled with both dynamic and electromagnetic action without the incorporation of complex numbers as fundamental units of that physical science?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 06/24/2017 01:27 am
Imagine space access to be just as mundane as air flight is today.
A trip to the moon, to visit you son or daughter who's working there as an astro-geologist.
A 2week flight to mars to conclude a business deal
A Jupiter flyby honeymoon trip...

Why would I need a flying car when my grandchildren could be standing on Europa (the moon) ?

With a pressurized and confortable flying car, at home, you could walk down your backyard, open the door, sit down, and ask Siri to go directly to the Moon, Mars or Europa. No need to go to a spaceport, register and wait for a shuttle.

But even if such trips were technologically feasible at a personal level, probably every country regulation would prevent anybody to travel outside their airspace and even more the boundary of Earth atmosphere. Not as long as countries of Earth still undergo political, economical, religious and resource-based conflicts, with territory colonization, oil wars, terror attacks and massive migration problems. I can't imagine this era to happen for humans of Earth, sadly.

You are not going to be allowed to fly over houses or neighborhoods and FAA rules will apply. Flying cars will have to be flown from airports of some kind, not just anywhere to anywhere. Airspace and it's uses will be tightly controlled.
With fully automated navigation for collision avoidance and law abidance, I see no reason why 'flying cars' should not have complete freedom of movement.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 06/24/2017 01:39 am
(...)
Radiation pressure as you described is for the photons that are reflected not absorbed. The energy losses are almost entirely from absorbed photons (which apply half the radiation pressure.). The absorbed photons are not re-emitted. Reflected photons do not change frequency (and therefore energy) unless there is a difference in velocity between the source and what it is reflected from. There is a tiny effect from the radiation pressure if it is causing acceleration as well. If you go look up some of my earliest posts on this site you would see I calculated it and the effect is negligible.
meberbs,
is it not true that absorption of radiation engenders a current in the reflector, even when that radiation is re-emitted. A more extensive reflecting surface might then contain both the energy of that radiation and the inertia imparted by its radiation pressure, for longer than a less extensive reflecting surface might do.
       Is this not a potential explanation for emdrive thrust?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: eh90 on 06/24/2017 07:55 am
Would it be possible to use the magnetism found within the heliosphere to boost the thrust? Or the reactions between planetary magnetic fields and the HMF? I would imagine this would only result in a net gain of a few millinewtons, but extra thrust is extra thrust.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/24/2017 07:31 pm
Would it be possible to use the magnetism found within the heliosphere to boost the thrust? Or the reactions between planetary magnetic fields and the HMF? I would imagine this would only result in a net gain of a few millinewtons, but extra thrust is extra thrust.

You certainly can design spacecraft to harness those fields directly but that's another topic altogether.

http://spacenews.com/experiment-designed-harness-magnetic-field-propulsion/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 06/24/2017 08:23 pm
Would it be possible to use the magnetism found within the heliosphere to boost the thrust? Or the reactions between planetary magnetic fields and the HMF? I would imagine this would only result in a net gain of a few millinewtons, but extra thrust is extra thrust.

You certainly can design spacecraft to harness those fields directly but that's another topic altogether.

http://spacenews.com/experiment-designed-harness-magnetic-field-propulsion/

Dear eh90, we don't currently understand how the EmDrive works, and we don't know if it works at all (the tiny thrusts measured with experiments so far could be systematic experimental errors). If it works, we don't know if the emDrive depends on such things as Earth's magnetic field, or Earth's gravitational potential in its surroundings, so we don't know if it could also work in deep space where there are no such fields. Hence this kind of question, although interesting, is really premature.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 06/24/2017 09:42 pm
With fully automated navigation for collision avoidance and law abidance, I see no reason why 'flying cars' should not have complete freedom of movement.

All current aircraft are restricted to being 1,000 feet from any inhabited structure or large crowd of people, or 500 feet from open ground.  And if an airplane or helicopter loses power, it descends relatively slowly and under full control.  A flying car using a mechanism like EM (assuming you could get that much lift from it) becomes a brick if the power fails.   And automatic parachutes (some small aircraft actually have these) need altitude to work and are not very controllable.  Watch out for those high tension lines...  And then if the wind is blowing... 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 06/25/2017 01:18 am
With fully automated navigation for collision avoidance and law abidance, I see no reason why 'flying cars' should not have complete freedom of movement.

All current aircraft are restricted to being 1,000 feet from any inhabited structure or large crowd of people, or 500 feet from open ground.  And if an airplane or helicopter loses power, it descends relatively slowly and under full control.  A flying car using a mechanism like EM (assuming you could get that much lift from it) becomes a brick if the power fails.   And automatic parachutes (some small aircraft actually have these) need altitude to work and are not very controllable.  Watch out for those high tension lines...  And then if the wind is blowing...
Thanks ThereIWas3,
all this depends upon what specific thrust can be achieved. If propulsion is a small fraction of MTOW then triple redundancy could be employed. Who was it said "... predicting the future is like driving a car backwards in a heavy fog ..."
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThinkerX on 06/25/2017 03:38 am
Ok.

Shell said her experimental efforts indicate some sort of purely magnetic explanation for how the EM Drive works - perhaps something similar to Dust in the Winds proposal.

However, much of the recent theory work seems oriented towards the Woodward/Mach effect or something close to it. (Rodal, among others.)

So, are these positions mutually exclusive?  Or can they be combined somehow?

I seem to recollect a paper mentioned at the Estes Confab that linked internal magnetic effects of the frustum to Woodward/Mach, but I also have a hazy recollection there were issues with this paper.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 06/25/2017 01:45 pm
Ok.

Shell said her experimental efforts indicate some sort of purely magnetic explanation for how the EM Drive works - perhaps something similar to Dust in the Winds proposal.

However, much of the recent theory work seems oriented towards the Woodward/Mach effect or something close to it. (Rodal, among others.)

So, are these positions mutually exclusive?  Or can they be combined somehow?

I seem to recollect a paper mentioned at the Estes Confab that linked internal magnetic effects of the frustum to Woodward/Mach, but I also have a hazy recollection there were issues with this paper.

This is an excellent write-up of the Advanced Propulsion Workshop and the source material for my reply. I was honored to attend.

Estes Park Advanced Propulsion Workshop
19 —22 September 2016
Estes Park, Colorado, USA
edited by
H. Fearn L. L. Williams

Relevant reading materials to consider first.

Intro to MEP
Introduction to “ Mach Effect Propulsion” in Appendix D – J.J.A. Rodal Page 127

Dr. Rodal's excellent paper on the MEGA Mach Effect starts at page 282
http://ssi.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ssi_estes_park_proceedings_201609.pdf
(warning... a PDF but worth it to read)

Coupling the EMDrive to Mach Effects with a paper (his presentation via Skype)
Theory of the EM-drive Based on Mach-Lorentz Theory – J.-P. Montillet Page 111

---------------

There could be a link between the Mach Effects using the  manipulation of the EM field environment of the EMDrive, although further testing is in order. It needs to be noted that anomalous thrusts have also been reported without specifically trying to enhance a Mach effect in a EMDrive, which is part of the quandary and raises the question, are we seeing more than one effect take place? Also the TM mode cited by J.-P. Montillet in his theory isn't the only mode (TE is the other) that apparent thrust happens. That needs to be addressed along with other issues.

If it can be built where the Mach Effects can be established in the asymmetrical EMDrive cavity by manipulation if the fields and the resultant actions it could mean that the use of PZT like materials which need to operate over 2.5x10^13 or 25 Trillion pulses  :o or greater during a lifetime wouldn't need to be used, or they could be used in a more efficient manner. This direction could lead to a more materials stable device with a potential for a longer life and higher thrusts.

My Very Best,
Shell

PS: Sorry I haven't re-written up the current work like I said, I had other pressing issues arise. I'll try to get it out in a post again.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThinkerX on 06/25/2017 09:01 pm
Quote
There could be a link between the Mach Effects using the  manipulation of the EM field environment of the EMDrive, although further testing is in order. It needs to be noted that anomalous thrusts have also been reported without specifically trying to enhance a Mach effect in a EMDrive, which is part of the quandary and raises the question, are we seeing more than one effect take place? Also the TM mode cited by J.-P. Montillet in his theory isn't the only mode (TE is the other) that apparent thrust happens. That needs to be addressed along with other issues.

If it can be built where the Mach Effects can be established in the asymmetrical EMDrive cavity by manipulation if the fields and the resultant actions it could mean that the use of PZT like materials which need to operate over 2.5x10^13 or 25 Trillion pulses  :o or greater during a lifetime wouldn't need to be used, or they could be used in a more efficient manner. This direction could lead to a more materials stable device with a potential for a longer life and higher thrusts.

A few weeks back - an eternity in these threads - I posted a suggestion:

The Mach Effect relies on the gravitational influences of 'distant bodies' in order to function.

However, there is one nearby astronomical body whose gravitation causes major effects on earth: the moon.  Lunar tides, in places, alter ocean levels at the coastlines by tens of feet.  That seems like a pretty potent source.

Perhaps some of the larger anomalous 'thrusts' are linked to the lunar cycle, and the devices lunar orientation.  Or to put it another way:

what would the local high (or low) tide have been at Shell's location during the times of her tests? 

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/25/2017 09:15 pm
Thanks meberbs,
do we also agree that those four dimensions are descriptors of 'spacetime' which have no independent existence, that the three spatial dimensions are entirely artificial constructs which have limited application to physical science?
       Can spacetime be reconciled with both dynamic and electromagnetic action without the incorporation of complex numbers as fundamental units of that physical science?
I am not entirely clear what you mean by the first part. We might be in agreement, but the way I would say it is that the ultimate choice of reference frame is arbitrary, so any single representation of spacetime with a chosen reference frame is artificial, but it is still describing something real, as there are rigorous equations that allow transformation of one description to any of the infinite number of other valid descriptions of that spacetime, and there is a further, (much larger) infinity of descriptions that don't describe that spacetime.

I am really not sure what you mean by the last question. The only time complex numbers are really fundamental to a physical theory is in quantum, and even then, the physically measurable parts are pure real. There is a representation of coordinates for special relativity where the metric has a -1 for the time axis, which effectively means an "imaginary" basis vector for time. I think this is a helpful way of thinking about spacetime, but I don't think it is necessary, as you can do all of the required math without needing complex numbers.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/25/2017 09:21 pm
The last month and a half have been very busy for me. I've been traveling some, and have had other projects wrapping up and some new projects beginning that are very time consuming.  But work still continues on my tests.

I had to revert to the custom copper/stainless terminal block as it is easier to isolate the main leads while probing for errant EM fields. This configuration also seems to have less noise than the previous. I hope to complete a series of 2.5W tests at intervals along the return loss trace to see if there is any difference in displacement.  After that, onward to 30W.

I have also purchased the Prusa i3 MK2S 3D printer. It arrives in 7 weeks! There is a huge back order as it is in high demand right now. I will be using it to fabricate spherical end plates.  ;D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 06/25/2017 09:23 pm
Quote
There could be a link between the Mach Effects using the  manipulation of the EM field environment of the EMDrive, although further testing is in order. It needs to be noted that anomalous thrusts have also been reported without specifically trying to enhance a Mach effect in a EMDrive, which is part of the quandary and raises the question, are we seeing more than one effect take place? Also the TM mode cited by J.-P. Montillet in his theory isn't the only mode (TE is the other) that apparent thrust happens. That needs to be addressed along with other issues.

If it can be built where the Mach Effects can be established in the asymmetrical EMDrive cavity by manipulation if the fields and the resultant actions it could mean that the use of PZT like materials which need to operate over 2.5x10^13 or 25 Trillion pulses  :o or greater during a lifetime wouldn't need to be used, or they could be used in a more efficient manner. This direction could lead to a more materials stable device with a potential for a longer life and higher thrusts.

A few weeks back - an eternity in these threads - I posted a suggestion:

The Mach Effect relies on the gravitational influences of 'distant bodies' in order to function.

However, there is one nearby astronomical body whose gravitation causes major effects on earth: the moon.  Lunar tides, in places, alter ocean levels at the coastlines by tens of feet.  That seems like a pretty potent source.

Perhaps some of the larger anomalous 'thrusts' are linked to the lunar cycle, and the devices lunar orientation.  Or to put it another way:

what would the local high (or low) tide have been at Shell's location during the times of her tests?
Interesting thought although.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RF_resonant_cavity_thruster#Mach_effect
Quote
In a fully Machian general relativity theory like the Hoyle–Narlikar theory of gravity, inertia is a physical gravitational interaction of matter with the rest of the mass-energy in the universe, through an action at a distance instantaneous radiative reaction field. In the theory, a mass changing effect suitable for propulsion emerges from the general equation of motion.[91]

In non-scientific terms it means the whole enchilada... i.e. everything in the universe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle%E2%80%93Narlikar_theory_of_gravity

My Very Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/25/2017 10:27 pm
Thanks meberbs,
do we also agree that those four dimensions are descriptors of 'spacetime' which have no independent existence, that the three spatial dimensions are entirely artificial constructs which have limited application to physical science?
       Can spacetime be reconciled with both dynamic and electromagnetic action without the incorporation of complex numbers as fundamental units of that physical science?
I am not entirely clear what you mean by the first part. We might be in agreement, but the way I would say it is that the ultimate choice of reference frame is arbitrary, so any single representation of spacetime with a chosen reference frame is artificial, but it is still describing something real, as there are rigorous equations that allow transformation of one description to any of the infinite number of other valid descriptions of that spacetime, and there is a further, (much larger) infinity of descriptions that don't describe that spacetime.

I am really not sure what you mean by the last question. The only time complex numbers are really fundamental to a physical theory is in quantum, and even then, the physically measurable parts are pure real. There is a representation of coordinates for special relativity where the metric has a -1 for the time axis, which effectively means an "imaginary" basis vector for time. I think this is a helpful way of thinking about spacetime, but I don't think it is necessary, as you can do all of the required math without needing complex numbers.

I think  (spupeng7 should explain himself what he means of course  :) ) that by imaginary time spupeng7 may be referring to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_time  which is a concept that was basically popularized by Hawking in his 1988 book "A Brief History of Time" in an attempt at a Quantum Gravity theory.   By this imaginary time Hawking is not at all referring to

  a representation of coordinates for special relativity where the metric has a -1 for the time axis, which effectively means an "imaginary" basis vector for time. I think this is a helpful way of thinking about spacetime, but I don't think it is necessary, as you can do all of the required math without needing complex numbers

which is a different concept.

This different (older concept) is the representation xo= i c t  which is OK, and perhaps helpful when  used in Special Relativity but not (when solving problems) in General Relativity.

Meberbs you are 100% correct that you can do all the necessary math for Einstein's Relativity without using complex numbers.  Actually, for General Relativity you better use real numbers for the time coordinate:

This representation is (justifiably in my opinion) called abominable by Kip Thorne when it is used for General Relativity, who calls textbooks that try to do General Relativity using it as abominable, because while one can get away with  xo= i c t  in (perfectly flat) Minkowski spacetime (in other words, in Special Relativity), one cannot readily solve General Relativity problems using this imaginary time coordinate xo= i c t representation.  Hence in General Relativity physicists (and all advanced textbooks) use just xo= t, and the price one pays for this is to have to agree on a consistent signature for the metric of spacetime , for example spacelike [-,+,+,+] (mostly pluses) (used by Wikipedia, and the textbooks of Wald, and also Misner, Thorne and Wheeler) or timelike [+,-,-,-] (mostly minuses) (used by Leonard Susskind, Witten, and by Landau and Lifshitz).   The front inside cover of Misner Thorne and Wheeler lists conventions for metric signature, for the Riemann Tensor, for the Einstein Tensor, and for the use of Greek and Latin indices and lists 34 texts and what conventions they use. And then spells out on the facing side where the signs go.

So going back to Hawking's use of "imaginary time," it was a concept used for some versions of Quantum Gravity, Hawking, at the time (30 years ago ), believed that a quantum gravity theory could be successfully developed in this way.  Imaginary time is obtained from real time via a Wick rotation in the complex plane (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wick_rotation ).  He thought that it was possible to avoid singularities in this Wick rotated space.   His views (popularized in a "Brief History of Time") are technically summarized in J. B. Hartle and S. W. Hawking, "Wave function of the Universe" Phys. Rev. D 28 (1983) 2960–2975. [
 https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.28.2960 ] Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle%E2%80%93Hawking_state . 

It is by now (2017) an old approach that does not work well in general because of many difficulties.  I may be wrong but I wonder whether even Hawking is still pursuing this approach to Quantum Gravity.

If somebody disagrees, please specify a mathematical solution to General Relativity using imaginary time, that cannot be done even easier with real numbers for the time coordinate as used by Wald, Misner-Thorpe-Wheeler, Witten, or Landau-Lifshitz.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: demofsky on 06/25/2017 11:29 pm
The last month and a half have been very busy for me. I've been traveling some, and have had other projects wrapping up and some new projects beginning that are very time consuming.  But work still continues on my tests.

I had to revert to the custom copper/stainless terminal block as it is easier to isolate the main leads while probing for errant EM fields. This configuration also seems to have less noise than the previous. I hope to complete a series of 2.5W tests at intervals along the return loss trace to see if there is any difference in displacement.  After that, onward to 30W.

I have also purchased the Prusa i3 MK2S 3D printer. It arrives in 7 weeks! There is a huge back order as it is in high demand right now. I will be using it to fabricate spherical end plates.  ;D
I have to wonder, if as a last test, before transitioning to 30W whether it would be worthwhile to try TE011 on your rig to see if there is improved thrust as Phil is claiming.  If you could get TE011 going reasonably it would be a great A/B test on a well characterized test rig. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/26/2017 12:08 am
The last month and a half have been very busy for me. I've been traveling some, and have had other projects wrapping up and some new projects beginning that are very time consuming.  But work still continues on my tests.

I had to revert to the custom copper/stainless terminal block as it is easier to isolate the main leads while probing for errant EM fields. This configuration also seems to have less noise than the previous. I hope to complete a series of 2.5W tests at intervals along the return loss trace to see if there is any difference in displacement.  After that, onward to 30W.

I have also purchased the Prusa i3 MK2S 3D printer. It arrives in 7 weeks! There is a huge back order as it is in high demand right now. I will be using it to fabricate spherical end plates.  ;D
I have to wonder, if as a last test, before transitioning to 30W whether it would be worthwhile to try TE011 on your rig to see if there is improved thrust as Phil is claiming.  If you could get TE011 going reasonably it would be a great A/B test on a well characterized test rig.

TE011 is quite a bit lower in frequency than TE013. While my signal generator is capable of generating those frequencies, the 2.4 Ghz amplifiers are not. I would need another main amplifier to test TE011 with the current cavity.

However, the new 3D printer will allow me to fabricate a cavity specifically designed for TE011 at 2.45Ghz with the highly curved end plates seen recently.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 06/26/2017 03:00 am
Thanks meberbs,
do we also agree that those four dimensions are descriptors of 'spacetime' which have no independent existence, that the three spatial dimensions are entirely artificial constructs which have limited application to physical science?
       Can spacetime be reconciled with both dynamic and electromagnetic action without the incorporation of complex numbers as fundamental units of that physical science?
I am not entirely clear what you mean by the first part. We might be in agreement, but the way I would say it is that the ultimate choice of reference frame is arbitrary, so any single representation of spacetime with a chosen reference frame is artificial, but it is still describing something real, as there are rigorous equations that allow transformation of one description to any of the infinite number of other valid descriptions of that spacetime, and there is a further, (much larger) infinity of descriptions that don't describe that spacetime.

I am really not sure what you mean by the last question. The only time complex numbers are really fundamental to a physical theory is in quantum, and even then, the physically measurable parts are pure real. There is a representation of coordinates for special relativity where the metric has a -1 for the time axis, which effectively means an "imaginary" basis vector for time. I think this is a helpful way of thinking about spacetime, but I don't think it is necessary, as you can do all of the required math without needing complex numbers.

I think  (spupeng7 should explain himself what he means of course  :) ) that by imaginary time spupeng7 may be referring to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_time  which is a concept that was basically popularized by Hawking in his 1988 book "A Brief History of Time" in an attempt at a Quantum Gravity theory.   By this imaginary time Hawking is not at all referring to

  a representation of coordinates for special relativity where the metric has a -1 for the time axis, which effectively means an "imaginary" basis vector for time. I think this is a helpful way of thinking about spacetime, but I don't think it is necessary, as you can do all of the required math without needing complex numbers

which is a different concept.

This different (older concept) is the representation xo= i c t  which is OK, and perhaps helpful when  used in Special Relativity but not (when solving problems) in General Relativity.

Meberbs you are 100% correct that you can do all the necessary math for Einstein's Relativity without using complex numbers.  Actually, for General Relativity you better use real numbers for the time coordinate:

This representation is (justifiably in my opinion) called abominable by Kip Thorne when it is used for General Relativity, who calls textbooks that try to do General Relativity using it as abominable, because while one can get away with  xo= i c t  in (perfectly flat) Minkowski spacetime (in other words, in Special Relativity), one cannot readily solve General Relativity problems using this imaginary time coordinate xo= i c t representation.  Hence in General Relativity physicists (and all advanced textbooks) use just xo= t, and the price one pays for this is to have to agree on a consistent signature for the metric of spacetime , for example spacelike [-,+,+,+] (mostly pluses) (used by Wikipedia, and the textbooks of Wald, and also Misner, Thorne and Wheeler) or timelike [+,-,-,-] (mostly minuses) (used by Leonard Susskind, Witten, and by Landau and Lifshitz).   The front inside cover of Misner Thorne and Wheeler lists conventions for metric signature, for the Riemann Tensor, for the Einstein Tensor, and for the use of Greek and Latin indices and lists 34 texts and what conventions they use. And then spells out on the facing side where the signs go.

So going back to Hawking's use of "imaginary time," it was a concept used for some versions of Quantum Gravity, Hawking, at the time (30 years ago ), believed that a quantum gravity theory could be successfully developed in this way.  Imaginary time is obtained from real time via a Wick rotation in the complex plane.  He thought that it was possible to avoid singularities in this Wick rotated space.   His views (popularized in a "Brief History of Time") are technically summarized in J. B. Hartle and S. W. Hawking, "Wave function of the Universe" Phys. Rev. D 28 (1983) 2960–2975. [
 https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.28.2960 ] Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle%E2%80%93Hawking_state . 

It is by now (2017) an old approach that does not work well in general because of many difficulties.  I may be wrong but I wonder whether even Hawking is still pursuing this approach to Quantum Gravity.

If somebody disagrees, please specify a mathematical solution to General Relativity using imaginary time, that cannot be done even easier with real numbers for the time coordinate as used by Wald, Misner-Thorpe-Wheeler, Witten, or Landau-Lifshitz.

Thankyou meberbs, Shell and Dr Rodal,
       while out of my depth with the math of General Relativity it is clear to me that a functioning emdrive indicates interaction with the wider universe, all of it that is old enough to be within the range, ict. What I propose is that all interaction is electromagnetic and that it occurs across separations that only exist from point perspectives. A covariant perspective, as I understand it, requires coincidence of locations in spacetime which are remote from one another from the point perspective.
       The solution I visualize is; gravity and inertia consequent upon the sum of interaction with everything else by charge interactions mediated by time dilation; electromagnetic action being the consequence of the sum of individual interactions of pairs of charges also mediated by time dilation but limited to those in resonance with uninterrupted line of sight.
       No mathematical system yet resolves complex time, charge, mass, distance and direction, as the useful descriptors of physical force and energetic interaction. All available mathematical systems employ spatial dimensions which loose their orthogonality and become oppressively complicated with proximity to time dilation. My suggestion is that a system incorporating complex time may be capable of explaining the physical forces without the paradox which is glaringly obvious to me whenever I try to understand QM or GR.
       I am convinced that a seamless explanation for physical interaction is possible and that the emdrive can point us in the direction required to  find it. Surely it will be Machian. How can it not incorporate either complex time or some other resolution for remote action between charges? Thank you all for your patience with my struggles to understand this.

Q: is the reference https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.28.2960 available without a paywall anywhere?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 06/26/2017 07:37 am
Hi guys,

Just found out following information about the EmDrive development.

BBC made a report about the Gilo Industries on 4.4. 2017 that I missed (shame on me!). They spoke a bit about that new investment from the Kuang-Chi this year.
Mr. Gilo also mentions something interesting. That "they can not yet speak about the best thing they made" and that they may reveal it later this year.

Of course it can be anything. They work on many interesting project, but given the fact, that we know about their cooperation with Mr. Shawyer there is some probability it can be the EmDrive.

This supports, that Mr. Shawyer mentions in his presentation work on "new superconducting cavity desing" with Gilo Industries (2015).

Here is the link and the attachment:

https://goo.gl/ixUF72
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Asteroza on 06/26/2017 07:40 am
Probably posted elsewhere, but a heads up on high-Q related paper, apparently publishing something old school radar guys from the 50's knew but didn't talk/publish much about...

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6344/1260 (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6344/1260)

"Breaking Lorentz reciprocity to overcome the time-bandwidth limit in physics and engineering"

Some satcomms guys think this may be big, as well as fiber optic telecomms guys...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/26/2017 12:09 pm
Hi guys,

Just found out following information about the EmDrive development.

BBC made a report about the Gilo Industries on 4.4. 2017 that I missed (shame on me!). They spoke a bit about that new investment from the Kuang-Chi this year.
Mr. Gilo also mentions something interesting. That "they can not yet speak about the best thing they made" and that they may reveal it later this year.

Of course it can be anything. They work on many interesting project, but given the fact, that we know about their cooperation with Mr. Shawyer there is some probability it can be the EmDrive.

This supports, that Mr. Shawyer mentions in his presentation work on "new superconducting cavity desing" with Gilo Industries (2015).

Latest news from TT regarding the new Shawyer patent and Gilo is that it is not going so well.

On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Phil wrote:

"BTW Roger's patent flat plate big end and complex curve small end was done to eliminate the need for the big spherical radius curve.

However I'm told that design in the patent, including the fancy antenna, did not work well in practice and Roger has gone back to more standard designs. In my opinion that antenna just has too much metallic mass inside the cavity. Metallic mass that will cause photon absorption and emit cycles that will not help the end plates obtaining the best differential."
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/26/2017 12:56 pm
...
Q: is the reference https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.28.2960 available without a paywall anywhere?
Although I cannot post the free version of Hawking's paper because it is in a Russian site (*), this article by Prof. Baez (**) is simpler, freely available, to explain what the concept of imaginary time and a Wick rotation are, and since you are still interested in Hawking's use of imaginary time (Wick rotation) 30 years ago, you may be interested in this:

A Spring in Imaginary Time

Homework:  http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/classical/spring.pdf

2 solutions posted:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/classical/spring_garett.pdf

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/classical/spring_alex.pdf

Quote
QUESTION: What does Newton’s law F = ma become if we formally replace normal time t by imaginary time s = it?

ANSWER: In short, working in imaginary time replaces F = ma by F = −ma

Also see this discussion "Thermodynamics and Wick Rotation", Posted by John Baez:

https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2010/08/thermodynamics_and_wick_rotati.html

---------------------------

(*) Yes, Hawking's paper is available free of charge in the Internet, I originally posted a free link to the paper, but then I realized that it is a Russian university, (the highly respected SKOBELTSYN INSTITUTE OF NUCLEAR PHYSICS
LOMONOSOV MOSCOW STATE UNIVERSITY), and I recalled the mods not liking us to post Russian links...so I changed it to the one behind the paywall

(**) This is the same Prof. Baez that posted blogs that the Shawyer's EM Drive is nonsense

https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2006/10/new_scientist_reacts.html

https://plus.google.com/+johncbaez999/posts/E1ecoYsa5ae
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 06/26/2017 02:28 pm


Latest news from TT regarding the new Shawyer patent and Gilo is that it is not going so well.

On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Phil wrote:

"BTW Roger's patent flat plate big end and complex curve small end was done to eliminate the need for the big spherical radius curve.

However I'm told that design in the patent, including the fancy antenna, did not work well in practice and Roger has gone back to more standard designs. In my opinion that antenna just has too much metallic mass inside the cavity. Metallic mass that will cause photon absorption and emit cycles that will not help the end plates obtaining the best differential."


I concur. Had Roger Shawyer's experiments with superconductors gone as he expected, he would be showing off his floating machines already and we would be having a very different conversation.

We haven't seen that, ergo the experiment's results aren't as good as he expected.

Which may indicate there is no such thing as an Emdrive thrust effect.

Or that the Emdrive is not working as he theorized and therefore not scaling, something that seems likely for me all evidence from other independent parties considered. It may still work, it's just weak and with yet unknown parameters controlling the thrust.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 06/26/2017 03:34 pm
https://phys.org/news/2017-06-year-old-physics-problem.html

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6344/1260

Breaking Lorentz reciprocity with frequency conversion and delay

https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.09548

Quote
At EPFL, researchers challenge a fundamental law and discover that more electromagnetic energy can be stored in wave-guiding systems than previously thought. The discovery has implications in telecommunications. Working around the fundamental law, they conceived resonant and wave-guiding systems capable of storing energy over a prolonged period while keeping a broad bandwidth. Their trick was to create asymmetric resonant or wave-guiding systems using magnetic fields.

The study, which has just been published in Science, was led by Kosmas Tsakmakidis, first at the University of Ottawa and then at EPFL's Bionanophotonic Systems Laboratory run by Hatice Altug, where the researcher is now doing post-doctoral research.
This breakthrough could have a major impact on many fields in engineering and physics. The number of potential applications is close to infinite, with telecommunications, optical detection systems and broadband energy harvesting representing just a few examples. Resonant and wave-guiding systems are present in the vast majority of optical and electronic systems. Their role is to temporarily store energy in the form of electromagnetic waves and then release them. For more than 100 hundred years, these systems were held back by a limitation that was considered to be fundamental: the length of time a wave could be stored was inversely proportional to its bandwidth. This relationship was interpreted to mean that it was impossible to store large amounts of data in resonant or wave-guiding systems over a long period of time because increasing the bandwidth meant decreasing the storage time and quality of storage.
This law was first formulated by K. S. Johnson in 1914, at Western Electric Company (the forerunner of Bell Telephone Laboratories). He introduced the concept of the Q factor, according to which a resonator can either store energy for a long time or have a broad bandwidth, but not both at the same time. Increasing the storage time meant decreasing the bandwidth, and vice versa. A small bandwidth means a limited range of frequencies (or 'colors') and therefore a limited amount of data.
Until now, this concept had never been challenged. Physicists and engineers had always built resonant systems—like those to produce lasers, make electronic circuits and conduct medical diagnoses—with this constraint in mind.
But that limitation is now a thing of the past. The researchers came up with a hybrid resonant / wave-guiding system made of a magneto-optic material that, when a magnetic field is applied, is able to stop the wave and store it for a prolonged period, thereby accumulating large amounts of energy. Then when the magnetic field is switched off, the trapped pulse is released. With such asymmetric and non-reciprocal systems, it was possible to store a wave for a very long period of time while also maintaining a large bandwidth. The conventional time-bandwidth limit was even beaten by a factor of 1,000. The scientists further showed that, theoretically, there is no upper ceiling to this limit at all in these asymmetric (non-reciprocal) systems.
"It was a moment of revelation when we discovered that these new structures did not feature any time-bandwidth restriction at all. These systems are unlike what we have all been accustomed to for decades, and possibly hundreds of years", says Tsakmakidis, the study's lead author. "Their superior wave-storage capacity performance could really be an enabler for a range of exciting applications in diverse contemporary and more traditional fields of research." Hatice Altug adds..

and from the article in Science magazine:
Quote
We believe that it is now possible to design ultrahigh-Q resonant systems in atomic, optical, and condensed matter physics, as well as in mechanical and electrical engineering, with unprecedentedly high bandwidths and ultrafast response times, in addition to ultraslow- and stopped-light systems with unusually high delay-bandwidth products, for a wide range of applications in those fields.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/26/2017 05:42 pm


Latest news from TT regarding the new Shawyer patent and Gilo is that it is not going so well.

On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Phil wrote:

"BTW Roger's patent flat plate big end and complex curve small end was done to eliminate the need for the big spherical radius curve.

However I'm told that design in the patent, including the fancy antenna, did not work well in practice and Roger has gone back to more standard designs. In my opinion that antenna just has too much metallic mass inside the cavity. Metallic mass that will cause photon absorption and emit cycles that will not help the end plates obtaining the best differential."


I concur. Had Roger Shawyer's experiments with superconductors gone as he expected, he would be showing off his floating machines already and we would be having a very different conversation.

We haven't seen that, ergo the experiment's results aren't as good as he expected.

Which may indicate there is no such thing as an Emdrive thrust effect.

Or that the Emdrive is not working as he theorized and therefore not scaling, something that seems likely for me all evidence from other independent parties considered. It may still work, it's just weak and with yet unknown parameters controlling the thrust.

Why don't we wait for real information instead of rumors. I distrust this type of information.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/26/2017 06:28 pm
https://phys.org/news/2017-06-year-old-physics-problem.html

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6344/1260

Breaking Lorentz reciprocity with frequency conversion and delay

https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.09548

Quote
At EPFL, researchers challenge a fundamental law and discover that more electromagnetic energy can be stored in wave-guiding systems than previously thought. The discovery has implications in telecommunications. Working around the fundamental law, they conceived resonant and wave-guiding systems capable of storing energy over a prolonged period while keeping a broad bandwidth. Their trick was to create asymmetric resonant or wave-guiding systems using magnetic fields.

The study, which has just been published in Science, was led by Kosmas Tsakmakidis, first at the University of Ottawa and then at EPFL's Bionanophotonic Systems Laboratory run by Hatice Altug, where the researcher is now doing post-doctoral research.
This breakthrough could have a major impact on many fields in engineering and physics. The number of potential applications is close to infinite, with telecommunications, optical detection systems and broadband energy harvesting representing just a few examples. Resonant and wave-guiding systems are present in the vast majority of optical and electronic systems. Their role is to temporarily store energy in the form of electromagnetic waves and then release them. For more than 100 hundred years, these systems were held back by a limitation that was considered to be fundamental: the length of time a wave could be stored was inversely proportional to its bandwidth. This relationship was interpreted to mean that it was impossible to store large amounts of data in resonant or wave-guiding systems over a long period of time because increasing the bandwidth meant decreasing the storage time and quality of storage.
This law was first formulated by K. S. Johnson in 1914, at Western Electric Company (the forerunner of Bell Telephone Laboratories). He introduced the concept of the Q factor, according to which a resonator can either store energy for a long time or have a broad bandwidth, but not both at the same time. Increasing the storage time meant decreasing the bandwidth, and vice versa. A small bandwidth means a limited range of frequencies (or 'colors') and therefore a limited amount of data.
Until now, this concept had never been challenged. Physicists and engineers had always built resonant systems—like those to produce lasers, make electronic circuits and conduct medical diagnoses—with this constraint in mind.
But that limitation is now a thing of the past. The researchers came up with a hybrid resonant / wave-guiding system made of a magneto-optic material that, when a magnetic field is applied, is able to stop the wave and store it for a prolonged period, thereby accumulating large amounts of energy. Then when the magnetic field is switched off, the trapped pulse is released. With such asymmetric and non-reciprocal systems, it was possible to store a wave for a very long period of time while also maintaining a large bandwidth. The conventional time-bandwidth limit was even beaten by a factor of 1,000. The scientists further showed that, theoretically, there is no upper ceiling to this limit at all in these asymmetric (non-reciprocal) systems.
"It was a moment of revelation when we discovered that these new structures did not feature any time-bandwidth restriction at all. These systems are unlike what we have all been accustomed to for decades, and possibly hundreds of years", says Tsakmakidis, the study's lead author. "Their superior wave-storage capacity performance could really be an enabler for a range of exciting applications in diverse contemporary and more traditional fields of research." Hatice Altug adds..

and from the article in Science magazine:
Quote
We believe that it is now possible to design ultrahigh-Q resonant systems in atomic, optical, and condensed matter physics, as well as in mechanical and electrical engineering, with unprecedentedly high bandwidths and ultrafast response times, in addition to ultraslow- and stopped-light systems with unusually high delay-bandwidth products, for a wide range of applications in those fields.

Which leads me to the simple question if light can be manipulated such that it has a billion fold momentum for the same energy. Maybe that's what's happening, just not yet a billion fold. Such 'heavy light' certainly would be useful for thrust.  ;D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 06/26/2017 09:59 pm
The last month and a half have been very busy for me. I've been traveling some, and have had other projects wrapping up and some new projects beginning that are very time consuming.  But work still continues on my tests.

I had to revert to the custom copper/stainless terminal block as it is easier to isolate the main leads while probing for errant EM fields. This configuration also seems to have less noise than the previous. I hope to complete a series of 2.5W tests at intervals along the return loss trace to see if there is any difference in displacement.  After that, onward to 30W.

I have also purchased the Prusa i3 MK2S 3D printer. It arrives in 7 weeks! There is a huge back order as it is in high demand right now. I will be using it to fabricate spherical end plates.  ;D

Jamie -
I think you will be very pleased with the Prusa printer.   A close friend and former coworker has one and for precision and accuracy of build it does an outstanding job, plus the user interface etc are first rate.  Now -  I love my Delta printer (Rostock V2) - print volume about about 25cm dia x 40cm high), but the Prusa works fantastic.   It will likely be my next addition to the additive  fab side of the house.  I think it will complement the Delta - especially for smaller prints. 

 As I type this I am looking at several of my buddy's giveaways (once yu get a 3D printer you end up with lots of "extra" items you just had to try from thingiverse etc - you end up giving away a LOT of little items) including a thumb wrench, plastic lab jack and a novelty double threaded (bi-directional) nut and bolt assemble.   I am VERY impressed with the quality of printing even with basic ABS and PLA.   

Bye the way the Prusa folks have some awesome customer service. 

Herman
graybeardsyseng
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: demofsky on 06/26/2017 10:57 pm
https://phys.org/news/2017-06-year-old-physics-problem.html (https://phys.org/news/2017-06-year-old-physics-problem.html)

......

and from the article in Science magazine:
Quote
We believe that it is now possible to design ultrahigh-Q resonant systems in atomic, optical, and condensed matter physics, as well as in mechanical and electrical engineering, with unprecedentedly high bandwidths and ultrafast response times, in addition to ultraslow- and stopped-light systems with unusually high delay-bandwidth products, for a wide range of applications in those fields.
Ok, a basic question...  As far as I can recall there has never been any experimental evidence of this with the fustrums right?  All the simulations and instrumentation showed the fustrums behaving like symmetrical wave guides.  Is this something that is an artifact that is built in based on the "old" understanding of Q?  Or am I missing something?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 06/27/2017 02:44 am
(...)
I think  (spupeng7 should explain himself what he means of course  :) ) that by imaginary time spupeng7 may be referring to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_time  which is a concept that was basically popularized by Hawking in his 1988 book "A Brief History of Time" in an attempt at a Quantum Gravity theory.   By this imaginary time Hawking is not at all referring to

  a representation of coordinates for special relativity where the metric has a -1 for the time axis, which effectively means an "imaginary" basis vector for time. I think this is a helpful way of thinking about spacetime, but I don't think it is necessary, as you can do all of the required math without needing complex numbers

which is a different concept.

This different (older concept) is the representation xo= i c t  which is OK, and perhaps helpful when  used in Special Relativity but not (when solving problems) in General Relativity.
(...)
Yes, I should explain myself if I can...

Attempting to define complex time requires the definition of a dynamic within which it fits. When I try to do this I stray into Twistor Space which defeats the purpose by being impossible to visualize.

The only transparent visualization I can find has moments of spacetime with point origin at a charge, from which there is coincidence with all locations at intervals ict. These are the locations in spacetime where absorption of energy, which is emitted at that origin, can occur.

This has consequences, first that no intermediary particle or wave is required for that transfer of energy and secondly, sequence remote from the observer is unique to the observers perspective.

The transfer of energy between remote charges then falls into two categories both acting by dilation of time. First gravity and inertia which are the continuous interaction of all charges proportional to the inverse square of their separation and second, electromagnetic action which is the transfer of quantum between resonant pairs of charges irrespective of their separation.

Complex time is then, the structure which allows connection between charges separated by ict and is complex because ict has coincident solutions at both locations in spacetime. Maybe this is just philosophy but what other explanation is there for the motion of charges within the emdrive, engendering its acceleration?

With respect for those who describe virtual particles, I cannot force myself to imagine them :P
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 06/27/2017 04:57 am


Latest news from TT regarding the new Shawyer patent and Gilo is that it is not going so well.

On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 5:49 AM, Phil wrote:

"BTW Roger's patent flat plate big end and complex curve small end was done to eliminate the need for the big spherical radius curve.

However I'm told that design in the patent, including the fancy antenna, did not work well in practice and Roger has gone back to more standard designs. In my opinion that antenna just has too much metallic mass inside the cavity. Metallic mass that will cause photon absorption and emit cycles that will not help the end plates obtaining the best differential."


I concur. Had Roger Shawyer's experiments with superconductors gone as he expected, he would be showing off his floating machines already and we would be having a very different conversation.

We haven't seen that, ergo the experiment's results aren't as good as he expected.

Which may indicate there is no such thing as an Emdrive thrust effect.

Or that the Emdrive is not working as he theorized and therefore not scaling, something that seems likely for me all evidence from other independent parties considered. It may still work, it's just weak and with yet unknown parameters controlling the thrust.

Understood. Yes it seems that way and I agree with you. It is just that I can not shake the feeling that there are some people that just wish that this device does not work. I do not plan to go to any conspiracies, I just collect available informations. I guess it is just my feeling and I will leave it at that. Maybe I also just too much wish that this device works and others just happily crush others people dreams.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Flyby on 06/27/2017 07:49 am
Understood. Yes it seems that way and I agree with you. It is just that I can not shake the feeling that there are some people that just wish that this device does not work. I do not plan to go to any conspiracies, I just collect available informations. I guess it is just my feeling and I will leave it at that. Maybe I also just too much wish that this device works and others just happily crush others people dreams.
I don't think there is a problem with being highly skeptical, as long you remain open minded and are willing to approach "the story" with a positive attitude.

A lot of people inhere have been putting time and effort into this "EM-drive project" but does not mean they are unconditional "believers". But the prospect that there is a small chance that it does work is enough to keep the interest and positive -but critical- approach going...

As for the conspiracy theories, I think there probably is some opposition, but that is nothing extraordinary as (potential) new technologies are always perceived as a menace to existing economical models...

There are dozens of non EMdrive related examples of that. But , in the end, all efforts to stop new technology will fail. That's a constant one should learn from human history...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tea monster on 06/27/2017 11:13 am
The problem is that there are a lot of crazies and charlatans on the interwebz. Not saying that you guys are, but there are a lot of crazy, crackpot ideas out there. This ranges from people who 'find' pictures of Sasquatch in NASA Mars photos, down to anti-vaxers.

If someone comes out and proposes an idea that seems too much like science fantasy, and a lot of well-respected scientists say that it shouldn't be possible, then it's going to take a lot more effort to convince people that the idea is sound.

I don't know about you guys, but I remember the Dean drive. Once bitten, etc.

But , in the end, all efforts to stop new technology will fail. That's a constant one should learn from human history...

Look up 'Project Orion'.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: bad_astra on 06/27/2017 05:27 pm
Look up 'Project Orion'.

I can design a trebuchet to get me from my back yard to the nearest grocery store. It will work. It will be reusable. I'm not going to do it. It's not a holdback on new technology. It's not new technology at all.


Project Orion is hard to even call new technology. Riding a shock wave happens often, its just the riders are usually victims.

It had numerous issues working against it. I doubt anyone denies that theoretically blowing things up behind a giant shock absorber will work. It's not cheap for starters.  An Orion ship would have required multiple detonation devices, and military devices would have been overkill. There is not an inexhaustible amount of fissile material. The vehicles would have to have been constructed in orbit (realistically launching these from Earth was never a real option. We can discuss that on some other thread, but i think it's been done before) very stoutly. Again, not cheap, and the engineering was not certain. Throw in possible treaty violations, radiation concerns, etc, Orion is just an idea that must probably sit forever on the shelf of history unless for some reason someone is desperate enough to need it and has no other option. The problem is there are always other options.

I'm as tired of the frauds as anyone, but I don't see the EMdrive experimenters and theorists putting incredible efforts into this in any such light. Even if it has no more thrust than is useful for station-keeping, that will be extremely useful. That's why I keep watching this.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 06/28/2017 01:51 am
These experiments were done at atmospheric pressure and should be done in vacuum. My understanding is that others who have done it in vacuum have not seen the effect.

As for me too, the BB effect was a case closed since the 1990s. But I am happy we can discuss here some peculiar points.

Contrary to the belief, experiments have also been done in a vacuum, but maybe it was not high enough (10-6 torr) and a plasma was still flowing between electrodes? Another thing: if the Biefeld-Brown effect is just electrohydrodynamic in nature (ionic wind), can someone explain why a measurable force is still detected when those asymmetric capacitors are put inside a closed metallic box immersed in insulating oil?

This kind of test had been conducted by Townsend Brown himself, as well as Takaaki Musha on behalf of Honda Motor Co. who detected up to 2 grams of change on the balance with 8kVAC and 18KVDC currents (Musha's paper"Explanation of dynamical Biefeld-Brown effect from the standpoint of ZPF field" published in JBIS in 2008 is attached below as long as a schematic diagram of his experiment).

Info seen after this post of Quantum Gravity (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22120.msg1692673#msg1692673) in the other topic.

Were there major flaws in Brown and Musha's experiments? EMI/HV interference with the setup? Ionic wind in the air around the whole setup?

In regards to this experiment you mention a problem of wind.  Wind problems are because momentum is carried off into some external part of the environment, providing some means of propulsion as does a propellant.  I would probably recommend an enclosed system to eliminate the possibility of momentum being carried off and giving the the device the equal and opposite of the missing momentum.  I think I recently gave an example of such an enclosed testing apparatus here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1691070#msg1691070 .  It could also be as simple as just encasing the object so hot air/ionic wind can not be vectored off in a single direction.  The device + box should not have a net momentum. 

The Crookes Radiometer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_radiometer does best in an incomplete vacuum and works off thermal vectoring of air particles I believe.  The experiment having been done in vacuum of 10E-6 torr does seem to be in its benefit, but  that may depend on the physics of the system which is different from the Radiometer.  It's easiest just to eliminate the possibility of net momentum altogether. 

If as you claim some experiment has placed them in some enclosed box where no net momentum can be had and that box experienced some net momentum I would be very interested as that "might" indicate some propellant-less effect. 

The only thing I might wonder about would be if some current was induced in the box itself with the result of a magnetic field reaching outside the box. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Augmentor on 06/28/2017 02:09 am
bad astra,

Would you care to define a serious effort in terms of dollars and sense. Here is a good start...

The scalability of any propellentless propulsion system depends on using a number of methods for amplifying the power signal including scaling of mechanical, electrical and geometric construction for unidirectional thrust. The emDrive is current a drive without a theory albeit a number of attempts are underway, some of which are diving deeper towards that of new physics including quantum field theory and quantum gravity. However, the real serious folks are looking at inertial mass and changes in momentum, both linear and angular. After all, any 1st year physics student would require conservation of momentum as a condition.

For the gravity folks, the best bet appears to be the Mach-Woodward thruster, a thruster with a theory. For the quantum folks, the best bet appears to be the emDrive with theory-of-the-day.

There may be some common ground between the two approaches since parametric amplification and couplings are needed to produce a decent theory involving non-linear oscillations.

The open question is what contributions from EM permit a change in momentum, E' = (d(mv)/dt)= F. Electrostatic, electrodynamics, QCD and QED are just a few. Picking the right variation of Maxwell equations might help although Dirac's version is favored while the Axion version might just catch on.

For theories, the critical level to provide some prediction and projection of what might be is just not there. Some folks are resorting to guessing while others are at least setting a goal of rigor. The plain truth is that not much is moving in a single emDrive that exceed a certain ratio like thrust/mass in N/kg or thrust/power in N/kWe.

Designs of arrays await the development and small production of any PP drive that exceeds 1N/kWe AND that can last 10 years.  For a 10 year projected life cycle of an interstellar vehicle, over a trillion thrust cycles are required for even the most conservative approaches to the nearest star system with planets.

The simple fact is that these drives require a multidisciplinary approach which is really a team approach, not something an individual effort can design/build by themselves. After all, this is why we are all here. To learn from each other...no matter how painful or humbling it might be.




Time will tell,
 
David
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 06/28/2017 03:12 am
I was just reading and noticed meberbs had figured out the 2nd order doppler effects which I thought was cool here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1413761#msg1413761 when a thought struck me.

Light is able to transfer more of its energy effectively to a lighter object such as a free electron than it is able to transfer its energy to a more massive object.  Now in the tip of the frustum we have some large electric fields which could possibly ionize gas while at the large end ionization may be less so. 

So lets say we have this ion cloud at the tip of the frustum and the photons are impacting free electrons up there and more effectively transferring energy.  After the electron "more effectively" absorbs some momentum this transfers some to the proton/nucleus afterwards and these air particles effectively then strike the cavity.  The cavity more effectively gains momentum because the air particles are much more massive than photons.  The air particles having lost some of their momentum return with less velocity only to repeat the process.  So we have momentum more effectively being absorbed from photons at the narrow end of the cavity than from the big end. 

Light striking the large end after the drive accelerates is less able to absorb its momentum back (via the 2nd order effects of a Doppler shift), so over all light loses energy. 

Could that possibly make sense? 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 06/28/2017 08:12 am
Look up 'Project Orion'.

I can design a trebuchet to get me from my back yard to the nearest grocery store. It will work. It will be reusable. I'm not going to do it. It's not a holdback on new technology. It's not new technology at all.


Project Orion is hard to even call new technology. Riding a shock wave happens often, its just the riders are usually victims.

It had numerous issues working against it. I doubt anyone denies that theoretically blowing things up behind a giant shock absorber will work. It's not cheap for starters.  An Orion ship would have required multiple detonation devices, and military devices would have been overkill. There is not an inexhaustible amount of fissile material. The vehicles would have to have been constructed in orbit (realistically launching these from Earth was never a real option. We can discuss that on some other thread, but i think it's been done before) very stoutly. Again, not cheap, and the engineering was not certain. Throw in possible treaty violations, radiation concerns, etc, Orion is just an idea that must probably sit forever on the shelf of history unless for some reason someone is desperate enough to need it and has no other option. The problem is there are always other options.

I'm as tired of the frauds as anyone, but I don't see the EMdrive experimenters and theorists putting incredible efforts into this in any such light. Even if it has no more thrust than is useful for station-keeping, that will be extremely useful. That's why I keep watching this.

Great post - I especially like the  last paragraph  !!  And interesting points WRT Project Orion, but I believe it was originally mentioned by flyby  as a counter example to the concept that you can't keep a new idea/technology/development down/suppressed..

Was Orion new development?? Well in the early 1950's it was much more so than it appears now.  Certainly there were technical hurdles to overcome - and some which would be very hard to solve.   But it progressed to a flying model - yes it did fly albeit with conventional explosives.    Other variations of the concept were proposed using fusion vice fission and an electromagnetic "Blast plate".   Another "new technology" from the time which SO FAR has not been developed to flying status are nuclear heated rocket engines (Project Nerva).   I doubt a classic Orion approach will ever be used - or it might just save humankind (see Footfall - Niven and Pournelle 1985)

The point is that it does happen that new ideas, new technologies etc may  grow and flourish or may wither away - for many reasons.   In order to grow and flourish they need a fertile ground (good theoretical underpinnings, a certain amount of economic viability, a workable way to utilize the development, etc) and careful nurturing ( open mindedness and critical thinking, interested persons and groups, nutrients i.e. funding and time, peer reviews and market reviews and work work work by those interested persons and parties).

WRT EMDrive,  If it is to ever be a useful device it must first a) EXIST as a real effect and b) be nurtured and tended. I suspect that if condition a) is met there will be large number of nurturers and tenders.  Yes - even if it is a low thrust device only useable for stationkeeping and attitude control.

The efforts and contributions here for both theoretical and experimental arenas are just fantastic.  The use of the internet and forums like NSF is a stunning example of what open discussions and cooperation can do.  The DIY contributions likewise are also stunning in their depth and quality and personal contribution and sacrifice.  I think in the next few months we will likely have a lot of experimental "red meat" to chew on.   

Sorry for the longwinded post - off for some rest now.

Herman
graybeardsyseng
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tea monster on 06/28/2017 08:53 am
Project Orion got to a high level of conceptual development and did flight testing with conventional explosives, so yeah, I think it would have flown. Besides all that, there is nothing in our current understanding of physics that forbids it's operation. ;)

Once someone provides solid, demonstrable evidence that you can use these drives to move objects, then you will find a lot more effort put into finding out how it works.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 06/28/2017 12:15 pm
Project Orion got to a high level of conceptual development and did flight testing with conventional explosives, so yeah, I think it would have flown. Besides all that, there is nothing in our current understanding of physics that forbids it's operation. ;)

Once someone provides solid, demonstrable evidence that you can use these drives to move objects, then you will find a lot more effort put into finding out how it works.

WRT understanding of physics - very true.  The theoretical basis of EMDrive should continue to be explored and discussed!!!!   A firm basis and understanding of EMDrive (assuming it exists) will shorten any development efforts enormously.   The discussions here are fantastic and wonderful.  I feel good if I manage to understand at least  50% of them but they are stretching my journeyman math skills and knocking the rust of some of my 40 year old semi-skills such as tensors.   

Orion's challenges lay more in the realm of engineering physics such flight dynamics, control and shock/jolt management; not to mention reliable fuel (bomblet) feed and ignition.   On one of my first assignments as a junior engineer out of college the project engineer had been a very junior engineer on Orion.  As I had done my senior thesis on updating some of the challenges  of Orion and their possible solution he and I had some interesting discussions.   BTW here is a pretty good video of the flight tests (done in 1950's newsreel fashion)
https://youtu.be/njM7xlQIjnQ (https://youtu.be/njM7xlQIjnQ)

Why am I harping on Project Orion in the EMDrive forum.  Because I think there are some project development concepts that can be useful.  Not the design, but the approach to solving problems and testing.  While the basic physics of Orion was understood of course, Orion had some significant physics issues - Freeman Dyson was borrowed from the Institute for Advanced Studies to work with General Atomics on Orion.  Orion was a serious effort to develop  interplanetary capability (among others) before we had even reached the moon.   

The concept of developing the free flyer using dynamite is an example of the kind of exploratory approach I am thinking would benefit the EMDrive efforts. They used simple designs to explore unknown behaviors of specific issues.   No - I am not suggesting dynamite bombs under a frustum BUT perhaps some more detailed exploration of frustum shape, materials and RF feed/resonance would be of benefit  i.e. not trying to measure (notional) thrust but exploring open issues i.e. shape, end cap design, aspect ratio,  mode stimulation and control, resonance establishment and control. effect of dielectrics (type, locations etc) - just some examples, by no means a complete list.   BTW - some or most of these are well within the technical capability of DIYers.     Yes - my money is where my mouth is - I am working up a test plan and lab right now.

Reading the history of Orion and other similar efforts provides a good brainstorming start for areas to explore in the EMDrive pantheon. 

Herman
graybeardsyseng
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 06/28/2017 07:16 pm
Project Orion got to a high level of conceptual development and did flight testing with conventional explosives, so yeah, I think it would have flown. Besides all that, there is nothing in our current understanding of physics that forbids it's operation. ;)

Once someone provides solid, demonstrable evidence that you can use these drives to move objects, then you will find a lot more effort put into finding out how it works.

WRT understanding of physics - very true.  The theoretical basis of EMDrive should continue to be explored and discussed!!!!   A firm basis and understanding of EMDrive (assuming it exists) will shorten any development efforts enormously.   The discussions here are fantastic and wonderful.  I feel good if I manage to understand at least  50% of them but they are stretching my journeyman math skills and knocking the rust of some of my 40 year old semi-skills such as tensors.   

Orion's challenges lay more in the realm of engineering physics such flight dynamics, control and shock/jolt management; not to mention reliable fuel (bomblet) feed and ignition.   On one of my first assignments as a junior engineer out of college the project engineer had been a very junior engineer on Orion.  As I had done my senior thesis on updating some of the challenges  of Orion and their possible solution he and I had some interesting discussions.   BTW here is a pretty good video of the flight tests (done in 1950's newsreel fashion)


Why am I harping on Project Orion in the EMDrive forum.  Because I think there are some project development concepts that can be useful.  Not the design, but the approach to solving problems and testing.  While the basic physics of Orion was understood of course, Orion had some significant physics issues - Freeman Dyson was borrowed from the Institute for Advanced Studies to work with General Atomics on Orion.  Orion was a serious effort to develop  interplanetary capability (among others) before we had even reached the moon.   

The concept of developing the free flyer using dynamite is an example of the kind of exploratory approach I am thinking would benefit the EMDrive efforts. They used simple designs to explore unknown behaviors of specific issues.   No - I am not suggesting dynamite bombs under a frustum BUT perhaps some more detailed exploration of frustum shape, materials and RF feed/resonance would be of benefit  i.e. not trying to measure (notional) thrust but exploring open issues i.e. shape, end cap design, aspect ratio,  mode stimulation and control, resonance establishment and control. effect of dielectrics (type, locations etc) - just some examples, by no means a complete list.   BTW - some or most of these are well within the technical capability of DIYers.     Yes - my money is where my mouth is - I am working up a test plan and lab right now.

Reading the history of Orion and other similar efforts provides a good brainstorming start for areas to explore in the EMDrive pantheon. 

Herman
graybeardsyseng

Yes, please design for big effects and not micronewtons!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 06/28/2017 08:05 pm
Project Orion got to a high level of conceptual development and did flight testing with conventional explosives, so yeah, I think it would have flown. Besides all that, there is nothing in our current understanding of physics that forbids it's operation. ;)

Once someone provides solid, demonstrable evidence that you can use these drives to move objects, then you will find a lot more effort put into finding out how it works.

WRT understanding of physics - very true.  The theoretical basis of EMDrive should continue to be explored and discussed!!!!   A firm basis and understanding of EMDrive (assuming it exists) will shorten any development efforts enormously.   The discussions here are fantastic and wonderful.  I feel good if I manage to understand at least  50% of them but they are stretching my journeyman math skills and knocking the rust of some of my 40 year old semi-skills such as tensors.   

Orion's challenges lay more in the realm of engineering physics such flight dynamics, control and shock/jolt management; not to mention reliable fuel (bomblet) feed and ignition.   On one of my first assignments as a junior engineer out of college the project engineer had been a very junior engineer on Orion.  As I had done my senior thesis on updating some of the challenges  of Orion and their possible solution he and I had some interesting discussions.   BTW here is a pretty good video of the flight tests (done in 1950's newsreel fashion)


Why am I harping on Project Orion in the EMDrive forum.  Because I think there are some project development concepts that can be useful.  Not the design, but the approach to solving problems and testing.  While the basic physics of Orion was understood of course, Orion had some significant physics issues - Freeman Dyson was borrowed from the Institute for Advanced Studies to work with General Atomics on Orion.  Orion was a serious effort to develop  interplanetary capability (among others) before we had even reached the moon.   

The concept of developing the free flyer using dynamite is an example of the kind of exploratory approach I am thinking would benefit the EMDrive efforts. They used simple designs to explore unknown behaviors of specific issues.   No - I am not suggesting dynamite bombs under a frustum BUT perhaps some more detailed exploration of frustum shape, materials and RF feed/resonance would be of benefit  i.e. not trying to measure (notional) thrust but exploring open issues i.e. shape, end cap design, aspect ratio,  mode stimulation and control, resonance establishment and control. effect of dielectrics (type, locations etc) - just some examples, by no means a complete list.   BTW - some or most of these are well within the technical capability of DIYers.     Yes - my money is where my mouth is - I am working up a test plan and lab right now.

Reading the history of Orion and other similar efforts provides a good brainstorming start for areas to explore in the EMDrive pantheon. 

Herman
graybeardsyseng

Yes, please design for big effects and not micronewtons!
Even a definitive final confirmation/verification within the micronewton regime would be a revolution! :o ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 06/29/2017 01:17 am
I was just reading and noticed meberbs had figured out the 2nd order doppler effects which I thought was cool here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1413761#msg1413761 when a thought struck me.

Light is able to transfer more of its energy effectively to a lighter object such as a free electron than it is able to transfer its energy to a more massive object.  Now in the tip of the frustum we have some large electric fields which could possibly ionize gas while at the large end ionization may be less so. 

So lets say we have this ion cloud at the tip of the frustum and the photons are impacting free electrons up there and more effectively transferring energy.  After the electron "more effectively" absorbs some momentum this transfers some to the proton/nucleus afterwards and these air particles effectively then strike the cavity.  The cavity more effectively gains momentum because the air particles are much more massive than photons.  The air particles having lost some of their momentum return with less velocity only to repeat the process.  So we have momentum more effectively being absorbed from photons at the narrow end of the cavity than from the big end. 

Light striking the large end after the drive accelerates is less able to absorb its momentum back (via the 2nd order effects of a Doppler shift), so over all light loses energy. 

Could that possibly make sense?

What is curious about a plasma possibly existing in the cavity is that the plasma can more effectively absorb kinetic energy from light.  I think I remember Shell mentioning the possibility of plasma in the cavity at one point in time.  Possibly this is why she made her cavity see through or that screen mesh?  The plasma would need to be created, so energy would start to be stored in the cavity and later plasma could form when the electric fields become strong enough to strip electrons from the gasses inside. 

The formation of too much plasma and I question if it could possibly start to interfere with the stored energy in the cavity,(the free electrons being too reflective), the wavelength might not constructively interfere any more, causing energy to be rejected from the cavity.  For it to work, some light would have to pass through the plasma and resonate in the cavity to sustain the electric fields that sustain the plasma. 

After that you need light that resonates between the big cavity wall and the plasma toward the narrow end of the cavity.  The plasma doesn't need to touch the cavity wall and should in fact be repelled from the changing magnetic field via the currents in the cavity.  So basically the plasma more effectively absorbs kinetic energy from light and then passes this on to the cavity via repulsion off the cavities changing magnetic field. 

The need to sustain both currents in the cavity at a certain wavelength, and current induced in the plasma via another wavelength may mean multiple wavelengths are required. 

This provides a possible means for the cavity to travel pointed end forwards if the plasma is near the pointed end but may depend on the plasma's location and possibly/possibly not with respect to where your injecting the radiation.  I.e. I'm not sure what effect it would have to inject the radiation inside the plasma as opposed to injecting the radiation at the end where there is no plasma.  I suspect injecting radiation in the middle of the plasma may have an effect of reducing any propulsive effect but maybe not. 

I would suspect you would want the location of the injecting antenna to be about a quarter wavelength away from the big plate for both injected wavelengths.  Could this be why large freq. splatter of microwave oven magnetrons work? (injecting multiple wavelengths?) 

Does it coinside with experimental evidence suggesting some minimal power level required for the effect to really take hold.  Some minimal power required to form plasma? 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: aero on 06/29/2017 01:28 am
Quote
Even a definitive final confirmation/verification within the micronewton regime would be a revolution! :o ;)

But according to Meep, we can get an order of magnitude over a photon rocket just by radiating evanescent waves through gaps in the big end. Of course, Meep results may be suspect and my operation of Meep is justifiably suspect.

I did this work back in 2015 and posted some of it. That was just after I had started using Meep and knew nothing about it. I quit pursuing this approach because the results were all over the place so I thought then, and maybe still think, that there were problems in my understanding of the tool I was using. Many of the runs showed much more force than the attached but ... Well, if these runs were right after all, then maybe some of the other runs showing micro-newton forces were also realistic?

Steve
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/29/2017 12:40 pm
Does it coincide with experimental evidence suggesting some minimal power level required for the effect to really take hold.  Some minimal power required to form plasma?

Based on this image from Shawyer's recent television appearance, I was able to locate the amplifier shown below. That amplifier is 50W max: https://tinyurl.com/y9g3mxol

At 50W there will be E-fields at ~200 kV/m inside the cavity according to FEKO simulations. Electrical breakdown of air begins at about 3,000kV/m. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star One on 06/29/2017 12:56 pm
Hi guys,

Just found out following information about the EmDrive development.

BBC made a report about the Gilo Industries on 4.4. 2017 that I missed (shame on me!). They spoke a bit about that new investment from the Kuang-Chi this year.
Mr. Gilo also mentions something interesting. That "they can not yet speak about the best thing they made" and that they may reveal it later this year.

Of course it can be anything. They work on many interesting project, but given the fact, that we know about their cooperation with Mr. Shawyer there is some probability it can be the EmDrive.

This supports, that Mr. Shawyer mentions in his presentation work on "new superconducting cavity desing" with Gilo Industries (2015).

Here is the link and the attachment:

https://goo.gl/ixUF72

Could you expand on this report by the BBC by providing further details of what program it was on, was it on TV or radio, was it in a documentary or part of the news?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: mk65 on 06/29/2017 02:19 pm
I think it might be that one:
http://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-england-dorset-39478360/dorset-flying-car-firm-to-double-workforce-after-chinese-investment
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 06/29/2017 03:03 pm
Does it coincide with experimental evidence suggesting some minimal power level required for the effect to really take hold.  Some minimal power required to form plasma?

Based on this image from Shawyer's recent television appearance, I was able to locate the amplifier shown below. That amplifier is 50W max: https://tinyurl.com/y9g3mxol

At 50W there will be E-fields at ~200 kV/m inside the cavity according to FEKO simulations. Electrical breakdown of air begins at about 3,000kV/m.

Monomorphic,

Let's look at this in another way, by developing a ionization or coronal discharges.

Tipler, Paul A. College Physics. Worth, 1987: 467   
Quote
"This phenomenon, which is called dielectric breakdown, occurs in air at an electric field strength of about Emax = 3 × 106 V/m." 3 × 106 V/m"

That works out roughly to .3KV/M dependent of several factors within the frustum to start the process creating an ionization of the air.

That's not what I was looking at.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Plasma_wheel_2_med_DSIR2018.jpg)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corona_discharge

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peek%27s_law
The values for the last two parameters are usually considered to be about 30-32 kV/cm (in air [1]) and 0.301 cm½ respectively. This latter law can be considered to hold also in different setups, where the corresponding voltage is different due to geometric reasons.

 

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 06/29/2017 03:10 pm
Even a definitive final confirmation/verification within the micronewton regime would be a revolution! :o ;)

Indeed - as an old saying goes (likely I am misquoting and I can't remember the source so my apologies in advance to the originator) - "The distance between 0 and 1 is far greater than the distance between 1 and 100."  Final Definitive confirmation will be a paradigm shift about 9.0 on the Richter scale (to mix and mangle some metaphors).   Although I do suspect that (if) and when even micronewton thrust is confirmed substantial improvements will be possible between establishing a theoretical underpinning and conducing a thorough set of engineering performance testing against a wide range of parameters.

Herman
graybeardsyseng

Edited to fix quote command syntax error
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/29/2017 04:09 pm

Quote
"This phenomenon, which is called dielectric breakdown, occurs in air at an electric field strength of about Emax = 3 × 106 V/m." 3 × 106 V/m"

That works out roughly to .3KV/M dependent of several factors within the frustum to start the process creating an ionization of the air.

Wolfram says it's 3000 kV/m: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=3+%C3%97+10%5E6+V%2Fm+to+kV%2Fm

30 kv/cm is 3,000 kV/m

To get to 3000kV/m lobes just on the small end, FEKO results are ~15kW.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/29/2017 05:43 pm
Hold on, I used kV/m when it should be kV/cm. Let me redo that.  Will edit the comment above. 

30 kV/cm is 3000 kV/m. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=30+kV%2Fcm+to+kV%2Fm

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 06/29/2017 05:48 pm
Hold on, I used kV/m when it should be kV/cm. Let me redo that.

30 kV/cm is 3000 kV/m.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peek%27s_law
The values for the last two parameters are usually considered to be about 30-32 kV/cm (in air [1]) and 0.301 cm½ respectively. This latter law can be considered to hold also in different setups, where the corresponding voltage is different due to geometric reasons.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star One on 06/29/2017 05:56 pm
I think it might be that one:
http://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-england-dorset-39478360/dorset-flying-car-firm-to-double-workforce-after-chinese-investment

Thank you. Shame it's so short a report.

Is that Mr Shawyer speaking very briefly towards the end of it?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 06/29/2017 06:04 pm
I think it might be that one:
http://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-england-dorset-39478360/dorset-flying-car-firm-to-double-workforce-after-chinese-investment

Thank you. Shame it's so short a report.

Is that Mr Shawyer speaking very briefly towards the end of it?

Not sure. Intriguing bit, I only got that they "can't talk publicly about it at the moment".
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 06/29/2017 06:23 pm
Thank you Shell and Mono.  I take it that means it is not likely there is ionized air at the top of the cavity, trapped in that standing electric field.  On the other hand... What about resonance with moisture?  Microwaves do resonate with water.  I wonder if they took that into account.  I am guessing the 3000kv/m is a non-resonant figure.  sorry microwaves do not resonate water molecules.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star One on 06/29/2017 06:32 pm
I think it might be that one:
http://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-england-dorset-39478360/dorset-flying-car-firm-to-double-workforce-after-chinese-investment

Thank you. Shame it's so short a report.

Is that Mr Shawyer speaking very briefly towards the end of it?

Not sure. Intriguing bit, I only got that they "can't talk publicly about it at the moment".

It sounds to me like a very obvious edit down from a longer sentence?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 06/29/2017 06:51 pm
Thank you Shell and Mono.  I take it that means it is not likely there is ionized air at the top of the cavity, trapped in that standing electric field.  On the other hand... What about resonance with moisture?
Could be ionization, with my current setup I could ramp to a peak of 2Kw into the frustum.  :o
(http://i.imgur.com/akXGFGn.jpg)
I don't.
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 06/29/2017 07:57 pm
Does it coincide with experimental evidence suggesting some minimal power level required for the effect to really take hold.  Some minimal power required to form plasma?

Based on this image from Shawyer's recent television appearance, I was able to locate the amplifier shown below. That amplifier is 50W max: https://tinyurl.com/y9g3mxol

At 50W there will be E-fields at ~200 kV/m inside the cavity according to FEKO simulations. Electrical breakdown of air begins at about 3,000kV/m.

Poor cavity design then. Easily solvable, and I believe according to some simulations this limit is passed by an order of magnitude.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/29/2017 10:50 pm
Does it coincide with experimental evidence suggesting some minimal power level required for the effect to really take hold.  Some minimal power required to form plasma?

Based on this image from Shawyer's recent television appearance, I was able to locate the amplifier shown below. That amplifier is 50W max: https://tinyurl.com/y9g3mxol

At 50W there will be E-fields at ~200 kV/m inside the cavity according to FEKO simulations. Electrical breakdown of air begins at about 3,000kV/m.

Poor cavity design then. Easily solvable, and I believe according to some simulations this limit is passed by an order of magnitude.

I think I know which simulations you are referring to as I probably did a few of them. The ones with huge e-field strength, like the image below, were performed with a perfect electric conductor as the wall material instead of copper. This is sort of like a superconductor, except none of the exotic superconducting properties are simulated. So the top image below is with a perfect electrical conductor, and the bottom with copper.

When one first starts out simulating cavities, often the default is a perfect electrical conductor. Copper has to be assigned. Using a perfect electrical conductor will inflate the e-fields dramatically.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 06/30/2017 02:55 am
While water may not resonate at microwave frequencies it may still be possible to break down air at microwave frequencies.  I was reading through this and thought some of you might find this interesting.  https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=9798362981310723067&hl=en&as_sdt=0,26

Quote
7. Experimental Results

The breakdown experiment consists of filling the cavity with gas
at a certain pressure, increasing the magnetron power while watching the
transmission crystal current until this current reaches a maximum value and
drops suddenly to a lower value. This drop indicates that the gas has
broken down, and the maximum crystal current indicates the breakdown field.
This operation is repeated for a variety of experimental conditions.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 06/30/2017 07:55 am
I was just reading and noticed meberbs had figured out the 2nd order doppler effects which I thought was cool here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1413761#msg1413761 when a thought struck me.

Light is able to transfer more of its energy effectively to a lighter object such as a free electron than it is able to transfer its energy to a more massive object.  Now in the tip of the frustum we have some large electric fields which could possibly ionize gas while at the large end ionization may be less so. 

snip...

Could that possibly make sense?

What is curious about a plasma possibly existing in the cavity is that the plasma can more effectively absorb kinetic energy from light.  I think I remember Shell mentioning the possibility of plasma in the cavity at one point in time.  Possibly this is why she made her cavity see through or that screen mesh?  The plasma would need to be created, so energy would start to be stored in the cavity and later plasma could form when the electric fields become strong enough to strip electrons from the gasses inside. 

The formation of too much plasma and I question if it could possibly start to interfere with the stored energy in the cavity,(the free electrons being too reflective), the wavelength might not constructively interfere any more, causing energy to be rejected from the cavity.  For it to work, some light would have to pass through the plasma and resonate in the cavity to sustain the electric fields that sustain the plasma. 

After that you need light that resonates between the big cavity wall and the plasma toward the narrow end of the cavity.  The plasma doesn't need to touch the cavity wall and should in fact be repelled from the changing magnetic field via the currents in the cavity.  So basically the plasma more effectively absorbs kinetic energy from light and then passes this on to the cavity via repulsion off the cavities changing magnetic field. 

The need to sustain both currents in the cavity at a certain wavelength, and current induced in the plasma via another wavelength may mean multiple wavelengths are required. 

This provides a possible means for the cavity to travel pointed end forwards if the plasma is near the pointed end but may depend on the plasma's location and possibly/possibly not with respect to where your injecting the radiation.  I.e. I'm not sure what effect it would have to inject the radiation inside the plasma as opposed to injecting the radiation at the end where there is no plasma.  I suspect injecting radiation in the middle of the plasma may have an effect of reducing any propulsive effect but maybe not. 

I would suspect you would want the location of the injecting antenna to be about a quarter wavelength away from the big plate for both injected wavelengths.  Could this be why large freq. splatter of microwave oven magnetrons work? (injecting multiple wavelengths?) 

Does it coinside with experimental evidence suggesting some minimal power level required for the effect to really take hold.  Some minimal power required to form plasma?


Just some non-educated guess. I wonder if what you describe sounds a bit like small scale version of the ITER plasma reactor. From that picture of the corss-section of the reactor on wikipedia it do resembles a bit shape of the modified EmDrive, except of course that it is circular shape reactor in the end. Could there be some similarity to EmDrive or not at all?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

Did anyone tried circular shape of the EmDrive  ;D ?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: bad_astra on 06/30/2017 05:13 pm
Tokamaks are tori. They have various cold points for the magnetic field, which is one thing the Wendelstein stellarator is attempting to work around with its very precise shaping for the magnetic fields. Cannae looks like a series of tori but I don't know for certain. where would the dielectric go?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 06/30/2017 06:38 pm
Tokamaks are tori. They have various cold points for the magnetic field, which is one thing the Wendelstein stellarator is attempting to work around with its very precise shaping for the magnetic fields. Cannae looks like a series of tori but I don't know for certain. where would the dielectric go?
Starting on page 6 of the EagleWorks report they describe the Cannae device with and without a dielectric plug where the antenna goes. 2mb pdf.
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 06/30/2017 07:06 pm
https://phys.org/news/2017-06-atomic-mass-photon-momentum-paradox.html

Quote
In a recent publication, Aalto University researchers show that in a transparent medium each photon is accompanied by an atomic mass density wave. The optical force of the photon sets the medium atoms in motion and makes them carry 92% of the total momentum of light, in the case of silicon.
The novel discovery solves the centennial momentum paradox of light. In the literature, there has existed two different values for the momentum of light in the transparent medium. Typically, these values differ by a factor of ten and this discrepancy is known as the momentum paradox of light. The difference between the momentum values is caused by neglecting the momentum of atoms moving with the light pulse.


Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Augmentor on 06/30/2017 09:43 pm
The arxiv reference for "Photon mass drag and the momentum of light in a medium" is

https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.07224

David M
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/30/2017 10:46 pm
I added a 20W dummy load to the rig today.  In addition to being used to perform null tests, its mass is used to help level the pendulum. This lead to a reduction in stainless steel counterweights.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 06/30/2017 11:31 pm
I added a 20W dummy load to the rig today.  In addition to being used to perform null tests, its mass is used to help level the pendulum. This lead to a reduction in stainless steal counterweights.

You might want to try stainless steel tie wraps instead of nylon. They work better at high temperatures, considering a 20W resistor is going to get pretty hot without a fan. An aluminum conduit clamp would also work, and add a little more mass to absorb the heat.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/01/2017 12:37 pm
I added a 20W dummy load to the rig today.  In addition to being used to perform null tests, its mass is used to help level the pendulum. This lead to a reduction in stainless steal counterweights.

You might want to try stainless steel tie wraps instead of nylon. They work better at high temperatures, considering a 20W resistor is going to get pretty hot without a fan. An aluminum conduit clamp would also work, and add a little more mass to absorb the heat.

The 20W load doesn't get hot with 2.5W input. When I upgrade to ~25W, I will be using a 100W load. It is important to use loads rated for much higher than the actual RF input. Otherwise a hot dummy load will shed vortices and obscure the results.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 07/01/2017 10:54 pm
I added a 20W dummy load to the rig today.  In addition to being used to perform null tests, its mass is used to help level the pendulum. This lead to a reduction in stainless steal counterweights.

You might want to try stainless steel tie wraps instead of nylon. They work better at high temperatures, considering a 20W resistor is going to get pretty hot without a fan. An aluminum conduit clamp would also work, and add a little more mass to absorb the heat.

The 20W load doesn't get hot with 2.5W input. When I upgrade to ~25W, I will be using a 100W load. It is important to use loads rated for much higher than the actual RF input. Otherwise a hot dummy load will shed vortices and obscure the results.

Excellent point - operating well below the max rating of components is generally a good idea for preserving linearity or at least predictable behavior.  However,  when you go to 25 watts you may still see unwanted/unplanned thermal effects - the 100W  dummy load definitely won't be as hot as the 20W one would be and may well not have vortex shedding BUT that heat has to go somewhere and so there may be other unwanted/unexpected error mechanisms.  Likely you have planned for these in any case. 

 Just a thought - you likely have also already planned this as your test plan/profile sounds quite robust but perhaps a couple of off resonance runs or with some other mechanism to dump the max RF into the dummy load and look at its thermal behavior with your FLIR system.   Like I said just a random thought on a Saturday night.   

I would probably also second the recommendation for SS vice nylon tie wraps if the load is going to get very hot and also because nylon also has interesting behavior under RF power.   (discussed MUCH earlier - like thread 2 or 4).  Another HOWEVER thought though - the SS wraps have a much higher thermal conductivity of course and will transfer the heat to other perhaps unexpected  places and could introduce other effects/errors.   

Herman
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 07/02/2017 03:19 am
https://phys.org/news/2017-06-atomic-mass-photon-momentum-paradox.html

Quote
In a recent publication, Aalto University researchers show that in a transparent medium each photon is accompanied by an atomic mass density wave. The optical force of the photon sets the medium atoms in motion and makes them carry 92% of the total momentum of light, in the case of silicon.
The novel discovery solves the centennial momentum paradox of light. In the literature, there has existed two different values for the momentum of light in the transparent medium. Typically, these values differ by a factor of ten and this discrepancy is known as the momentum paradox of light. The difference between the momentum values is caused by neglecting the momentum of atoms moving with the light pulse.


Shell

Excellent. Hyperplanck's posts about phonons fit perfectly into this.

@Monomorphic, yes I was referring to some spherical/parabolic end simulations. Since proposing the hypothesis here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1662428#msg1662428) - credit to Flux_Capacitor for being the first to notice that the field strength was high enough for dielectric breakdown and for proposing the white noise injection via klystron in thread 8, as we now recently discovered that the system will store a wide bandwidth (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1610239#msg1610239).

2.4x10^7kV/m was quoted in my previous posts, so I assumed this was a modal peak value from one of the simulations. I did some extensive digging through the past two threads and found some examples of both realistic and futuristic peak values which I included below. As expected, parabolic mirrors or spherical ends work best at creating a focal point for maximum density, though the modal shape is usually something symmetric along the wrong axis* or a TM sidewall pressure (versus endcap pressure) which decreases thrust because the resonant wave's information caught in the plasma/ions/wavelets/phonons/electron soup (take your pick) has a more similar time-to-wall. There is a lesser pressure gradient in a desirable direction if your field is symmetric across the perpendicular of your acceleration vector or if it is symmetric and each peak is equally strong. Most simulated peak fields are around 700kV/m, which is not close enough to the 3000kV/m (or ~3300kV/m) to appear to matter. There is natural ambient ionization in the air which is increased once you begin injecting large amounts of energy into the cavity*** even if the ionization cycle does not begin for hot plasma, like you would see in a tokomak**. The behaviour of the plasma depends on the voltage, the geometry, the wave shape, the waveguide and most crucially the eigenmodes.   

Max E-Fields Old Simulations

Spherical endplate TE012 - 36MV/m - https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1610054#msg1610054

TT - 7.5MV/m - https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1616337#msg1616337

Cannae - 25.6MV/m - https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1612540#msg1612540

Sphere - 6.5MV/m - https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1611016#msg1611016

Tapered prism (Similar to Yang) - 3.017MV/m https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1610152#msg1610152

Spherical endplate TE013 - ~27MV/m - https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1608904#msg1608904

Helical Antenna clover leaf - very high - https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1608617#msg1608617

I think the old posts by Dr. Rodal regarding fluid mechanics are also interesting and worth considering though they rely on the exchange of kinetic energy of massive particles, not electron pressure between current layers(=standing waves) and therefore do not solve CoM issues as they are not directional unlike field line relaxations.   

* For example: TE011 where both endcaps more or less share the same central field (or only a few 'layers of the onion' when compared to TE013 or TE019). The layers cause the lag in information through magnetic reconnection, while the location of the modal peak determines the source of the information.

**All this rephrases my previous posts a bit and makes a lot more sense after you read Yamada's 2010 guide to magnetic reconnection. The theory is that the reconnection rate scales with how collisionless the plasma is as a function of the mean free path of the electron and furthermore strong guide fields slow down the reconnection rate. If you have a fairly weak system like the EM Drive then you either need: a long distance to build charge needed for realignment (like the Earth's cold magnetotail) or boundary conditions which keep the pressure locked in and the waves resonate along more or less closed paths. I cannot hope to explain the entire concept better than Yamada did so read his guide and mentally add in the recent discoveries about fast reconnection, relativistic electrons, electron behaviour in metallic lattices, plasmonics, and phonons. If we even achieve 1% ionization equilibrium (assuming only the atmosphere matters) then you will be getting thrust. If you achieve 99% ionization then you will need strong guide fields to prevent turbulence which in turn reduces reconnections. The golden zone is somewhere in the middle where the cold plasma does not pose a danger when unstable. All of this is some late night thoughts so apologies for typos...         

***Among others, it is clear since the 1970s that in their excited state many of the elements in air will disassociate. If you keep injecting energy, more of the electrons will be excited on average. https://www.nist.gov/publications/ionization-carbon-nitrogen-and-oxygen-electron-impact-0
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/02/2017 07:01 pm
https://phys.org/news/2017-06-atomic-mass-photon-momentum-paradox.html

Quote
In a recent publication, Aalto University researchers show that in a transparent medium each photon is accompanied by an atomic mass density wave. The optical force of the photon sets the medium atoms in motion and makes them carry 92% of the total momentum of light, in the case of silicon.
The novel discovery solves the centennial momentum paradox of light. In the literature, there has existed two different values for the momentum of light in the transparent medium. Typically, these values differ by a factor of ten and this discrepancy is known as the momentum paradox of light. The difference between the momentum values is caused by neglecting the momentum of atoms moving with the light pulse.


Shell

They conclude the Minkowski momentum is valid in a medium. Is there any way to create a medium around a ship to greatly enhance the momentum of a laser beam for propulsion? Would a Bose Einstein Condensate act as such a medium?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 07/03/2017 01:22 am
Listening to this tonight really resonated with me. Understanding this copper can and what it's doing and what it all means in a larger context, and how to think about it all in an effective way has been a challenging and rewarding experience.

As we sail through this world of technological marvel and complex systems, it’s easy to assume we know the watery depths that yawn beneath our hull. As it turns out, however, it’s all an illusion of explanatory depth. We think we understand day-to-day gadgets, but are at a loss to explain their functionality. We think we understand policy and politics, but are better at explaining why we hold our beliefs than how particular policies might solve life’s hideous problems. In this two-part episode of Stuff to Blow Your Mind, Robert and Joe dip into the waters of cognitive illusion.

* http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/s3-streaming.stufftoblowyourmind.com:8084/sciencelab/2017-01-17-stbym-explanatory-depth-1.mp3?awCollectionId=1004&awEpisodeId=923124

* http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/streaming.stufftoblowyourmind.com/sciencelab/2017-01-19-stbym-explanatory-depth-2.mp3?awCollectionId=1004&awEpisodeId=923126

* Podcast Feed: Stuff To Blow Your Mind (http://www.howstuffworks.com/podcasts/stuff-to-blow-your-mind.rss)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 07/03/2017 03:08 am
I concur that human mind can be endlessly deceived by others and by itself. The intentions and beliefs of other humans and of oneself can't always be trusted.

The beauty of natural science and engineering as philosophies of life and as methods, is that while trying to discern the secrets of nature or to make it do something it doesn't do naturally, nature is the most chivalrous rival there is.

It never cheats. It never deceives, but it can provide wrong answers if we don't ask the right questions.

And it never forgets, and never forgives (that's why it continues to be a rival).

That's comforting, at least for me. If there is any truth in the Emdrive at all, it will be the same for anyone testing, no matter where, when and whom, regardless or their beliefs, if they stick to the method.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 07/03/2017 03:44 am
I concur that human mind can be endlessly deceived by others and by itself. The intentions and beliefs of other humans and of oneself can't always be trusted.

The beauty of natural science and engineering as philosophies of life and as methods, is that while trying to discern the secrets of nature or to make it do something it doesn't do naturally, nature is the most chivalrous rival there is.

It never cheats. It never deceives, but it can provide wrong answers if we don't ask the right questions.

And it never forgets, and never forgives (that's why it continues to be a rival).

That's comforting, at least for me. If there is any truth in the Emdrive at all, it will be the same for anyone testing, no matter where, when and whom, regardless or their beliefs, if they stick to the method.

I now believe the results EW obtained with their thruster was not that which I would expect to see from a "Shawyer Effect" EmDrive.

As the small end was well below the cutoff diameter used in EmDrive designs, the thruster EW tested was not a EmDrive.

Plus EmDrives that are driven by a continuous Rf feed, do not exhibit thrust if they are not accelerating / moving and in the EW test rig, their thruster was constrained from acceleration. OK it moved a VERY small number of um but only for a very short time, and yet produced thrust when not accelerating / moving. This is not the characterists of an EmDrive that is built to conform with the SPR EmDrive design guidelines.

Just maybe there is something to Dr. White's QV Thruster theory.

Which suggests there may be 3 ways to achieve P-P:

1) Shawyer EmDrive Effect.

2) Woodward Mach Effect.

3) White QV Effect.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ramimahdi on 07/03/2017 04:27 am
I have been a follower of this thread for a long time.
I cannot help but notice that no one is doing anything to combat the red shift of photons. This seems to be a serious challenge that needs serious attention.
To my layman understanding, photons need to resonate and for that we need tuned cavity dimensions suited for the photons wave length.

However, once photons loose some momentum to the small of end of the cavity they red shift, in what we hope to call direct conversion to thrust for the cavity. Once photons redshift, the dimensions of the cavity are no longer suitable for those photons. This leads to tremendous inefficiency.

I have a suggestion,

To continue, efficiently, extracting momentum from photons, the system needs to induce energy back to the photons to keep them in the same wavelength.

I think this can be done by having the small end of the cavity push pack on photons with a force equal to the difference of force exerted from the photons on the small and the large end of the cavity.

In the attached diagram you see that, if the shown small end of the cavity spins in the shown directions, that will cause a push/force effect against incoming/bouncing photons. Also, for any acceleration or thrust level, there is certain spin speed that can compensate for the redshift. The force is a function of spinning speed.

In the down side, the need for a spinning cavity will complicate experimentation a lot.
Also note, this shape of the small end can also be applied to the large end in reverse way. This can insure that photons continue to bounce vertically, but it might need opposite directions of spin.

what you guys think of this suggestion.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 07/03/2017 07:22 am
I have been a follower of this thread for a long time.
I cannot help but notice that no one is doing anything to combat the red shift of photons. This seems to be a serious challenge that needs serious attention.
To my layman understanding, photons need to resonate and for that we need tuned cavity dimensions suited for the photons wave length.

However, once photons loose some momentum to the small of end of the cavity they red shift, in what we hope to call direct conversion to thrust for the cavity. Once photons redshift, the dimensions of the cavity are no longer suitable for those photons. This leads to tremendous inefficiency.

I have a suggestion,

To continue, efficiently, extracting momentum from photons, the system needs to induce energy back to the photons to keep them in the same wavelength.

I think this can be done by having the small end of the cavity push pack on photons with a force equal to the difference of force exerted from the photons on the small and the large end of the cavity.

In the attached diagram you see that, if the shown small end of the cavity spins in the shown directions, that will cause a push/force effect against incoming/bouncing photons. Also, for any acceleration or thrust level, there is certain spin speed that can compensate for the redshift. The force is a function of spinning speed.

In the down side, the need for a spinning cavity will complicate experimentation a lot.
Also note, this shape of the small end can also be applied to the large end in reverse way. This can insure that photons continue to bounce vertically, but it might need opposite directions of spin.

what you guys think of this suggestion.

Resonance is only needed to achieve coupler impedance matching so to be able to cause the internal coupler to emit photons from Rf energy applied external to the cavity to the coupler.  Approx 6.16^26 2.45GHz photons are emitted by the internal coupler per second.

Resonance is not required for the end plates to generate differential radiation pressure via Compton Scattering. As the trapped photons degrade and their wavelength increases, they will continue to transfer monentum to the end plares, to support cavity acceleration, no matter what their degraded wavelength.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 07/03/2017 09:09 am
(...)

Space doesn’t really exist because it is a representation in one moment (drawing, illustrations etc.) of points that are not at the same moment (spacetime) except in our minds. The Earth-Moon “distance” is approximately 1 light second. No two points of this “distance” are at the same moment, or else light would not take any time to travel the distance.  We may use kilometers (or geodesics) for convenience but it doesn’t make space real. “Space” is a dimension of consciousness, not a dimension of the universe. So, we may forget the poetics of “curving space” or “this telling that” what to do.

In conclusion, “space” is a necessary tool for representing concepts of physical knowledge but it plays no part in the universe since it doesn’t exist. IMO, we should replace the “false cause” for motion as “curvature” or “geodesics” by the true and logical cause for motion, a higher probability of existence due to a differential in the rate of time. I don’t dispute any of the representations used in physics. Here, I only want to remind us to carefully remove our own observer contributions from our knowledge before we say that the universe is this or that.

 Marcel,

      "There is in particular one problem whose exhaustive solution could provide considerable elucidation. What becomes of the energy of a photon after complete emission? Does it spread out in all directions with further propagation in the sense of Huygens' wave theory, so constantly taking up more space, in boundless progressive attenuation? Or does it fly out like a projectile in one direction in the sense of Newton's emanation theory? In the first case, the quantum would no longer be in the position to concentrate energy upon a single point in space in such a way as to release an electron from its atomic bond, and in the second case, the main triumph of the Maxwell theory - the continuity between the static and the dynamic fields and, with it, the complete understanding we have enjoyed, until now, of the fully investigated interference phenomena - would have to be sacrificed, both being very unhappy consequences for today's theoreticians."
       Max Planck, Nobel Lecture, June 2, 1920.

       ****************************

Marcel,

much of the last three centuries of physics has been a battle to avoid acceptance of remotely acting forces. This has been a necessary struggle but one that is, in my opinion, ultimately doomed. I believe the understanding you have reached in the above quote, has a potential solution to Planck's dilemma, encapsulated within it.

If we accept that space exists as a consequence of the nature of human perception, we may then see that the presence of a charge has gravitational and therefore inertial consequence everywhere. We may also see that the acceleration of a charge accelerates the next nearest charge in line of sight and in resonance with it, with respect to the relative rates of passage of time within which they reside.

The line of sight being that geodesic specific to the interaction. This may be visualized without contradiction if the acceleration of the charges interacting electromagnetically are aligned to that geodesic at the moment of complex time at which they interact. We might then find better explanations for inertia, gravity, electromagnetic action and emdrive thrust. It may even be possible to find an explanation for fringe effects and Young's two slit experiment if geodesics intersecting atomic orbitals are considered.

Attempting always to nobble my own argument.  :) JMN..
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 07/04/2017 12:47 am
I was just reading and noticed meberbs had figured out the 2nd order doppler effects which I thought was cool here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1413761#msg1413761 when a thought struck me.

Light is able to transfer more of its energy effectively to a lighter object such as a free electron than it is able to transfer its energy to a more massive object.  Now in the tip of the frustum we have some large electric fields which could possibly ionize gas while at the large end ionization may be less so. 

snip...

Could that possibly make sense?

What is curious about a plasma possibly existing in the cavity is that the plasma can more effectively absorb kinetic energy from light.  I think I remember Shell mentioning the possibility of plasma in the cavity at one point in time.  Possibly this is why she made her cavity see through or that screen mesh?  The plasma would need to be created, so energy would start to be stored in the cavity and later plasma could form when the electric fields become strong enough to strip electrons from the gasses inside. 

The formation of too much plasma and I question if it could possibly start to interfere with the stored energy in the cavity,(the free electrons being too reflective), the wavelength might not constructively interfere any more, causing energy to be rejected from the cavity.  For it to work, some light would have to pass through the plasma and resonate in the cavity to sustain the electric fields that sustain the plasma. 

After that you need light that resonates between the big cavity wall and the plasma toward the narrow end of the cavity.  The plasma doesn't need to touch the cavity wall and should in fact be repelled from the changing magnetic field via the currents in the cavity.  So basically the plasma more effectively absorbs kinetic energy from light and then passes this on to the cavity via repulsion off the cavities changing magnetic field. 

The need to sustain both currents in the cavity at a certain wavelength, and current induced in the plasma via another wavelength may mean multiple wavelengths are required. 

This provides a possible means for the cavity to travel pointed end forwards if the plasma is near the pointed end but may depend on the plasma's location and possibly/possibly not with respect to where your injecting the radiation.  I.e. I'm not sure what effect it would have to inject the radiation inside the plasma as opposed to injecting the radiation at the end where there is no plasma.  I suspect injecting radiation in the middle of the plasma may have an effect of reducing any propulsive effect but maybe not. 

I would suspect you would want the location of the injecting antenna to be about a quarter wavelength away from the big plate for both injected wavelengths.  Could this be why large freq. splatter of microwave oven magnetrons work? (injecting multiple wavelengths?) 

Does it coinside with experimental evidence suggesting some minimal power level required for the effect to really take hold.  Some minimal power required to form plasma?


Just some non-educated guess. I wonder if what you describe sounds a bit like small scale version of the ITER plasma reactor. From that picture of the corss-section of the reactor on wikipedia it do resembles a bit shape of the modified EmDrive, except of course that it is circular shape reactor in the end. Could there be some similarity to EmDrive or not at all?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

Did anyone tried circular shape of the EmDrive  ;D ?

From the equation in the paper it seems there are some conditions that reduce the breakdown voltage/meter if I was reading it correctly.  I suspected under certain conditions the breakdown voltage would be a fraction of the expected 3*10^6 V/m.  Still that's a fairly high V/m.  Read through it a few times but will have to sub some values in to see if the break down can be lowered enough.  I am unsure it is reasonable to assume there is a plasma but it is interesting that there could be a plasma and at one end of the cavity. 

I think what was important was that they "give a method of observing if a plasma is formed".  Directly confirming or observing what is actually going on in the cavity is integral to understanding what might be occurring if anything. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 07/04/2017 06:12 am
I have been a follower of this thread for a long time.
I cannot help but notice that no one is doing anything to combat the red shift of photons. This seems to be a serious challenge that needs serious attention.
To my layman understanding, photons need to resonate and for that we need tuned cavity dimensions suited for the photons wave length.

However, once photons loose some momentum to the small of end of the cavity they red shift, in what we hope to call direct conversion to thrust for the cavity. Once photons redshift, the dimensions of the cavity are no longer suitable for those photons. This leads to tremendous inefficiency.

I have a suggestion,

To continue, efficiently, extracting momentum from photons, the system needs to induce energy back to the photons to keep them in the same wavelength.

I think this can be done by having the small end of the cavity push pack on photons with a force equal to the difference of force exerted from the photons on the small and the large end of the cavity.

In the attached diagram you see that, if the shown small end of the cavity spins in the shown directions, that will cause a push/force effect against incoming/bouncing photons. Also, for any acceleration or thrust level, there is certain spin speed that can compensate for the redshift. The force is a function of spinning speed.

In the down side, the need for a spinning cavity will complicate experimentation a lot.
Also note, this shape of the small end can also be applied to the large end in reverse way. This can insure that photons continue to bounce vertically, but it might need opposite directions of spin.

what you guys think of this suggestion.

Resonance is only needed to achieve coupler impedance matching so to be able to cause the internal coupler to emit photons from Rf energy applied external to the cavity to the coupler.  Approx 6.16^26 2.45GHz photons are emitted by the internal coupler per second.

Resonance is not required for the end plates to generate differential radiation pressure via Compton Scattering. As the trapped photons degrade and their wavelength increases, they will continue to transfer monentum to the end plares, to support cavity acceleration, no matter what their degraded wavelength.

If there was some change in frequency in the current EM drive the change in frequency might be hardly noticeable.  Using the equation W=energy/sec h=planks constant f=frequency then
W/h/f = photons per sec emitted.  df=frequency lost per photon and n = number of cycles a photon completes then df*h*n = energy lost per photon  W*df*h*n/(h*f) = W*df*n/f = energy absorbed per second as kinetic energy if such a thing could occur. 

Throwing in some numbers in SI units.  W=20 watts df=0.5 hz or cycles/sec n=1000 f=2.45*10^9 Hz we get 4.08*10^-6 joules/sec absorbed as kinetic energy.  We integrate the absorbed kinetic energy over time to get the objects change in velocity from rest.  A low velocity estimation using m=1 kg E=1/2*m*v^2 so v=sqrt(2*E/m) -> sqrt(2*4.08*10^-6/1) = 0.00286 m/s

dW/dv = F = 4.08*10^-6 joules/sec / (0.00286 m/s) = ~ 1.4 mN so it doesn't take much of a change in frequency (0.5 hz), considering the number of photons, to induce a significant force. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 07/04/2017 09:14 am
I have tested it on a scale, like described in the article, and found no sign of pushing. I will further test it on my torsion balance (next month). It is quite easy to test, you just put a dummy load on the balance and see whether there is any deflection if it is powered.
Also, the mantle (cavity wall) can easily be cooled with water flow.

I was able to roughly simulate your coupling cavity/waveguide. With the coax and connectors in the cavity, which are hard to quantify since I don't have exact dimensions, it won't be exact. I'm pretty sure the second image below shows TM011. I'm not sure about the first, but it looks like the two antennas are coupling better with that mode. I would need to do more setup to run a proper S21.

Hi Jamie (I'm back from holiday and other distractions),
Again, thanks a lot for the sims. But the frequencies you got out of it, 3.50 and 3.35 GHz, do not really come close to the measured frequencies (3.60 and 3.25 GHz).
Does it due to, apart from the influence of the connectors etc., the fact that one of the endplates in not in contact with the wall?
Peter

Added: I guess it is best to paint the cavity and take pictures with an IR camera to determine what modes it is running.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 07/04/2017 09:30 am
I have tested it on a scale, like described in the article, and found no sign of pushing. I will further test it on my torsion balance (next month). It is quite easy to test, you just put a dummy load on the balance and see whether there is any deflection if it is powered.
Also, the mantle (cavity wall) can easily be cooled with water flow.

I was able to roughly simulate your coupling cavity/waveguide. With the coax and connectors in the cavity, which are hard to quantify since I don't have exact dimensions, it won't be exact. I'm pretty sure the second image below shows TM011. I'm not sure about the first, but it looks like the two antennas are coupling better with that mode. I would need to do more setup to run a proper S21.
Fantastic, Jamie! I will come back to this later.

Having the RF source and main power off the test rig may solve some of my noise issues. We could simplify your coupling cavity to a rectangular waveguide with E-probe. That way only a small hole is required. And that small hole is small enough that 2.45Ghz barely leaks out. This is a simplified sim of the concept that seems to check out. In reality, the waveguide and E-probe would be located at the center of the torsional pendulum, feeding RF through the bottom to a SMA cable that leads to the frustum.  There wouldn't even be the need for battery operated power detectors as reflected power could be monitored off-rig by using a circulator before the waveguide.   

Jamie:

I would steer clear of this isolated feed approach to testing the EMdrives due to the complaint that if any element of the RF source is mounted in the laboratory frame of reference, the argument can be made that any unbalanced forces developed by the frustum are just leveraged off the RF power supply and its mounts to the lab via its RF feed lines.  The only convincing way to demonstrate these EMdrives is to treat them as "free flyers" with the controls, RF source and battery flying WITH the frustum as they would in free space.  That recommendation came out of the July 2014 Eagleworks (EW) Blue Ribbon PhD panel and that was the primary reason we built the Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) and Cavendish Balance test article the way we did. 

Best, Paul M.

Dear Paul,

I don't really see this problem (at least, not as being a big problem).
Of course, you have to perform all kind of tests to show this way of feeding does not impose disturbing forces itself: dummy-load instead of frustum, cylindrical cavity instead of frustum, etc.
But I see everyone struggling with the 100+ W of heat generated on the measurement device when only measuring some tens of micronewtons. It is just not convincing. I think the problems are much less with this 'isolated feed approach' (and the 'convincing power' stronger).
Anyway, it is how I am going to do it. It will surely be useful if several ways are tried.

Cheers, Peter

My article, An improved method to measure microwave induced impulsive forces with a torsion balance or weighing scale, at arxiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.04999
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 07/04/2017 09:48 am
Funny Business at the ArXiv (http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.fr/2017/06/bias-at-arxiv.html)
 
McCulloch is not the only physicist facing this kind of omerta from arXiv anonymous administrators. I know others. Although publishing in peer-review academic, non predatory access journals, they have in common being alternate candidates to standard ΛCDM concordance cosmological model. It's a topsy-turvy world: the arXiv, which used to be a preprint server, now acts like a peer-review postprint club, at least in the field of cosmology.

Indeed. Therefore I did not include the word 'EmDrive' in the title, abstract or keywords. '-)

https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.04999
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 07/04/2017 10:02 am
I was just reading and noticed meberbs had figured out the 2nd order doppler effects which I thought was cool here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1413761#msg1413761 when a thought struck me.

Light is able to transfer more of its energy effectively to a lighter object such as a free electron than it is able to transfer its energy to a more massive object.  Now in the tip of the frustum we have some large electric fields which could possibly ionize gas while at the large end ionization may be less so. 

snip...

Could that possibly make sense?

What is curious about a plasma possibly existing in the cavity is that the plasma can more effectively absorb kinetic energy from light.  I think I remember Shell mentioning the possibility of plasma in the cavity at one point in time.  Possibly this is why she made her cavity see through or that screen mesh?  The plasma would need to be created, so energy would start to be stored in the cavity and later plasma could form when the electric fields become strong enough to strip electrons from the gasses inside.

Snip....   

Does it coinside with experimental evidence suggesting some minimal power level required for the effect to really take hold.  Some minimal power required to form plasma?


Just some non-educated guess. I wonder if what you describe sounds a bit like small scale version of the ITER plasma reactor. From that picture of the corss-section of the reactor on wikipedia it do resembles a bit shape of the modified EmDrive, except of course that it is circular shape reactor in the end. Could there be some similarity to EmDrive or not at all?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

Did anyone tried circular shape of the EmDrive  ;D ?

From the equation in the paper it seems there are some conditions that reduce the breakdown voltage/meter if I was reading it correctly.  I suspected under certain conditions the breakdown voltage would be a fraction of the expected 3*10^6 V/m.  Still that's a fairly high V/m.  Read through it a few times but will have to sub some values in to see if the break down can be lowered enough.  I am unsure it is reasonable to assume there is a plasma but it is interesting that there could be a plasma and at one end of the cavity. 

I think what was important was that they "give a method of observing if a plasma is formed".  Directly confirming or observing what is actually going on in the cavity is integral to understanding what might be occurring if anything.

Very interesting what you describe here. Do we have some specialist for plasma here? Perhaps it can be another try for the explanation of this device.

https://goo.gl/JYDaxV - Plasma classification (types of plasma) - Link edit

http://education.jlab.org/qa/plasma_02.html
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 07/04/2017 10:32 am

Very interesting what you describe here. Do we have some specialist for plasma here? Perhaps it can be another try for the explenation of this device.

https://www.plasma-universe.com/Plasma_classification_(types_of_plasma)

http://education.jlab.org/qa/plasma_02.html

The forum mangled the URL (didn't include the closing parens)

https://www.plasma-universe.com/Plasma_classification_(types_of_plasma) (https://www.plasma-universe.com/Plasma_classification_(types_of_plasma))

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 07/04/2017 10:45 am
Just a crazy thought (feel free to skip this post of mine ;D)

We have a resonant cavity with two end plates of different size, now, we inject photons into the cavity and those photons start bouncing back and forth (ok, more or less) betweeen the end plates, BUT while a large amount of those photons is able to hit the "big" plate, a somewhat reduced amount of them hits the "small" one (collisions and so on), this may cause an inbalance in the energy transmitted to the plates, where the large one gets more hits and more energy transfer while the smaller one gets less hits and, in turn, minor energy transfer.

Now, may this difference be the cause of the "anomalous thrust" being observed ?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 07/04/2017 10:58 am
Just a crazy thought (feel free to skip this post of mine ;D)

We have a resonant cavity with two end plates of different size, now, we inject photons into the cavity and those photons start bouncing back and forth (ok, more or less) betweeen the end plates, BUT while a large amount of those photons is able to hit the "big" plate, a somewhat reduced amount of them hits the "small" one (collisions and so on), this may cause an inbalance in the energy transmitted to the plates, where the large one gets more hits and more energy transfer while the smaller one gets less hits and, in turn, minor energy transfer.

Now, may this difference be the cause of the "anomalous thrust" being observed ?

 "In a star, it works something like this. Large clouds of gas in space are thought to have "condensed" into more dense blobs due to gravitational attraction within the gas. As the blobs grow more dense, the gravitational pull is stronger." quote from that link I sent earlier.

But as I said it it also only non-educated guess on my side. Perhaps Dr. Rodal or others can give better explenation on this.

Edit: I changed the link for the plasma wiki. Thank you for the notification.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/04/2017 01:12 pm
Again, thanks a lot for the sims. But the frequencies you got out of it, 3.50 and 3.35 GHz, do not really come close to the measured frequencies (3.60 and 3.25 GHz).

Does it due to, apart from the influence of the connectors etc., the fact that one of the endplates in not in contact with the wall?
Peter

Added: I guess it is best to paint the cavity and take pictures with an IR camera to determine what modes it is running.

I think the difference is likely both, but more because of the connectors and coax inside the cavity.  It is a fairly small cavity with a lot of clutter inside.  Unless I modeled the exact fittings and curve of the coax, there is likely to be quite a difference between the sim and measured resonance.

My workaround to this problem was to fabricate the simplest antenna that could excite the TE modes and mount it close to the end-plate so only a very small portion of the connector extended into the cavity. This yielded measurements that were very close to the simulations.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 07/04/2017 03:31 pm
https://phys.org/news/2017-06-atomic-mass-photon-momentum-paradox.html

Quote
In a recent publication, Aalto University researchers show that in a transparent medium each photon is accompanied by an atomic mass density wave. The optical force of the photon sets the medium atoms in motion and makes them carry 92% of the total momentum of light, in the case of silicon.
The novel discovery solves the centennial momentum paradox of light. In the literature, there has existed two different values for the momentum of light in the transparent medium. Typically, these values differ by a factor of ten and this discrepancy is known as the momentum paradox of light. The difference between the momentum values is caused by neglecting the momentum of atoms moving with the light pulse.


Shell

That reminds me of the article where they measure light going into water and the back reaction it had when entering the water.  It would be interesting to see the model of a reflection in a medium.

The Minkowski momentum then looks to be a wave where energy gets effectively transferred to the crystal lattice and it having a larger mass is more effective at transferring momentum upon reflection.  That's why when they put the mirror inside water and measured the impulse from light, that impulse appears to be greater by a factor of n (refractive index = n). 

Energy lost from the photon to the lattice must reduce the photons ability to transfer energy upon impulse by a factor of n.

The wave moving outward when light enters would Doppler shift the photon possibly?  Upon exiting, the wave that moves with the light pulse could possibly re-deliver that energy lost from a red shift when the photon entered.  Effectively blue shifting it back to its previous frequency. 

If the photon did lose frequency/energy/effective_mass as it entered the lattice I wonder if that could explain its loss of ability to transfer momentum in the Abraham part of its momentum.  Thanks for sharing Shell. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 07/04/2017 03:40 pm
Again, thanks a lot for the sims. But the frequencies you got out of it, 3.50 and 3.35 GHz, do not really come close to the measured frequencies (3.60 and 3.25 GHz).

Does it due to, apart from the influence of the connectors etc., the fact that one of the endplates in not in contact with the wall?
Peter

Added: I guess it is best to paint the cavity and take pictures with an IR camera to determine what modes it is running.

I think the difference is likely both, but more because of the connectors and coax inside the cavity.  It is a fairly small cavity with a lot of clutter inside.  Unless I modeled the exact fittings and curve of the coax, there is likely to be quite a difference between the sim and measured resonance.

My workaround to this problem was to fabricate the simplest antenna that could excite the TE modes and mount it close to the end-plate so only a very small portion of the connector extended into the cavity. This yielded measurements that were very close to the simulations.

For the 'EMDrive frustum' that is a very good solution.  But for the 'coupling cavity' it is too narrow bandwidth. In order to be usable, the coupling cavity needs to be rather broadband (at least a few MHz) since trough it, you have to feed the frustum (with a shifting resonance frequency due to temp change).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 07/04/2017 04:28 pm
Again, thanks a lot for the sims. But the frequencies you got out of it, 3.50 and 3.35 GHz, do not really come close to the measured frequencies (3.60 and 3.25 GHz).

Does it due to, apart from the influence of the connectors etc., the fact that one of the endplates in not in contact with the wall?
Peter

Added: I guess it is best to paint the cavity and take pictures with an IR camera to determine what modes it is running.

I think the difference is likely both, but more because of the connectors and coax inside the cavity.  It is a fairly small cavity with a lot of clutter inside.  Unless I modeled the exact fittings and curve of the coax, there is likely to be quite a difference between the sim and measured resonance.

My workaround to this problem was to fabricate the simplest antenna that could excite the TE modes and mount it close to the end-plate so only a very small portion of the connector extended into the cavity. This yielded measurements that were very close to the simulations.

For the 'EMDrive frustum' that is a very good solution.  But for the 'coupling cavity' it is too narrow bandwidth. In order to be usable, the coupling cavity needs to be rather broadband (at least a few MHz) since trough it, you have to feed the frustum (with a shifting resonance frequency due to temp change).
I agree with most of your assessment although if I may add a few thoughts on what I did and why, to provide a high power stable 2.45GHz narrow band frequency to the frustum.

As most here know I did my own clean variable DC power supplies driving a thermally stabilized copper lined water jacket  magnetron with an radiator heat exchanger. This drives a magnetron>antenna> cavity much like the one you did, but with a tuning endplate captured with a quartz rod through the center that allows thermal expansion in the resonate cavity. It maintains the frequency and keeps the mode locked. The magnetron has the ability to "lock" to the resonate frequency of the waveguide when driving this arrangement. This gave me a stable RF source that was stable, variable in power and some flexibility in frequency tuning.

I use the output of this waveguide to drive into a frustum that utilizes the same thermally stabilized design. A  Quartz tuning rod for stabilizing the thermal expansion and contraction as the Drive cavity fills with RF. *attached image

My Very Best,
Shell

opps... 2.45GHz
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/04/2017 05:58 pm
https://phys.org/news/2017-06-atomic-mass-photon-momentum-paradox.html

Quote
In a recent publication, Aalto University researchers show that in a transparent medium each photon is accompanied by an atomic mass density wave. The optical force of the photon sets the medium atoms in motion and makes them carry 92% of the total momentum of light, in the case of silicon.
The novel discovery solves the centennial momentum paradox of light. In the literature, there has existed two different values for the momentum of light in the transparent medium. Typically, these values differ by a factor of ten and this discrepancy is known as the momentum paradox of light. The difference between the momentum values is caused by neglecting the momentum of atoms moving with the light pulse.


Shell

That reminds me of the article where they measure light going into water and the back reaction it had when entering the water.  It would be interesting to see the model of a reflection in a medium.

The Minkowski momentum then looks to be a wave where energy gets effectively transferred to the crystal lattice and it having a larger mass is more effective at transferring momentum upon reflection.  That's why when they put the mirror inside water and measured the impulse from light, that impulse appears to be greater by a factor of n (refractive index = n). 

Energy lost from the photon to the lattice must reduce the photons ability to transfer energy upon impulse by a factor of n.

The wave moving outward when light enters would Doppler shift the photon possibly?  Upon exiting, the wave that moves with the light pulse could possibly re-deliver that energy lost from a red shift when the photon entered.  Effectively blue shifting it back to its previous frequency. 

If the photon did lose frequency/energy/effective_mass as it entered the lattice I wonder if that could explain its loss of ability to transfer momentum in the Abraham part of its momentum.  Thanks for sharing Shell.

Why can't a ship in principle create a disposable, unattached local medium with huge index of refraction, say 1E8 and emit laser light or microwaves in it thus imparting a billion times the kick to the ship over a photon beam in free space. One has to create and release the medium but if it's a low density gas in the form of a Bose Einstein Condensate, it wouldn't be much material. Alternatively, we could seek some other method of changing the index of refraction of space using only energy.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 07/04/2017 08:45 pm

Why can't a ship in principle create a disposable, unattached local medium with huge index of refraction, say 1E8 and emit laser light or microwaves in it thus imparting a billion times the kick to the ship over a photon beam in free space. One has to create and release the medium but if it's a low density gas in the form of a Bose Einstein Condensate, it wouldn't be much material. Alternatively, we could seek some other method of changing the index of refraction of space using only energy.

If the differences of Minkowski's and Abrahams' momenta of light have anything to do with the Emdrive, the transparent medium (the probably ionized gas) inside of the cavity would be a significant part of the effect.

Which means an Emdrive on a near full vacuum tested here on Earth would be noticeably less efficient than one on an atmosphere, but probably not null, because in any "vacuum" we can make on Earth there are some traces of gas left and the cavity could sustain some out-gassing during its function.

But if we tested it in a near perfect and self-replenishing vacuum (like in deep space), there the thrust could perfectly go to zero or become negligible/undetectable. Unless we were smart and prepared some test article where the cavity is airtight and contains some inert gas.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Slyver on 07/05/2017 01:29 am
If the differences of Minkowski's and Abrahams' momenta of light have anything to do with the Emdrive, the transparent medium (the probably ionized gas) inside of the cavity would be a significant part of the effect.

Which means an Emdrive on a near full vacuum tested here on Earth would be noticeably less efficient than one on an atmosphere, but probably not null, because in any "vacuum" we can make on Earth there are some traces of gas left and the cavity could sustain some out-gassing during its function.

But if we tested it in a near perfect and self-replenishing vacuum (like in deep space), there the thrust could perfectly go to zero or become negligible/undetectable. Unless we were smart and prepared some test article where the cavity is airtight and contains some inert gas.

I have been an advocate of an EMDrive container system that is designed to have an ~uniform thermal radiation signature, and is hermetically sealed, since the beginning. If we don't know why (or even if) it is working, and taking out a possibly functional piece (air) of the initially measured system decreases the thrust measurement by a substantial amount, test the whole system, which includes gas on both the inside and outside. To me, this is a no-brainer.

No one has done this, and it is for this reason alone I keep considering spending the required time to perform this test myself. I keep not doing it, simply because I cannot find the time, but I really want to see this test.

Edit: What I mean to advocate is; get a working system, and then put it in a hermetically sealed container and see if the thrust signal remains.


I would steer clear of this isolated feed approach to testing the EMdrives due to the complaint that if any element of the RF source is mounted in the laboratory frame of reference, the argument can be made that any unbalanced forces developed by the frustum are just leveraged off the RF power supply and its mounts to the lab via its RF feed lines.  The only convincing way to demonstrate these EMdrives is to treat them as "free flyers" with the controls, RF source and battery flying WITH the frustum as they would in free space.  That recommendation came out of the July 2014 Eagleworks (EW) Blue Ribbon PhD panel and that was the primary reason we built the Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) and Cavendish Balance test article the way we did. 

Best, Paul M.

Dear Paul,

I don't really see this problem (at least, not as being a big problem).
Of course, you have to perform all kind of tests to show this way of feeding does not impose disturbing forces itself: dummy-load instead of frustum, cylindrical cavity instead of frustum, etc.
But I see everyone struggling with the 100+ W of heat generated on the measurement device when only measuring some tens of micronewtons. It is just not convincing. I think the problems are much less with this 'isolated feed approach' (and the 'convincing power' stronger).
Anyway, it is how I am going to do it. It will surely be useful if several ways are tried.


There is merit to performing tests with the microwave cavity in a different frame from the microwave source; however, until a test is performed that has the entire system on one side of a torsion balance producing meaningful thrust levels, either in vacuum, or hermetically sealed, I do not think it will be sufficiently convincing for space testing. Any efforts to characterize such a system to a sufficient degree to be convincing are less than the efforts required to put the whole thing on a rotating rig.

In no way do I mean to discourage such testing, it has great merit in development. However, as has been shown, it has limitations in convincing power (with good reason).

All that matters is whether or not this system produces an effective thrust greater than a photon rocket per energy input, without what we would consider an obvious reaction mass (such as ejected photons, ejected or thermally excited air, etc.). If it does this, it's...    YUGE.

Give me a thermally uniform, hermitically sealed container all on one side of a rotating rig with 5 sigma thrust an order of magnitude greater than a photon rocket, and I will (well, someone will) give you a Nobel prize. It doesn't take much. An order of magnitude can change the world as we know it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 07/05/2017 07:29 am
If the differences of Minkowski's and Abrahams' momenta of light have anything to do with the Emdrive, the transparent medium (the probably ionized gas) inside of the cavity would be a significant part of the effect.

Which means an Emdrive on a near full vacuum tested here on Earth would be noticeably less efficient than one on an atmosphere, but probably not null, because in any "vacuum" we can make on Earth there are some traces of gas left and the cavity could sustain some out-gassing during its function.

But if we tested it in a near perfect and self-replenishing vacuum (like in deep space), there the thrust could perfectly go to zero or become negligible/undetectable. Unless we were smart and prepared some test article where the cavity is airtight and contains some inert gas.

I have been an advocate of an EMDrive container system that is designed to have an ~uniform thermal radiation signature, and is hermetically sealed, since the beginning. If we don't know why (or even if) it is working, and taking out a possibly functional piece (air) of the initially measured system decreases the thrust measurement by a substantial amount, test the whole system, which includes gas on both the inside and outside. To me, this is a no-brainer.

No one has done this, and it is for this reason alone I keep considering spending the required time to perform this test myself. I keep not doing it, simply because I cannot find the time, but I really want to see this test.

Edit: What I mean to advocate is; get a working system, and then put it in a hermetically sealed container and see if the thrust signal remains.


I would steer clear of this isolated feed approach to testing the EMdrives due to the complaint that if any element of the RF source is mounted in the laboratory frame of reference, the argument can be made that any unbalanced forces developed by the frustum are just leveraged off the RF power supply and its mounts to the lab via its RF feed lines.  The only convincing way to demonstrate these EMdrives is to treat them as "free flyers" with the controls, RF source and battery flying WITH the frustum as they would in free space.  That recommendation came out of the July 2014 Eagleworks (EW) Blue Ribbon PhD panel and that was the primary reason we built the Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) and Cavendish Balance test article the way we did. 

Best, Paul M.

Dear Paul,

I don't really see this problem (at least, not as being a big problem).
Of course, you have to perform all kind of tests to show this way of feeding does not impose disturbing forces itself: dummy-load instead of frustum, cylindrical cavity instead of frustum, etc.
But I see everyone struggling with the 100+ W of heat generated on the measurement device when only measuring some tens of micronewtons. It is just not convincing. I think the problems are much less with this 'isolated feed approach' (and the 'convincing power' stronger).
Anyway, it is how I am going to do it. It will surely be useful if several ways are tried.


There is merit to performing tests with the microwave cavity in a different frame from the microwave source; however, until a test is performed that has the entire system on one side of a torsion balance producing meaningful thrust levels, either in vacuum, or hermetically sealed, I do not think it will be sufficiently convincing for space testing. Any efforts to characterize such a system to a sufficient degree to be convincing are less than the efforts required to put the whole thing on a rotating rig.

In no way do I mean to discourage such testing, it has great merit in development. However, as has been shown, it has limitations in convincing power (with good reason).

All that matters is whether or not this system produces an effective thrust greater than a photon rocket per energy input, without what we would consider an obvious reaction mass (such as ejected photons, ejected or thermally excited air, etc.). If it does this, it's...    YUGE.

Give me a thermally uniform, hermitically sealed container all on one side of a rotating rig with 5 sigma thrust an order of magnitude greater than a photon rocket, and I will (well, someone will) give you a Nobel prize. It doesn't take much. An order of magnitude can change the world as we know it.

A problem with testing a microwave source that is disconnected from the cavity, such that it can exist in another frame is that light would travel between the two frames.  This would likely cause mutual repulsion between the two frames similar to a Photonic laser thruster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photonic_laser_thruster .  These have already been shown to work.  Disconnecting the frames may fundamentally change what it is. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 07/05/2017 07:44 am
Again, thanks a lot for the sims. But the frequencies you got out of it, 3.50 and 3.35 GHz, do not really come close to the measured frequencies (3.60 and 3.25 GHz).

Does it due to, apart from the influence of the connectors etc., the fact that one of the endplates in not in contact with the wall?
Peter

Added: I guess it is best to paint the cavity and take pictures with an IR camera to determine what modes it is running.

I think the difference is likely both, but more because of the connectors and coax inside the cavity.  It is a fairly small cavity with a lot of clutter inside.  Unless I modeled the exact fittings and curve of the coax, there is likely to be quite a difference between the sim and measured resonance.

My workaround to this problem was to fabricate the simplest antenna that could excite the TE modes and mount it close to the end-plate so only a very small portion of the connector extended into the cavity. This yielded measurements that were very close to the simulations.

For the 'EMDrive frustum' that is a very good solution.  But for the 'coupling cavity' it is too narrow bandwidth. In order to be usable, the coupling cavity needs to be rather broadband (at least a few MHz) since trough it, you have to feed the frustum (with a shifting resonance frequency due to temp change).
I agree with most of your assessment although if I may add a few thoughts on what I did and why, to provide a high power stable 2.45GHz narrow band frequency to the frustum.

As most here know I did my own clean variable DC power supplies driving a thermally stabilized copper lined water jacket  magnetron with an radiator heat exchanger. This drives a magnetron>antenna> cavity much like the one you did, but with a tuning endplate captured with a quartz rod through the center that allows thermal expansion in the resonate cavity. It maintains the frequency and keeps the mode locked. The magnetron has the ability to "lock" to the resonate frequency of the waveguide when driving this arrangement. This gave me a stable RF source that was stable, variable in power and some flexibility in frequency tuning.

I use the output of this waveguide to drive into a frustum that utilizes the same thermally stabilized design. A  Quartz tuning rod for stabilizing the thermal expansion and contraction as the Drive cavity fills with RF. *attached image

My Very Best,
Shell

opps... 2.45GHz

This looks like a very elegant setup. Neat copper work as well.
But is the microwave signal also coupled in a non-contact way?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 07/05/2017 07:47 am

A problem with testing a microwave source that is disconnected from the cavity, such that it can exist in another frame is that light would travel between the two frames.  This would likely cause mutual repulsion between the two frames similar to a Photonic laser thruster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photonic_laser_thruster .  These have already been shown to work.  Disconnecting the frames may fundamentally change what it is.

Really? Photonic thrust - recalling from mind - gives you only 3.3 nanonewton/watt. Not something to worry about, isn't it?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/05/2017 01:17 pm

A problem with testing a microwave source that is disconnected from the cavity, such that it can exist in another frame is that light would travel between the two frames.  This would likely cause mutual repulsion between the two frames similar to a Photonic laser thruster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photonic_laser_thruster .  These have already been shown to work.  Disconnecting the frames may fundamentally change what it is.

Really? Photonic thrust - recalling from mind - gives you only 3.3 nanonewton/watt. Not something to worry about, isn't it?

Depends on the number of reflections. With the photonic laser thruster, 1000 reflections of 1W comes to 3.3uN.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 07/05/2017 02:09 pm

A problem with testing a microwave source that is disconnected from the cavity, such that it can exist in another frame is that light would travel between the two frames.  This would likely cause mutual repulsion between the two frames similar to a Photonic laser thruster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photonic_laser_thruster .  These have already been shown to work.  Disconnecting the frames may fundamentally change what it is.

Really? Photonic thrust - recalling from mind - gives you only 3.3 nanonewton/watt. Not something to worry about, isn't it?

Depends on the number of reflections. With the photonic laser thruster, 1000 reflections of 1W comes to 3.3uN.

But that's not very likely the case in this setup, 1000 reflections, isn't it? Actually, what are we talking about in my setup? Reflections between what?

Even in case of the cited plt I don't believe in 1k reflections at astronomical distances. No way, not even 100, not even 10.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 07/05/2017 02:41 pm
Again, thanks a lot for the sims. But the frequencies you got out of it, 3.50 and 3.35 GHz, do not really come close to the measured frequencies (3.60 and 3.25 GHz).

Does it due to, apart from the influence of the connectors etc., the fact that one of the endplates in not in contact with the wall?
Peter

Added: I guess it is best to paint the cavity and take pictures with an IR camera to determine what modes it is running.

I think the difference is likely both, but more because of the connectors and coax inside the cavity.  It is a fairly small cavity with a lot of clutter inside.  Unless I modeled the exact fittings and curve of the coax, there is likely to be quite a difference between the sim and measured resonance.

My workaround to this problem was to fabricate the simplest antenna that could excite the TE modes and mount it close to the end-plate so only a very small portion of the connector extended into the cavity. This yielded measurements that were very close to the simulations.

For the 'EMDrive frustum' that is a very good solution.  But for the 'coupling cavity' it is too narrow bandwidth. In order to be usable, the coupling cavity needs to be rather broadband (at least a few MHz) since trough it, you have to feed the frustum (with a shifting resonance frequency due to temp change).
I agree with most of your assessment although if I may add a few thoughts on what I did and why, to provide a high power stable 2.45GHz narrow band frequency to the frustum.

As most here know I did my own clean variable DC power supplies driving a thermally stabilized copper lined water jacket  magnetron with an radiator heat exchanger. This drives a magnetron>antenna> cavity much like the one you did, but with a tuning endplate captured with a quartz rod through the center that allows thermal expansion in the resonate cavity. It maintains the frequency and keeps the mode locked. The magnetron has the ability to "lock" to the resonate frequency of the waveguide when driving this arrangement. This gave me a stable RF source that was stable, variable in power and some flexibility in frequency tuning.

I use the output of this waveguide to drive into a frustum that utilizes the same thermally stabilized design. A  Quartz tuning rod for stabilizing the thermal expansion and contraction as the Drive cavity fills with RF. *attached image

My Very Best,
Shell

opps... 2.45GHz

This looks like a very elegant setup. Neat copper work as well.
But is the microwave signal also coupled in a non-contact way?
Thanks for the complements, I try.

I tried both, waveguides to the frustum and stress relieved high flex coax cabling with the Torsion Pendulum design.

I used a larger air gap non-contact waveguide freely rotating center much like what you did and a more compact design (which proved too demanding in machining with my current tools). I plan to revisit the tiny design when I get my lathe.
 
Both designs tended to leak some at the air gap which I don't like and had to put a small local floating Faraday cage around them.  On another note the power levels in both designs would vary to the frustum during rotations of the drive on the wire pendulum. This was due the free hanging arm on the wire and imperfections in the cavity build, antenna etc made the torsion arm flex around and the floating top plate could hit the sides.

Where I am now.

Advanced designs incorporated into the drive required more than just the RF source to the frustum, those required a battery source that "rides" on the pendulum arm. This dramatically increased the load bearing requirements of the pendulum wire and the complexity of the build to the point that it became a Rube Goldberg nightmare and not realistic. Unlike monormorphic who is pursuing 1-25 watts in a pure RF drive I need more power. (Love that line  :o)

I'd recommend those who are building a device review what the industry recommends in evaluating micro-thrusters in several test beds to achieve credible results and not have to reinvent the wheel.
PDF warning...
http://hpepl.ae.gatech.edu/papers/2013_IEPC_Polk.pdf

Because I've seen more than just the small m/N thrust anomalies that need to be characterized I'm rebuilding the hanging wire torsion pendulum by using flexure bearings.
I have several sets left over from building semiconductor equipment that required extreme precision rotational capabilities.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Flexure_pivot.png)

When I was building a 4 axis machine a couple years ago.
(http://i.imgur.com/kmM0FPM.jpg)

By luck I still had a few of the parts left over. I'm using them to build the flexure torsional pendulum with some mods.
(http://i.imgur.com/TtJ2SzT.jpg)

This will allow measurements into the µN- to mN-level thrust and uto N-level impulses and provide support to the higher power requirements I need.

Also I could use Galinstan, a Gallium/Indium/Tin contacts for sensors and still use the high power non-contact microwave waveguide. But I believe I have a better fix to get away from the Galinstan issues and using it altogether.

This isn't a air bearing rotational stand (which has issues and is costly) or a Torsional Wire Pendulum (which reached limits in the design). The Flexure bearing design follows many of the industry guidelines for thruster testing and gives me the wide range of  measurements I need.


My Very Best,
Shell



Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: mikegem on 07/05/2017 04:03 pm
Again, thanks a lot for the sims. But the frequencies you got out of it, 3.50 and 3.35 GHz, do not really come close to the measured frequencies (3.60 and 3.25 GHz).

Does it due to, apart from the influence of the connectors etc., the fact that one of the endplates in not in contact with the wall?
Peter

Added: I guess it is best to paint the cavity and take pictures with an IR camera to determine what modes it is running.

I think the difference is likely both, but more because of the connectors and coax inside the cavity.  It is a fairly small cavity with a lot of clutter inside.  Unless I modeled the exact fittings and curve of the coax, there is likely to be quite a difference between the sim and measured resonance.

My workaround to this problem was to fabricate the simplest antenna that could excite the TE modes and mount it close to the end-plate so only a very small portion of the connector extended into the cavity. This yielded measurements that were very close to the simulations.

For the 'EMDrive frustum' that is a very good solution.  But for the 'coupling cavity' it is too narrow bandwidth. In order to be usable, the coupling cavity needs to be rather broadband (at least a few MHz) since trough it, you have to feed the frustum (with a shifting resonance frequency due to temp change).
I agree with most of your assessment although if I may add a few thoughts on what I did and why, to provide a high power stable 2.45GHz narrow band frequency to the frustum.

As most here know I did my own clean variable DC power supplies driving a thermally stabilized copper lined water jacket  magnetron with an radiator heat exchanger. This drives a magnetron>antenna> cavity much like the one you did, but with a tuning endplate captured with a quartz rod through the center that allows thermal expansion in the resonate cavity. It maintains the frequency and keeps the mode locked. The magnetron has the ability to "lock" to the resonate frequency of the waveguide when driving this arrangement. This gave me a stable RF source that was stable, variable in power and some flexibility in frequency tuning.

I use the output of this waveguide to drive into a frustum that utilizes the same thermally stabilized design. A  Quartz tuning rod for stabilizing the thermal expansion and contraction as the Drive cavity fills with RF. *attached image

My Very Best,
Shell

opps... 2.45GHz

A thought from somebody who has built high power microwave systems for CVD.

I noticed in the figures your sliding plate with flexible beryllium gasket at its periphery. If this is a finger stock type of seal, and if it is at a point where skin currents are large, local high temperatures can oxidize the finger stock elements. Then high resistance, higher temperatures, then local finger melting. Also, copper is inherently "sticky" and tends to score or gall with finger stock motion.

To eliminate these effects in moving finger stock seals engaged with both copper and aluminum walls and in stub tuners, I used a thin layer of silver paste spread over the expected range of motion. Silver is electrically conductive and inherently lubricious. It eliminated scoring, galling, and the other rubbing phenomena that caused my finger stock seals and tuning stubs to fail.

Eventually, I silver-plated every surface that carried skin currents. Problem solved. But the paste was an effective interim solution.

If your flexible beryllium seal is a non-finger stock design, what I've written may be irrelevant, please ignore.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 07/05/2017 04:51 pm
...snip...

Where I am now.

Advanced designs incorporated into the drive required more than just the RF source to the frustum, those required a battery source that "rides" on the pendulum arm. This dramatically increased the load bearing requirements of the pendulum wire and the complexity of the build to the point that it became a Rube Goldberg nightmare and not realistic. Unlike monormorphic who is pursuing 1-25 watts in a pure RF drive I need more power. (Love that line  :o)

I'd recommend those who are building a device review what the industry recommends in evaluating micro-thrusters in several test beds to achieve credible results and not have to reinvent the wheel.
PDF warning...
http://hpepl.ae.gatech.edu/papers/2013_IEPC_Polk.pdf

Because I've seen more than just the small m/N thrust anomalies that need to be characterized I'm rebuilding the hanging wire torsion pendulum by using flexure bearings.
I have several sets left over from building semiconductor equipment that required extreme precision rotational capabilities.

...snip...

Shells,

Your setup certainly looks like the best in town. Ha, no, make that among the best worldwide.

But now I'm eager to know more about your results.

I understand you are following a better be cautious than sorry approach for this, probably checking and double checking your results yourself and with other qualified people's help.  And the harsh comments some Emdrive builders have received, while being completely honest and open on the net, may have inclined you to be quite more cautious while disclosing similar information.

But my doubt now is: are you still planning to release your results in the net or do you plan to make a paper and have it peer reviewed?

That last option doesn't seem unreasonable at all, specially if you have reasonably good confirmation and because your setup may have already exceeded the quality and rigor of some of the known setups, used to get Emdrive ball rolling not long ago, like those of Yang Juan we know about.

Also, a paper would help anchor the Emdrive even more firmly into the academic world, made of results that can be cited/quoted.

Thanks for the update.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/05/2017 05:32 pm

Why can't a ship in principle create a disposable, unattached local medium with huge index of refraction, say 1E8 and emit laser light or microwaves in it thus imparting a billion times the kick to the ship over a photon beam in free space. One has to create and release the medium but if it's a low density gas in the form of a Bose Einstein Condensate, it wouldn't be much material. Alternatively, we could seek some other method of changing the index of refraction of space using only energy.

If the differences of Minkowski's and Abrahams' momenta of light have anything to do with the Emdrive, the transparent medium (the probably ionized gas) inside of the cavity would be a significant part of the effect.

Which means an Emdrive on a near full vacuum tested here on Earth would be noticeably less efficient than one on an atmosphere, but probably not null, because in any "vacuum" we can make on Earth there are some traces of gas left and the cavity could sustain some out-gassing during its function.

But if we tested it in a near perfect and self-replenishing vacuum (like in deep space), there the thrust could perfectly go to zero or become negligible/undetectable. Unless we were smart and prepared some test article where the cavity is airtight and contains some inert gas.

Thanks. My question though wasn't directly in reference to an EmDrive. The problem would still be a contained medium in an EmDrive cavity would cancel out net forces. Shawyer's appeal to the cavity being an open system under relativity makes more sense to me. My question related to using the Minkowski momentum to boost light momentum directly but not assuming a closed system. I'm letting the medium disperse.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/05/2017 06:24 pm

A problem with testing a microwave source that is disconnected from the cavity, such that it can exist in another frame is that light would travel between the two frames.  This would likely cause mutual repulsion between the two frames similar to a Photonic laser thruster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photonic_laser_thruster .  These have already been shown to work.  Disconnecting the frames may fundamentally change what it is.

Really? Photonic thrust - recalling from mind - gives you only 3.3 nanonewton/watt. Not something to worry about, isn't it?

Equivalent to using a medium to increase light momentum is using mirrors to bounce the beam as in Photonic Laser Thrusters which have been shown to work in the lab pushing Kg scale objects around with light. Since mirrors are inconvenient as a reaction mass we can explore the concept of creating nano or micro-mirrors which last a brief time yet reflect the beam millions of times or more in their lifetime. Assume each mirror contained only micrograms of material and was created something like a high tech soap bubble in a plane mere microns away from the beam, also forming a plane to distribute the energy. Since light travels at 3E5 microns per nanosecond, we might get many bounces from each mirror even assuming the mirrors recede at great acceleration. Perhaps thousand of bounces per nanosecond and millions per microsecond if the mirrors last that long. Well, not exactly a Warp Bubble drive but perhaps more like Soap Bubble drive.... ;D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 07/05/2017 06:41 pm

A problem with testing a microwave source that is disconnected from the cavity, such that it can exist in another frame is that light would travel between the two frames.  This would likely cause mutual repulsion between the two frames similar to a Photonic laser thruster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photonic_laser_thruster .  These have already been shown to work.  Disconnecting the frames may fundamentally change what it is.

Really? Photonic thrust - recalling from mind - gives you only 3.3 nanonewton/watt. Not something to worry about, isn't it?

Equivalent to using a medium to increase light momentum is using mirrors to bounce the beam as in Photonic Laser Thrusters which have been shown to work in the lab pushing Kg scale objects around with light. Since mirrors are inconvenient as a reaction mass we can explore the concept of creating nano or micro-mirrors which last a brief time yet reflect the beam millions of times or more in their lifetime. Assume each mirror contained only micrograms of material and was created something like a high tech soap bubble in a plane mere microns away from the beam, also forming a plane to distribute the energy. Since light travels at 3E5 microns per nanosecond, we might get many bounces from each mirror even assuming the mirrors recede at great acceleration. Perhaps thousand of bounces per nanosecond and millions per microsecond if the mirrors last that long. Well, not exactly a Warp Bubble drive but perhaps more like Soap Bubble drive.... ;D

These 'microsized mirrors' you mention will not work. The 'absorb' the momentum. I think the whole point is that you reflect on one side from an 'infinite mass' (moon or earth). But I have not read the article.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 07/05/2017 07:02 pm
Again, thanks a lot for the sims. But the frequencies you got out of it, 3.50 and 3.35 GHz, do not really come close to the measured frequencies (3.60 and 3.25 GHz).

Does it due to, apart from the influence of the connectors etc., the fact that one of the endplates in not in contact with the wall?
Peter

Added: I guess it is best to paint the cavity and take pictures with an IR camera to determine what modes it is running.

I think the difference is likely both, but more because of the connectors and coax inside the cavity.  It is a fairly small cavity with a lot of clutter inside.  Unless I modeled the exact fittings and curve of the coax, there is likely to be quite a difference between the sim and measured resonance.

My workaround to this problem was to fabricate the simplest antenna that could excite the TE modes and mount it close to the end-plate so only a very small portion of the connector extended into the cavity. This yielded measurements that were very close to the simulations.

For the 'EMDrive frustum' that is a very good solution.  But for the 'coupling cavity' it is too narrow bandwidth. In order to be usable, the coupling cavity needs to be rather broadband (at least a few MHz) since trough it, you have to feed the frustum (with a shifting resonance frequency due to temp change).
I agree with most of your assessment although if I may add a few thoughts on what I did and why, to provide a high power stable 2.45GHz narrow band frequency to the frustum.

As most here know I did my own clean variable DC power supplies driving a thermally stabilized copper lined water jacket  magnetron with an radiator heat exchanger. This drives a magnetron>antenna> cavity much like the one you did, but with a tuning endplate captured with a quartz rod through the center that allows thermal expansion in the resonate cavity. It maintains the frequency and keeps the mode locked. The magnetron has the ability to "lock" to the resonate frequency of the waveguide when driving this arrangement. This gave me a stable RF source that was stable, variable in power and some flexibility in frequency tuning.

I use the output of this waveguide to drive into a frustum that utilizes the same thermally stabilized design. A  Quartz tuning rod for stabilizing the thermal expansion and contraction as the Drive cavity fills with RF. *attached image

My Very Best,
Shell

opps... 2.45GHz

A thought from somebody who has built high power microwave systems for CVD.

I noticed in the figures your sliding plate with flexible beryllium gasket at its periphery. If this is a finger stock type of seal, and if it is at a point where skin currents are large, local high temperatures can oxidize the finger stock elements. Then high resistance, higher temperatures, then local finger melting. Also, copper is inherently "sticky" and tends to score or gall with finger stock motion.

To eliminate these effects in moving finger stock seals engaged with both copper and aluminum walls and in stub tuners, I used a thin layer of silver paste spread over the expected range of motion. Silver is electrically conductive and inherently lubricious. It eliminated scoring, galling, and the other rubbing phenomena that caused my finger stock seals and tuning stubs to fail.

Eventually, I silver-plated every surface that carried skin currents. Problem solved. But the paste was an effective interim solution.

If your flexible beryllium seal is a non-finger stock design, what I've written may be irrelevant, please ignore.

Hi MikeGem,

Great thoughts and post, I'll not ignore them.

When I did the beryllium gasket I was chasing a TM mode, in which currents travel between the sidewalls and endplates and I needed to make sure that the fields created by the current flows were uniform.  Am I correct in your microwave cavities for CVD you use TMxxx modes?

I switched to the cavity operating in a TE013 mode which doesn't carry endplate>sidewall currents although I needed a tight fit between the two and redid the copper endplate to the ceramic plate where it was a snug fit. *See pic. I still soldered copper braided ground straps between the endplate and sidewall of the tuning chamber.

I've used the silver pastes before making sure the large endplate was sealed well to the sidewalls.

My Very Best!
Shell

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/05/2017 07:29 pm

A problem with testing a microwave source that is disconnected from the cavity, such that it can exist in another frame is that light would travel between the two frames.  This would likely cause mutual repulsion between the two frames similar to a Photonic laser thruster: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photonic_laser_thruster .  These have already been shown to work.  Disconnecting the frames may fundamentally change what it is.

Really? Photonic thrust - recalling from mind - gives you only 3.3 nanonewton/watt. Not something to worry about, isn't it?

Equivalent to using a medium to increase light momentum is using mirrors to bounce the beam as in Photonic Laser Thrusters which have been shown to work in the lab pushing Kg scale objects around with light. Since mirrors are inconvenient as a reaction mass we can explore the concept of creating nano or micro-mirrors which last a brief time yet reflect the beam millions of times or more in their lifetime. Assume each mirror contained only micrograms of material and was created something like a high tech soap bubble in a plane mere microns away from the beam, also forming a plane to distribute the energy. Since light travels at 3E5 microns per nanosecond, we might get many bounces from each mirror even assuming the mirrors recede at great acceleration. Perhaps thousand of bounces per nanosecond and millions per microsecond if the mirrors last that long. Well, not exactly a Warp Bubble drive but perhaps more like Soap Bubble drive.... ;D

These 'microsized mirrors' you mention will not work. The 'absorb' the momentum. I think the whole point is that you reflect on one side from an 'infinite mass' (moon or earth). But I have not read the article.

Thanks. Solar sails rely on reflecting the light beam for maximum momentum. The beam delivers very little energy to the sail until they become highly relativistic. I'd have to see numbers to believe they can't reflect a lot of light, enough to greatly enhance the light's action on the ship. Certainly, the light get downshifted as the mirror velocity gets relativistic but I think the useful period is well below that point. I see no reason yet that useful light can't be recirculated by these ultra thin mirrors up to a point.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 07/05/2017 07:37 pm
...snip...

Where I am now.

Advanced designs incorporated into the drive required more than just the RF source to the frustum, those required a battery source that "rides" on the pendulum arm. This dramatically increased the load bearing requirements of the pendulum wire and the complexity of the build to the point that it became a Rube Goldberg nightmare and not realistic. Unlike monormorphic who is pursuing 1-25 watts in a pure RF drive I need more power. (Love that line  :o)

I'd recommend those who are building a device review what the industry recommends in evaluating micro-thrusters in several test beds to achieve credible results and not have to reinvent the wheel.
PDF warning...
http://hpepl.ae.gatech.edu/papers/2013_IEPC_Polk.pdf

Because I've seen more than just the small m/N thrust anomalies that need to be characterized I'm rebuilding the hanging wire torsion pendulum by using flexure bearings.
I have several sets left over from building semiconductor equipment that required extreme precision rotational capabilities.

...snip...

Shells,

Your setup certainly looks like the best in town. Ha, no, make that among the best worldwide.

But now I'm eager to know more about your results.

I understand you are following a better be cautious than sorry approach for this, probably checking and double checking your results yourself and with other qualified people's help.  And the harsh comments some Emdrive builders have received, while being completely honest and open on the net, may have inclined you to be quite more cautious while disclosing similar information.

But my doubt now is: are you still planning to release your results in the net or do you plan to make a paper and have it peer reviewed?

That last option doesn't seem unreasonable at all, specially if you have reasonably good confirmation and because your setup may have already exceeded the quality and rigor of some of the known setups, used to get Emdrive ball rolling not long ago, like those of Yang Juan we know about.

Also, a paper would help anchor the Emdrive even more firmly into the academic world, made of results that can be cited/quoted.

Thanks for the update.
Thanks for the complements, although I don't believe I have the best setup in the world.

I believe no matter the rigors undertaken and the attention to detail it still will be criticized and critiqued to the extreme just like any others who have published results.

As to how and when and with who (other collaborators) I publish I'm going to keep it close to the vest as we say. Assured I will release my final results to the public. Also know there is a lot of work still to be done.




My Very Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 07/05/2017 09:30 pm

Hi MikeGem,

Great thoughts and post, I'll not ignore them.

When I did the beryllium gasket I was chasing a TM mode, in which currents travel between the sidewalls and endplates and I needed to make sure that the fields created by the current flows were uniform.  Am I correct in your microwave cavities for CVD you use TMxxx modes?

I switched to the cavity operating in a TE013 mode which doesn't carry endplate>sidewall currents although I needed a tight fit between the two and redid the copper endplate to the ceramic plate where it was a snug fit. *See pic. I still soldered copper braided ground straps between the endplate and sidewall of the tuning chamber.

I've used the silver pastes before making sure the large endplate was sealed well to the sidewalls.

My Very Best!
Shell

Beryllium is toxic. Silver idea may have its merit on this regard.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 07/05/2017 09:38 pm

Thanks for the complements, I try.

I tried both, waveguides to the frustum and stress relieved high flex coax cabling with the Torsion Pendulum design.

I used a larger air gap non-contact waveguide freely rotating center much like what you did and a more compact design (which proved too demanding in machining with my current tools). I plan to revisit the tiny design when I get my lathe.
 
Both designs tended to leak some at the air gap which I don't like and had to put a small local floating Faraday cage around them.  On another note the power levels in both designs would vary to the frustum during rotations of the drive on the wire pendulum. This was due the free hanging arm on the wire and imperfections in the cavity build, antenna etc made the torsion arm flex around and the floating top plate could hit the sides.

Where I am now.

Advanced designs incorporated into the drive required more than just the RF source to the frustum, those required a battery source that "rides" on the pendulum arm. This dramatically increased the load bearing requirements of the pendulum wire and the complexity of the build to the point that it became a Rube Goldberg nightmare and not realistic. Unlike monormorphic who is pursuing 1-25 watts in a pure RF drive I need more power. (Love that line  :o)

I'd recommend those who are building a device review what the industry recommends in evaluating micro-thrusters in several test beds to achieve credible results and not have to reinvent the wheel.
PDF warning...
http://hpepl.ae.gatech.edu/papers/2013_IEPC_Polk.pdf

Because I've seen more than just the small m/N thrust anomalies that need to be characterized I'm rebuilding the hanging wire torsion pendulum by using flexure bearings.
I have several sets left over from building semiconductor equipment that required extreme precision rotational capabilities.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Flexure_pivot.png)

When I was building a 4 axis machine a couple years ago.


By luck I still had a few of the parts left over. I'm using them to build the flexure torsional pendulum with some mods.


This will allow measurements into the µN- to mN-level thrust and uto N-level impulses and provide support to the higher power requirements I need.

Also I could use Galinstan, a Gallium/Indium/Tin contacts for sensors and still use the high power non-contact microwave waveguide. But I believe I have a better fix to get away from the Galinstan issues and using it altogether.

This isn't a air bearing rotational stand (which has issues and is costly) or a Torsional Wire Pendulum (which reached limits in the design). The Flexure bearing design follows many of the industry guidelines for thruster testing and gives me the wide range of  measurements I need.


My Very Best,
Shell

This kind of bearing has its own problems. The weight of the experiment platform will droop the part of the bearing that is fixed to the platform. Even if the other part of the bearing is installed perfectly vertical, the movement of the platform will not be in the horizontal plane. Thus any mass center shift will induce force that is hard to separate from thrust. EW's 2015 experiment potentially had this problem that was not addressed in their paper (the peer reviewed one). EW's 2014 experiment is affected less by this problem because  the response was "fast".
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 07/05/2017 09:41 pm

Hi MikeGem,

Great thoughts and post, I'll not ignore them.

When I did the beryllium gasket I was chasing a TM mode, in which currents travel between the sidewalls and endplates and I needed to make sure that the fields created by the current flows were uniform.  Am I correct in your microwave cavities for CVD you use TMxxx modes?

I switched to the cavity operating in a TE013 mode which doesn't carry endplate>sidewall currents although I needed a tight fit between the two and redid the copper endplate to the ceramic plate where it was a snug fit. *See pic. I still soldered copper braided ground straps between the endplate and sidewall of the tuning chamber.

I've used the silver pastes before making sure the large endplate was sealed well to the sidewalls.

My Very Best!
Shell

Beryllium is toxic. Silver idea may have its merit on this regard.

It is in some forms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryllium_poisoning
Quote
Beryllium poisoning is poisoning by the toxic effects of beryllium, or more usually its compounds. It takes two forms:
Acute beryllium poisoning, usually as a result of exposure to soluble beryllium salts
Chronic beryllium disease (CBD) or berylliosis, usually as a result of long-term exposure to beryllium oxide usually caused by inhalation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryllium_copper#Toxicity

Quote
In solid form and as finished objects, beryllium copper presents no known health hazard.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/05/2017 10:06 pm
The Flexure bearing design follows many of the industry guidelines for thruster testing and gives me the wide range of  measurements I need.

I agree this is the next logical step after the hanging wire pendulum. Adding flexure bearings has been pretty high on my list since I reached the ~3uN noise floor with my current build.

EW used something called Riverhawk Company, Core Flex; Square Mount: http://flexpivots.com/linear-flexure-bearing/

Heidi Fearn uses a C-Flex bearing. E-10: https://c-flex.com/

The C-Flex E-10 has a max load of 22.8 lbs. Since they are used in pairs, I think that doubles to ~45lbs.

An emdrive experiment with batteries, frustum, amplifier, extruded aluminum, and more, may be too much for the E-10. Might be better to go with the F-10 for 33.6lbs for a total of ~67lbs.



Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 07/05/2017 10:28 pm
The Flexure bearing design follows many of the industry guidelines for thruster testing and gives me the wide range of  measurements I need.

I agree this is the next logical step after the hanging wire pendulum. Adding flexure bearings has been pretty high on my list since I reached the ~3uN noise floor with my current build.

EW used something called Riverhawk Company, Core Flex; Square Mount: http://flexpivots.com/linear-flexure-bearing/

Heidi Fearn uses a C-Flex bearing. E-10: https://c-flex.com/

The C-Flex E-10 has a max load of 22.8 lbs. Since they are used in pairs, I think that doubles to ~45lbs.

An emdrive experiment with batteries, frustum, amplifier, extruded aluminum, and more, may be too much for the E-10. Might be better to go with the F-10 for 33.6lbs for a total of ~67lbs.
I started using C-Flex bearings almost 14 years ago in my business. I have the F-10 bearings.

Features

Frictionless
Backlash Free
Self Centering
Repeatability
Simple Installation
Low Hysteresis
Vacuum Applications
Stock Items
No Lubrication
No Maintenance
Indefinite Life
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/05/2017 11:08 pm
I started using C-Flex bearings almost 14 years ago in my business. I have the F-10 bearings.

A beefier battery-powered version of the "USC/ARC Fullerton Thrust Balance" is achievable for DIY emdrive experiments.  I'm getting a price on those F-10 bearings. Do you recall their cost?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 07/05/2017 11:50 pm
I started using C-Flex bearings almost 14 years ago in my business. I have the F-10 bearings.

A beefier battery-powered version of the "USC/ARC Fullerton Thrust Balance" is achievable for DIY emdrive experiments.  I'm getting a price on those F-10 bearings. Do you recall their cost?
Sorry monomorphic I do not recall the price we paid 10 years ago.
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/06/2017 12:18 am
Sorry monomorphic I do not recall the price we paid 10 years ago.
Shell

The equivalent Riverhawk flexure bearings are $106 each:
http://flexpivots.com/Single-Ended%20Cantilever%20Pivot%20Bearing%20Order%20Form/

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Augmentor on 07/06/2017 05:03 am
Quote from: Monomorphic on 07/05/2017 11:08 PM
Quote from: SeeShells on 07/05/2017 10:28 PM
I started using C-Flex bearings almost 14 years ago in my business. I have the F-10 bearings.

A beefier battery-powered version of the "USC/ARC Fullerton Thrust Balance" is achievable for DIY emdrive experiments.  I'm getting a price on those F-10 bearings. Do you recall their cost?


FYI Woodward at CSU Fullerton uses E-10 bearings.

David M
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Anthony M on 07/06/2017 06:09 am
Hi. First and foremost I'm not a scientist, but more of an enthusiast. I took a much different career approach then most of you probably did and ended up serving in the Canadian Forces for over a decade specializing in radio communications.

I've done a lot of reading on the EM Drive and am wondering if anyone has tried to input a harmonic frequency on top of the regular frequency that you're testing with. Would this not amplify the signal without having to introduce more power?

I could be completely off here, just a thought I had.

Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: demofsky on 07/06/2017 07:41 am
Hi. First and foremost I'm not a scientist, but more of an enthusiast. I took a much different career approach then most of you probably did and ended up serving in the Canadian Forces for over a decade specializing in radio communications.

I've done a lot of reading on the EM Drive and am wondering if anyone has tried to input a harmonic frequency on top of the regular frequency that you're testing with. Would this not amplify the signal without having to introduce more power?

I could be completely off here, just a thought I had.

Thanks in advance.
This has been most recently discussed earlier in this tread (or later in the last thread).  As part of the discussion a patent was posted where two frequencies were superimposed within a dielectric or magnetic medium - not a cavity!

Another interesting angle on this is the possibility of improving performance by shaping the signal to what it would be like during movement.  This would be conceptually like forward error correction where a signal is predistorted to travel through a medium more accurately.

All of this was difficult with magnetrons but now folks are moving to solid state and programable signal generators so once we get some fustrums with basic characterization done then these approaches can be examined to see if there is anything to them. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mark7777777 on 07/06/2017 10:07 am
http://cannae.com/cannae-is-developing-a-3u-cubesat/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/06/2017 12:59 pm
Message from C-Flex on pricing for the E-10 and F-10 flexure bearings:

P/N:   E-10 Qty:  1- 15 pcs. at $57.19each
P/N:   F-10 Qty:  1- 15 pcs.  at $61.28each
Both are currently stock.

These prices are a lot better than Riverhawk.  :D

Some kind of central mount will be needed. I found this image in one of Heidi's papers.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 07/06/2017 04:17 pm
As for reflective surfaces

I think that this metasurface (http://www.sciencealert.com/this-reversible-light-shield-could-protect-astronauts-from-cosmic-rays) applied to the end plates of a cavity may help quite a bit; sure, it's still experimental, but given that the creators say that they should be able to create metasurfaces able to act on different frequencies, such a material may help boosting the emdrive cavity :)

see here (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adfm.201700580/abstract) for further informations
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Josave on 07/06/2017 10:06 pm
Active resonators can be easily implemented in an experiment using solid state RF sources, to achieve a 1000x increase in Q factor, both loaded and unloaded. This can be another strategy to boost performance. Original idea is in this paper:

http://www.skvor.cz/pdf/actres2.pdf

These active resonators are actually used in dark matter experiments, with microwave cavities reaching Q factors exceeding 10e5 at frequencies similar to those used in EmDrive experiments:

http://home.fnal.gov/~pjfox/New_Perspectives_on_Dark_Matter/Schedule_files/Talk1_7.pdf

More on this topic, where a Q of 7 x 10e7 has been achieved:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.6720
http://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4817537

This can be a setup with a solid state RF power generator controlled both in frequency and phase:

(Edit: Changed the picture, original from paper is for a band pass detector)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 07/07/2017 02:59 am
Active resonators can be easily implemented in an experiment using solid state RF sources, to achieve a 1000x increase in Q factor, both loaded and unloaded. This can be another strategy to boost performance. Original idea is in this paper:

http://www.skvor.cz/pdf/actres2.pdf

These active resonators are actually used in dark matter experiments, with microwave cavities reaching Q factors exceeding 10e5 at frequencies similar to those used in EmDrive experiments:

http://home.fnal.gov/~pjfox/New_Perspectives_on_Dark_Matter/Schedule_files/Talk1_7.pdf

More on this topic, where a Q of 7 x 10e7 has been achieved:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.6720
http://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4817537

This can be a setup with a solid state RF power generator controlled both in frequency and phase:

(Edit: Changed the picture, original from paper is for a band pass detector)

Would I be correct in assuming this active resonator doesn't actually increase Q per photon?  That is you inject a hand full of photons and the active resonator sees the photons, so it generates other photons based on what it sees. 

Us not knowing the difference between individual photons, see the signal die off slower so think the Q higher if we neglect the energy required to sustain the additional quality (Q) factor.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_factor Q being w*energy stored/(energy lost or fed in at equilibrium).  At some equilibrium energy level does this active resonator actually reduce energy lost to thermal heat? 

Don't get me wrong, I think such a device may have its merits but I am not seeing how it actually increases Q other than to give the illusion it increases Q.  By not taking into account power from the signal antenna and active resonator antenna per energy stored, compared to just feeding energy from the signal antenna to maintain the same stored power.  Maybe I am not seeing something key. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 07/07/2017 03:35 am
Active resonators can be easily implemented in an experiment using solid state RF sources, to achieve a 1000x increase in Q factor, both loaded and unloaded. This can be another strategy to boost performance. Original idea is in this paper:

http://www.skvor.cz/pdf/actres2.pdf

These active resonators are actually used in dark matter experiments, with microwave cavities reaching Q factors exceeding 10e5 at frequencies similar to those used in EmDrive experiments:

http://home.fnal.gov/~pjfox/New_Perspectives_on_Dark_Matter/Schedule_files/Talk1_7.pdf

More on this topic, where a Q of 7 x 10e7 has been achieved:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.6720
http://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4817537

This can be a setup with a solid state RF power generator controlled both in frequency and phase:

(Edit: Changed the picture, original from paper is for a band pass detector)

Would I be correct in assuming this active resonator doesn't actually increase Q per photon?  That is you inject a hand full of photons and the active resonator sees the photons, so it generates other photons based on what it sees. 

Us not knowing the difference between individual photons, see the signal die off slower so think the Q higher if we neglect the energy required to sustain the additional quality (Q) factor.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_factor Q being w*energy stored/(energy lost or fed in at equilibrium).  At some equilibrium energy level does this active resonator actually reduce energy lost to thermal heat? 

Don't get me wrong, I think such a device may have its merits but I am not seeing how it actually increases Q other than to give the illusion it increases Q.  That is by not taking into account, power from the signal and active resonator per energy stored compared verses just feeding energy from a single signal to maintain the same stored power.  Maybe I am not seeing something key.
Interesting reading...
http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=105280
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: mwvp on 07/07/2017 06:54 am
Active resonators can be easily implemented in an experiment using solid state RF sources, to achieve a 1000x increase in Q factor
...
This can be a setup with a solid state RF power generator controlled both in frequency and phase:


Would I be correct in assuming this active resonator doesn't actually increase Q per photon?  That is you inject a hand full of photons and the active resonator sees the photons, so it generates other photons based on what it sees. 
...
At some equilibrium energy level does this active resonator actually reduce energy lost to thermal heat? 
...
I am not seeing how it actually increases Q other than to give the illusion it increases Q.
...
Maybe I am not seeing something key.
Interesting reading...
http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=105280

@Josave,

Yes, you can increase Q by injecting positive feedback. And if you increase the positive feedback gain enough, you'll have an oscillator with negative Q - more energy out than you put in. A regenerative amplifier. You can research regenerative and super-regenerative  receiver/amplifier. Alas, this maketh not a free energy machine...

@dustinthewind,

An active resonator will not reduce energy dissipated as heat. Reality being what it is, it will make more heat according to the efficiency and losses of the amplifier and its network.

Since, as I believe, propulsive force is the result of unbalanced radiation pressure, and the radiation pressure is proportional to the power in the cavity, and the power in the cavity is input power multiplied by the Q of the cavity (its ability to store energy), for active regeneration to help you really are suggesting using a more powerful amplifier.

Why bother? A while back, someone suggested synthesizing a waveform to optimize group-velocity difference. They failed to understand that, (for instance) for a 1 Newton differential force, they need to pump in 150 Megawatts at the apex and and 150 megawatts at the base of synthesized RF, and your frustrum can have a Q of 1.

If your frustrum has a Q of a million, then you may get on the order of a Newton of radiation pressure with 150 watts BUT, now your 150 watt synthesized signal is dwarfed by the stored 300 megawatt energy  reverberating in the frustrum/filter. You'll only be nudging the phase. Energy will slosh around, and the cavity accelerate according to the sloshing radiation pressure, according the the reflective and dissipation characteristics of the cavity, along with the 1/1,000,000 energy you inject.

@Shell,

What's of interest? I gather that the idea is to avoid multiplying the phase noise of the low phase noise DDS, by adding it as an offset, rather than using it as the multiplicand in the signal chain. Is there some other relevance I'm missing?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 07/07/2017 02:46 pm
Active resonators can be easily implemented in an experiment using solid state RF sources, to achieve a 1000x increase in Q factor
...
This can be a setup with a solid state RF power generator controlled both in frequency and phase:


Would I be correct in assuming this active resonator doesn't actually increase Q per photon?  That is you inject a hand full of photons and the active resonator sees the photons, so it generates other photons based on what it sees. 
...
At some equilibrium energy level does this active resonator actually reduce energy lost to thermal heat? 
...
I am not seeing how it actually increases Q other than to give the illusion it increases Q.
...
Maybe I am not seeing something key.
Interesting reading...
http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=105280

@Josave,

Yes, you can increase Q by injecting positive feedback. And if you increase the positive feedback gain enough, you'll have an oscillator with negative Q - more energy out than you put in. A regenerative amplifier. You can research regenerative and super-regenerative  receiver/amplifier. Alas, this maketh not a free energy machine...

@dustinthewind,

An active resonator will not reduce energy dissipated as heat. Reality being what it is, it will make more heat according to the efficiency and losses of the amplifier and its network.

Since, as I believe, propulsive force is the result of unbalanced radiation pressure, and the radiation pressure is proportional to the power in the cavity, and the power in the cavity is input power multiplied by the Q of the cavity (its ability to store energy), for active regeneration to help you really are suggesting using a more powerful amplifier.

Why bother? A while back, someone suggested synthesizing a waveform to optimize group-velocity difference. They failed to understand that, (for instance) for a 1 Newton differential force, they need to pump in 150 Megawatts at the apex and and 150 megawatts at the base of synthesized RF, and your frustrum can have a Q of 1.

If your frustrum has a Q of a million, then you may get on the order of a Newton of radiation pressure with 150 watts BUT, now your 150 watt synthesized signal is dwarfed by the stored 300 megawatt energy  reverberating in the frustrum/filter. You'll only be nudging the phase. Energy will slosh around, and the cavity accelerate according to the sloshing radiation pressure, according the the reflective and dissipation characteristics of the cavity, along with the 1/1,000,000 energy you inject.

@Shell,

What's of interest? I gather that the idea is to avoid multiplying the phase noise of the low phase noise DDS, by adding it as an offset, rather than using it as the multiplicand in the signal chain. Is there some other relevance I'm missing?
No you didn't miss much. You never do.
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 07/08/2017 02:27 am
Ok.

Shell said her experimental efforts indicate some sort of purely magnetic explanation for how the EM Drive works - perhaps something similar to Dust in the Winds proposal.

However, much of the recent theory work seems oriented towards the Woodward/Mach effect or something close to it. (Rodal, among others.)

So, are these positions mutually exclusive?  Or can they be combined somehow?

I seem to recollect a paper mentioned at the Estes Confab that linked internal magnetic effects of the frustum to Woodward/Mach, but I also have a hazy recollection there were issues with this paper.

Despite deep respect and admiration for the math and conceptualization surrounding the theory of magnetism, I can see no difference between magnetism and dynamic electrical fields. In complex time the electric field is simply the arrangement of charge. Is there agreement amongst readers here, that magnetic fields are no more than the consequence of the dynamic arrangement of charges?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 07/08/2017 04:20 am
Ok.

Shell said her experimental efforts indicate some sort of purely magnetic explanation for how the EM Drive works - perhaps something similar to Dust in the Winds proposal.

However, much of the recent theory work seems oriented towards the Woodward/Mach effect or something close to it. (Rodal, among others.)

So, are these positions mutually exclusive?  Or can they be combined somehow?

I seem to recollect a paper mentioned at the Estes Confab that linked internal magnetic effects of the frustum to Woodward/Mach, but I also have a hazy recollection there were issues with this paper.

Despite deep respect and admiration for the math and conceptualization surrounding the theory of magnetism, I can see no difference between magnetism and dynamic electrical fields. In complex time the electric field is simply the arrangement of charge. Is there agreement amongst readers here, that magnetic fields are no more than the consequence of the dynamic arrangement of charges?

You can completely remove M or B from the Maxwell equations and replace it with expressions of E. So what you said is a valid view of the EM theory.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Augmentor on 07/08/2017 04:35 am
Ok.

Shell said her experimental efforts indicate some sort of purely magnetic explanation for how the EM Drive works - perhaps something similar to Dust in the Winds proposal.

However, much of the recent theory work seems oriented towards the Woodward/Mach effect or something close to it. (Rodal, among others.)

So, are these positions mutually exclusive?  Or can they be combined somehow?

I seem to recollect a paper mentioned at the Estes Confab that linked internal magnetic effects of the frustum to Woodward/Mach, but I also have a hazy recollection there were issues with this paper.

Despite deep respect and admiration for the math and conceptualization surrounding the theory of magnetism, I can see no difference between magnetism and dynamic electrical fields. In complex time the electric field is simply the arrangement of charge. Is there agreement amongst readers here, that magnetic fields are no more than the consequence of the dynamic arrangement of charges?

The difficulty holding to "magnetic fields are no more than the consequence of the dynamic arrangement of charges?" is that Heaviside's version of Maxwell's equations is inadequate but quite useful on a macro scale especially when one lives in a world of electric charge

Dirac applied symmetry to Maxwell's equations resulting in the discovery of antimatter. However, the magnetic monopole still waits to be discovered.

In 1987, Frank Wilczek applied axions to the Dirac set. However, the hunt for axions is not going well. Even so, from a theoretical standpoint, the Wilczek version of Dirac's version of Heaviside's version of Maxwell equations is the current roadmap.


Now, symmetry is rather interesting when applied to say, the Lorentz force which is equal to charge times the sum of E field and the product of velocity and B fields.

F = q (E + v X  B)

For a magnetic monopole, m, symmetry suggests the following equation applies.

F = m (B + v X E)

Yet, no monopoles.

David M

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/08/2017 12:31 pm
Testing Quantised Inertia on Emdrives with Dielectrics (PDF attached below): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316650291_Testing_quantised_inertia_on_emdrives_with_dielectrics

This looks like a new version of Mike McCulloch's 2015 paper that includes consideration of dialectrics. 

He also has a follow-up from yesterday on his blog: https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.cz/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 07/08/2017 07:06 pm
Testing Quantised Inertia on Emdrives with Dielectrics (PDF attached below): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316650291_Testing_quantised_inertia_on_emdrives_with_dielectrics

This looks like a new version of Mike McCulloch's 2015 paper that includes consideration of dialectrics. 

He also has a follow-up from yesterday on his blog: https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.cz/

How hard would it be to try his theory? Can the thrust be increased as Mr. McCulloch describe?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/08/2017 08:55 pm
Testing Quantised Inertia on Emdrives with Dielectrics (PDF attached below): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316650291_Testing_quantised_inertia_on_emdrives_with_dielectrics

This looks like a new version of Mike McCulloch's 2015 paper that includes consideration of dialectrics. 

He also has a follow-up from yesterday on his blog: https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.cz/

How hard would it be to try his theory? Can the thrust be increased as Mr. McCulloch describe?

Not too hard. It would require a large enough dialectric to fit the big end, plus some clips to hold it in place. And then some balancing of the pendulum as adding a large dialectric to one side will cause a big shift in the center of gravity. I was thinking even a piece of dry wood could be used as a dialectric since the relative permittivity of wood is 1.5-2.0
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 07/08/2017 11:20 pm
https://phys.org/news/2017-06-year-old-physics-problem.html

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6344/1260

Breaking Lorentz reciprocity with frequency conversion and delay

https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.09548

Thank you for this.

Reminds of the "lurch" that bent an SSC superconducting magnet. Which may have been due to a asymmetric resonance in the test's field bootstrap sequence. Part of my interest in this topic in general.

The field was to be ramped to look for anisotropy in the axial field - the intent to have a high intensity gradient that was uniform for the accelerator. Resonances weren't intentional. Perhaps the transient accidentally coupled to the frame in an unnoticed resonance.

Resonance in communications systems are how they function, usually with extreme Q. The materials sometimes break down for hard to understand failures, usually thought to be hidden flaws, but perhaps the cavity is somehow depositing its contained energy asymmetrically due to an artifact of design.

Could buy-off on chaotic leveraging here, but the group organizing phenomena escapes me.

Thank you Jose for posting this.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star-Drive on 07/09/2017 04:05 am
Testing Quantised Inertia on Emdrives with Dielectrics (PDF attached below): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316650291_Testing_quantised_inertia_on_emdrives_with_dielectrics

This looks like a new version of Mike McCulloch's 2015 paper that includes consideration of dialectrics. 

He also has a follow-up from yesterday on his blog: https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.cz/

How hard would it be to try his theory? Can the thrust be increased as Mr. McCulloch describe?

Not too hard. It would require a large enough dialectric to fit the big end, plus some clips to hold it in place. And then some balancing of the pendulum as adding a large dialectric to one side will cause a big shift in the center of gravity. I was thinking even a piece of dry wood could be used as a dialectric since the relative permittivity of wood is 1.5-2.0

Jamie:

Don't use wood for it has a horribly high dissipation factor.  Stick with either Polyethylene, e-r = ~2.3 or Teflon, e-r = ~2.1.

Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: mwvp on 07/09/2017 04:46 am
https://phys.org/news/2017-06-year-old-physics-problem.html

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6344/1260

Breaking Lorentz reciprocity with frequency conversion and delay

https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.09548

Thank you for this.

Reminds of the "lurch" that bent an SSC superconducting magnet. Which may have been due to a asymmetric resonance in the test's field bootstrap sequence. Part of my interest in this topic in general.
...

Magnetics are notoriously non-linear.

WRT breaking Lorentz reciprocity, what's the relevance and application for us?

We have frequency conversion, with Doppler shifts. We have delay, from top to bottom. And dispersion along the delay path. Considering the top-to-bottom and bottom-top paths, the dispersion creates a difference in path lengths, in the same way a magnetic circulator has different path lengths around the circumference due to gyromagnetic impedance?

So can we say electromagnetic frequency, the energies' angular momentum (mass) is sorted by frequency, sort of like mass in a centrifuge or boiling point in a fractional distillation column?

And if, in cavity optomechanics context, we tune for sideband excitation (as opposed to sideband cooling), we create a propulsive mass/energy flow?

Is this merely restating the behavior Shawyer described with motor/generator mode? The device is an optomechanical pulse-compressor (generator) or pulse-expander (motor).

And the connection between Woodward and Shawyer? Both are Lorentz-reciprocity violation mechanisms.

(I say violating, not in the sense of violating conventional physics; gyromagnetic circulators, or a spinning anisotropic/birefringent dielectric, or a parametric amplifier can violate Lorentz reciprocity too).

With Woodward Effect, you push-heavy pull-light, making the active material heavier or lighter with charge. Vibration is required. The energy/momentum/mass is in the form of Minkowski momentum stored in, and adopting, the inertial frame of the active material.

With Shawyer Effect, the energy/momentum/mass is in the form of Abraham momentum, the standing wave has a sort of extraordinary zero inertial frame, the difference of +/- C, with which to push against its delayed, Doppler reflection in the frustrum. It may not need to be vibrated, but in the sideband-heated mode amplifies any initial acceleration.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Augmentor on 07/09/2017 04:07 pm
https://phys.org/news/2017-06-year-old-physics-problem.html

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6344/1260

Breaking Lorentz reciprocity with frequency conversion and delay

https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.09548

Thank you for this.

Reminds of the "lurch" that bent an SSC superconducting magnet. Which may have been due to a asymmetric resonance in the test's field bootstrap sequence. Part of my interest in this topic in general.
...

Magnetics are notoriously non-linear.

WRT breaking Lorentz reciprocity, what's the relevance and application for us?

We have frequency conversion, with Doppler shifts. We have delay, from top to bottom. And dispersion along the delay path. Considering the top-to-bottom and bottom-top paths, the dispersion creates a difference in path lengths, in the same way a magnetic circulator has different path lengths around the circumference due to gyromagnetic impedance?

So can we say electromagnetic frequency, the energies' angular momentum (mass) is sorted by frequency, sort of like mass in a centrifuge or boiling point in a fractional distillation column?

And if, in cavity optomechanics context, we tune for sideband excitation (as opposed to sideband cooling), we create a propulsive mass/energy flow?

Is this merely restating the behavior Shawyer described with motor/generator mode? The device is an optomechanical pulse-compressor (generator) or pulse-expander (motor).

And the connection between Woodward and Shawyer? Both are Lorentz-reciprocity violation mechanisms.

(I say violating, not in the sense of violating conventional physics; gyromagnetic circulators, or a spinning anisotropic/birefringent dielectric, or a parametric amplifier can violate Lorentz reciprocity too).

With Woodward Effect, you push-heavy pull-light, making the active material heavier or lighter with charge. Vibration is required. The energy/momentum/mass is in the form of Minkowski momentum stored in, and adopting, the inertial frame of the active material.

With Shawyer Effect, the energy/momentum/mass is in the form of Abraham momentum, the standing wave has a sort of extraordinary zero inertial frame, the difference of +/- C, with which to push against its delayed, Doppler reflection in the frustrum. It may not need to be vibrated, but in the sideband-heated mode amplifies any initial acceleration.

The jury is still out.

While the idea of resolving the controversy is appealing...

Resolution of the Abraham-Minkowski Controversy
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1208.0872.pdf

However, correction is needed.

Is the Abraham electromagnetic force physical?
https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.03054

Abstract
A conventional general electromagnetic force definition has been widely used to analyze radiation forces in dielectric media in published research works. However in this paper, we would like to indicate that this conventional force definition is flawed.

My need for a change momentum is tempered by collisions with physics.

I'm wondering if Conservation of Angular momentum plays a role in either Shawyer's or Woodward's theory. Woodward's theory seem to be the leading theory.

Is there common ground between the two theories. To date, I have not seen a good comparative analysis, just conjecture.What we don't know is the precise mechanism sans artifacts.

The emDrive of Shawyer appears to be photon fueled  with charges from the walls and geometry interactions while the Woodward drive depends on accelerations to produce relativistic frame dragging and molecular stretching of PZT with asymmetric mass.

Bridging the gap between the two experimental approaches will require carefully using energy density calculations not just of a Poynting vector but the vector fields and quite possibly tensor fields. Even then, the six degrees of freedom may simply not be enough for a good answer but far  too much to get at the physics which is usually 1 or 2 degrees of freedom.

Yes, m = E/c^2...however, energy density may be more important

m/volume = E/(volume c^2)

Conservation of angular momentum at the molecular, atomic and elementary level may also need to be taken into account.

David M



Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 07/09/2017 07:25 pm
Definitely related to stress tensor. And it's some kind of "momentum dump" with magnetic coupling.

Repeating myself from above - but the group organizing phenomena escapes me. By standard statistical physics and E&M, there shouldn't be one.

Why all in such a given direction? What triggers the "cascade"? How do we express conservation of such?

And a thousand related questions. Perhaps simple classical mechanics can bound these, to hint more in the direction of more answers?

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 07/10/2017 03:04 am
Testing Quantised Inertia on Emdrives with Dielectrics (PDF attached below): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316650291_Testing_quantised_inertia_on_emdrives_with_dielectrics

This looks like a new version of Mike McCulloch's 2015 paper that includes consideration of dialectrics. 

He also has a follow-up from yesterday on his blog: https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.cz/

How hard would it be to try his theory? Can the thrust be increased as Mr. McCulloch describe?

Not too hard. It would require a large enough dialectric to fit the big end, plus some clips to hold it in place. And then some balancing of the pendulum as adding a large dialectric to one side will cause a big shift in the center of gravity. I was thinking even a piece of dry wood could be used as a dialectric since the relative permittivity of wood is 1.5-2.0
Monomorphic,
dry wood may have some suitable characteristics but is not isotropic. Its shape is not stable over time due to moisture moving about inside it, especially when unevenly heated with microwaves. Completely dry wood will suck moisture out of the air with a surprising appetite.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 07/10/2017 09:19 am
Ok.

Shell said her experimental efforts indicate some sort of purely magnetic explanation for how the EM Drive works - perhaps something similar to Dust in the Winds proposal.

However, much of the recent theory work seems oriented towards the Woodward/Mach effect or something close to it. (Rodal, among others.)

So, are these positions mutually exclusive?  Or can they be combined somehow?

I seem to recollect a paper mentioned at the Estes Confab that linked internal magnetic effects of the frustum to Woodward/Mach, but I also have a hazy recollection there were issues with this paper.

Despite deep respect and admiration for the math and conceptualization surrounding the theory of magnetism, I can see no difference between magnetism and dynamic electrical fields. In complex time the electric field is simply the arrangement of charge. Is there agreement amongst readers here, that magnetic fields are no more than the consequence of the dynamic arrangement of charges?

You can completely remove M or B from the Maxwell equations and replace it with expressions of E. So what you said is a valid view of the EM theory.
ThinkerX,
       the emdrive frustum is a Faraday cage so we cannot show electrical force between the longitudinally asymmetric current durations inside an emdrive frustum, and the wider universe made of charges, to be the mechanism of action for any emdrive thrust. But there must be some mechanism of action if the thrust measurements are genuine. So, short of accepting Shawyer’s relativistic explanation which seems to contravene conservation of momentum, short of accepting that there is a thrust reaction within an indefinable but local quantum vacuum energy, we are left without any feasible mechanism of action.
       This forces us to consider other possibilities and the Machian universe is a logical possibility to pursue. It considers inertia to be an interaction between local mass and the rest of the universe, so it allows that a device could manipulate that interaction with the rest of the universe.
       The problem with it is that Einstein abandoned the Machian universe in favour of General Relativity because it makes good account of both mechanics and electromagnetics. If we are to find another mechanism of action for emdrive thrust, we must begin by presenting a workable and seamless explanation for how gravity and inertia work, because these act by acceleration which is what the emdrive seems to produce. This explanation must fit the vast array of experimental evidence supporting General Relativity that has been amassed over the last century.
       If complex time is considered in preference to General Relativity we still have Special Relativity as a cornerstone with which to understand mechanics and we can reduce all interactions to charge interactions across complex time without photons to complicate our understanding or our math. This allows both gravity and inertia to be the consequence of the interaction of all charges with each other but leaves us with a dilemma because electromagnetic interactions are singular and unique interactions between just one pair of charges no matter how distant they may be.
       If the photons we know, are forward interactions within complex time, that leaves the possibility that the charges they transfer energy between also have universal interaction which is not contained within the Faraday cage of the frustum. In the same way that their mass has, via gravity and inertia. If, if, if, but we then have to explain how an electromagnetic shadow works as well as how fringe effects happen within complex time. This will take time.
       In answer to your question the Woodward/Mach effect, or something close to it such as a magnetic explanation, may yet provide us with a mechanism of action for emdrive thrust, and maybe even a better explanation for electromagnetism in general.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Callezetter on 07/10/2017 12:12 pm
Maybe offtopic but AIAA Propulsion and Energy 2017 just started their livestream over three days.
https://livestream.com/AIAAvideo/PropEnergy2017
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: mwvp on 07/10/2017 06:04 pm
The jury is still out.

While the idea of resolving the controversy is appealing...

Resolution of the Abraham-Minkowski Controversy
...
The emDrive of Shawyer appears to be photon fueled  with charges from the walls and geometry interactions while the Woodward drive depends on accelerations to produce relativistic frame dragging and molecular stretching of PZT with asymmetric mass.

Perhaps invoking Abraham-Minkowski isn't precise, our context being a waveguide. But I think its important to recognize that materials with a non-unity refractive index are Fresnel-dragging light/EM energy.

The trick of the EM drive is to produce a slow deBroglie-like slow travelling-wave of unbalanced radiation pressure at a speed matching the acceleration of the dispersive cavity.

By trapping the Doppler-downshifted lower sideband, and dissipating it as heat in the frustrums base.

This is what happens in a half-cycle of cavity opto-mechanical heating (and on the other sideband, cooling). Motor/generator depending on which sideband.

That having a high refractive index isn't great when you're trying to swim through the photon-polarized vacuum is evident when you look at design equations for Sagnac gyro, which demonstrates the Abraham momentum is what gets sensed. The Minkowsi momentum gets rotated (radial accelerated) in the inertial frame of the gyro, and is no reference.


I'm wondering if Conservation of Angular momentum plays a role in either Shawyer's or Woodward's theory. Woodward's theory seem to be the leading theory.

Is there common ground between the two theories. To date, I have not seen a good comparative analysis, just conjecture.What we don't know is the precise mechanism sans artifacts.

...

Bridging the gap between the two experimental approaches will require carefully using energy density calculations not just of a Poynting vector but the vector fields and quite possibly tensor fields. Even then, the six degrees of freedom may simply not be enough for a good answer but far  too much to get at the physics which is usually 1 or 2 degrees of freedom.

Yes, m = E/c^2...however, energy density may be more important

m/volume = E/(volume c^2)

Conservation of angular momentum at the molecular, atomic and elementary level may also need to be taken into account.

David M

I haven't studied Woodward much. Both approaches seem a bit, perhaps an order of magnitude or two, out of reach because of material Q and field breakdown/saturation.

I find the Lorentz Reciprocity matter, like Abraham-Minkowski (vacuum radiation momentum reaction force against polarized, inertial-frame locked material polarization) key.

It must lead to thermodynamic and entropy considerations. But in contrast to what has been discussed here WRT gravitation, with Doppler-shifted energy from cavity acceleration. Again, Cavity Optomechanics encompasses the Shawyer Effect.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: mwvp on 07/10/2017 06:08 pm
Maybe offtopic but AIAA Propulsion and Energy 2017 just started their livestream over three days.
https://livestream.com/AIAAvideo/PropEnergy2017

Got a link for the agenda? Any interesting (no doubt all interesting, but..) relevant lectures & times to share?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: demofsky on 07/10/2017 07:00 pm
Maybe offtopic but AIAA Propulsion and Energy 2017 just started their livestream over three days.
https://livestream.com/AIAAvideo/PropEnergy2017 (https://livestream.com/AIAAvideo/PropEnergy2017)

Got a link for the agenda? Any interesting (no doubt all interesting, but..) relevant lectures & times to share?
This is from their web site:  http://propulsionenergy.aiaa.org/DetailedProgram/ (http://propulsionenergy.aiaa.org/DetailedProgram/)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: fulygan4ik on 07/10/2017 07:40 pm
Ukrainian scientists conduct a private investigation of the EM-Drive propeller for space use. After analyzing all the created designs, a completely different approach to the creation of such a propulsion was proposed. Until the end of the full volume test layout design and calculations are kept secret. It is only known that the calculated thrust of this propulsion should be up to several tens of grams per 1 kilowatt of supplied energy, in contrast to the units of micrograms obtained by NASA and CNSA, and has a nonlinear growth with increasing power.

  "insider"


 8)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 07/10/2017 08:01 pm
Active resonators can be easily implemented in an experiment using solid state RF sources, to achieve a 1000x increase in Q factor
...
This can be a setup with a solid state RF power generator controlled both in frequency and phase:


Would I be correct in assuming this active resonator doesn't actually increase Q per photon?  That is you inject a hand full of photons and the active resonator sees the photons, so it generates other photons based on what it sees. 
...
At some equilibrium energy level does this active resonator actually reduce energy lost to thermal heat? 
...
I am not seeing how it actually increases Q other than to give the illusion it increases Q.
...
Maybe I am not seeing something key.
Interesting reading...
http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=105280

@Josave,

Yes, you can increase Q by injecting positive feedback. And if you increase the positive feedback gain enough, you'll have an oscillator with negative Q - more energy out than you put in. A regenerative amplifier. You can research regenerative and super-regenerative  receiver/amplifier. Alas, this maketh not a free energy machine...

@dustinthewind,

An active resonator will not reduce energy dissipated as heat. Reality being what it is, it will make more heat according to the efficiency and losses of the amplifier and its network.

Since, as I believe, propulsive force is the result of unbalanced radiation pressure, and the radiation pressure is proportional to the power in the cavity, and the power in the cavity is input power multiplied by the Q of the cavity (its ability to store energy), for active regeneration to help you really are suggesting using a more powerful amplifier.

Why bother? A while back, someone suggested synthesizing a waveform to optimize group-velocity difference. They failed to understand that, (for instance) for a 1 Newton differential force, they need to pump in 150 Megawatts at the apex and and 150 megawatts at the base of synthesized RF, and your frustrum can have a Q of 1.

If your frustrum has a Q of a million, then you may get on the order of a Newton of radiation pressure with 150 watts BUT, now your 150 watt synthesized signal is dwarfed by the stored 300 megawatt energy  reverberating in the frustrum/filter. You'll only be nudging the phase. Energy will slosh around, and the cavity accelerate according to the sloshing radiation pressure, according the the reflective and dissipation characteristics of the cavity, along with the 1/1,000,000 energy you inject.

@Shell,

What's of interest? I gather that the idea is to avoid multiplying the phase noise of the low phase noise DDS, by adding it as an offset, rather than using it as the multiplicand in the signal chain. Is there some other relevance I'm missing?
No you didn't miss much. You never do.
Shell

This just go me thinking him stating frequency offset and phase.  Why not while feeding power in continually offset the phase.  This would probably lower the Q but would, I think cause the illusion of a traveling wave.  The phase injected would have to be continually drifting forwards or in reverse. 

Such a traveling wave may possibly have some effects such that the cavity wants to drift with it as well as similar effects with plasma if it exists in such a state. 

Edit: How to shift a phase continually.  I'm not extremely experienced in such technology.  One possibility strikes me that this patent might possibly be a way to accomplish this result  Continuously variable phase shift network   https://www.google.com/patents/US4232399 

Quote
When maximum phase shift is reached, the control circuit switches the signal from one phase shifter to the other, thereby providing continuously variable phase shift through the network.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 07/10/2017 08:06 pm
Maybe offtopic but AIAA Propulsion and Energy 2017 just started their livestream over three days.
https://livestream.com/AIAAvideo/PropEnergy2017 (https://livestream.com/AIAAvideo/PropEnergy2017)

Got a link for the agenda? Any interesting (no doubt all interesting, but..) relevant lectures & times to share?
This is from their web site:  http://propulsionenergy.aiaa.org/DetailedProgram/ (http://propulsionenergy.aiaa.org/DetailedProgram/)

WEDNESDAY

0800-0900 hrs   Plenary: Civil Space
 
William H. Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator, Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate, NASA


1330-1500 hrs    Plenary: Space Exploration Propulsion 
 
Julie Van Kleeck, Vice President of Advanced Space and Launch Programs and Strategy, Aerojet Rocketdyne (Moderator)
R. Joseph Cassady, Executive Director for Space, Aerojet Rocketdyne
Darby Cooper, Senior Manager, Integrated Analysis, Space Launch System, Exploration Launch Systems, Boeing
Steve Jolly, Chief Engineer, Commercial Civil Space, Lockheed Martin
David H. Manzella, Solar Electric Propulsion Project Chief Engineer, NASA Glenn Research Center
Todd May, Director, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 07/10/2017 08:15 pm
Maybe offtopic but AIAA Propulsion and Energy 2017 just started their livestream over three days.
https://livestream.com/AIAAvideo/PropEnergy2017 (https://livestream.com/AIAAvideo/PropEnergy2017)

Got a link for the agenda? Any interesting (no doubt all interesting, but..) relevant lectures & times to share?
This is from their web site:  http://propulsionenergy.aiaa.org/DetailedProgram/ (http://propulsionenergy.aiaa.org/DetailedProgram/)

WEDNESDAY

0800-0900 hrs   Plenary: Civil Space
 
William H. Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator, Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate, NASA


1330-1500 hrs    Plenary: Space Exploration Propulsion 
 
Julie Van Kleeck, Vice President of Advanced Space and Launch Programs and Strategy, Aerojet Rocketdyne (Moderator)
R. Joseph Cassady, Executive Director for Space, Aerojet Rocketdyne
Darby Cooper, Senior Manager, Integrated Analysis, Space Launch System, Exploration Launch Systems, Boeing
Steve Jolly, Chief Engineer, Commercial Civil Space, Lockheed Martin
David H. Manzella, Solar Electric Propulsion Project Chief Engineer, NASA Glenn Research Center
Todd May, Director, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center

Nothing that sounds directly pertinent to EM Drive and other related concepts.  :-\
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: mwvp on 07/11/2017 04:11 am
...
@dustinthewind,
...
If your frustrum has a Q of a million, then you may get on the order of a Newton of radiation pressure with 150 watts BUT, now your 150 watt synthesized signal is dwarfed by the stored 300 megawatt energy  reverberating in the frustrum/filter. You'll only be nudging the phase. Energy will slosh around, and the cavity accelerate according to the sloshing radiation pressure, according the the reflective and dissipation characteristics of the cavity, along with the 1/1,000,000 energy you inject.
...

This just go me thinking him stating frequency offset and phase.  Why not while feeding power in continually offset the phase.  This would probably lower the Q but would, I think cause the illusion of a traveling wave.  The phase injected would have to be continually drifting forwards or in reverse. 

Such a traveling wave may possibly have some effects such that the cavity wants to drift with it as well as similar effects with plasma if it exists in such a state. 
...

Once again, consider the cavity energy magnitude, field amplitudes, and you'll find what you inject is trivial in the short run. In the long run, it's everything. BTW a continuous phase offset, if I understand, is an FM chirp. Phase modulation and frequency modulation are essentially the same, differing in application and implementation. Sort of like the difference between X-rays and gamma rays. Can have similar photons with similar energy, indistinguishable, but from natural or synthetic origin.

I wonder about Shawyer's diagrams of spring-mounting, and pulsing multiple cavities. Like multiple pistons in an engine. Is it about loss of coherence over time? Is the cavity being deliberately shaken, like a Woodward device, to enhance Doppler spreading and thrust? The cavity would exhibit lower inertial "mass" in "motor" direction, and heavier inertia in "generator" direction.

Ukrainian scientists conduct a private investigation of the EM-Drive propeller for space use.
...

Really? A "propeller" you say?

That brings to mind some methods that dustinthewind might find of interest. What if you spin a helix, in a helical resonator? Or what if you spin patch resonators at different speeds at the apex and base? Or what if you spin birefringent dielectric spheres at the center of each mode of a multi-mode cavity at different speeds? Or what if you use magnet/electric tuned gyro-magnetic/electric materials at the center of the modes?

A large stored energy fraction, depending on the size of the propeller, is affected.

Assuming the "propeller" is low, very low loss, it will create an orbital angular momentum Doppler shift in a whispering-gallery type resonator. It will effect a large fraction of the cavity energy. In a dispersive gradient, it will amplify the stored energy. Although it Doppler spreads in the inertial frame of the waveguide, the difference frequencies can be tuned to the acceleration of the cavity/vehicle. This spread would make the optomechanical frequency-sorting, sideband heating more effective.

The group velocity/delay of conventional metal cavities of Q 10 - 100 K is around 10's of KHz. The vehicle acceleration (deep, long space missions) is sub m/s. Consequently, very small Doppler shift, very inefficient, unless you synthetically "boost" the energy differences. Still, the efficiency is probably between ghastly and abysmal. Hopefully better than Hall Effect and ion.

The ends and sides could also be vibrated. Shawyer claims its to keep the cavity in tune. Is that the only reason? My off the cuff reckoning is vibration aint good 'nuf without superconductors.

Gyromagnetic/electric material could be "spun" electrically at maybe MHz frequencies. Perhaps providing parametric amplification. Perhaps even oscillating all by itself; no (RF) power-input needed! A microwave alternator, or Raman Maser. Such a device would be a Jim dandy high-power microwave weapon, so I don't think there may be much open literature on the concept.

Many years ago I read about a Russian rocket-pumped Maser. Now I can understand how firing a high-speed stream of highly-ionized plasma down a slow-wave structure can oscillate (like a traveling-wave tube). Rocket exhaust velocity must be faster than microwave group velocity, and you've got a Cerenkov Maser, or Shawyer's "generator mode".

So can you synthesize a motivating one-handed-clap sound of imbalanced group velocity? Electromagnetic propulsion theorist say YES! (Unlike ancient astronaut theorists, we don't always say YES! do we?)

...
Conservation of angular momentum at the molecular, atomic and elementary level may also need to be taken into account.

David M

When dealing with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_angular_momentum_of_light (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_angular_momentum_of_light), you could copy the turbo-compressor, using rotors and dispersive stators to "unwind" the topological charge of the helical radiation flux.

Alas, for a nuclear dispersive stator to unwind matter waves into radiation waves.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 07/11/2017 04:46 am
Ukrainian scientists conduct a private investigation of the EM-Drive propeller for space use. After analyzing all the created designs, a completely different approach to the creation of such a propulsion was proposed. Until the end of the full volume test layout design and calculations are kept secret. It is only known that the calculated thrust of this propulsion should be up to several tens of grams per 1 kilowatt of supplied energy, in contrast to the units of micrograms obtained by NASA and CNSA, and has a nonlinear growth with increasing power.

  "insider"


 8)

If there is any article about it or if you have any other information about this upcoming test, we would be glad for links that you can provide.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 07/11/2017 06:49 am
...
@dustinthewind,
...
If your frustrum has a Q of a million, then you may get on the order of a Newton of radiation pressure with 150 watts BUT, now your 150 watt synthesized signal is dwarfed by the stored 300 megawatt energy  reverberating in the frustrum/filter. You'll only be nudging the phase. Energy will slosh around, and the cavity accelerate according to the sloshing radiation pressure, according the the reflective and dissipation characteristics of the cavity, along with the 1/1,000,000 energy you inject.
...

This just go me thinking him stating frequency offset and phase.  Why not while feeding power in continually offset the phase.  This would probably lower the Q but would, I think cause the illusion of a traveling wave.  The phase injected would have to be continually drifting forwards or in reverse. 

Such a traveling wave may possibly have some effects such that the cavity wants to drift with it as well as similar effects with plasma if it exists in such a state. 
...

Once again, consider the cavity energy magnitude, field amplitudes, and you'll find what you inject is trivial in the short run. In the long run, it's everything. BTW a continuous phase offset, if I understand, is an FM chirp. Phase modulation and frequency modulation are essentially the same, differing in application and implementation. Sort of like the difference between X-rays and gamma rays. Can have similar photons with similar energy, indistinguishable, but from natural or synthetic origin.

I wonder about Shawyer's diagrams of spring-mounting, and pulsing multiple cavities. Like multiple pistons in an engine. Is it about loss of coherence over time? Is the cavity being deliberately shaken, like a Woodward device, to enhance Doppler spreading and thrust? The cavity would exhibit lower inertial "mass" in "motor" direction, and heavier inertia in "generator" direction.

Ukrainian scientists conduct a private investigation of the EM-Drive propeller for space use.
...

Really? A "propeller" you say?

That brings to mind some methods that dustinthewind might find of interest. What if you spin a helix, in a helical resonator? Or what if you spin patch resonators at different speeds at the apex and base? Or what if you spin birefringent dielectric spheres at the center of each mode of a multi-mode cavity at different speeds? Or what if you use magnet/electric tuned gyro-magnetic/electric materials at the center of the modes?

A large stored energy fraction, depending on the size of the propeller, is affected.

Assuming the "propeller" is low, very low loss, it will create an orbital angular momentum Doppler shift in a whispering-gallery type resonator. It will effect a large fraction of the cavity energy. In a dispersive gradient, it will amplify the stored energy. Although it Doppler spreads in the inertial frame of the waveguide, the difference frequencies can be tuned to the acceleration of the cavity/vehicle. This spread would make the optomechanical frequency-sorting, sideband heating more effective.

The group velocity/delay of conventional metal cavities of Q 10 - 100 K is around 10's of KHz. The vehicle acceleration (deep, long space missions) is sub m/s. Consequently, very small Doppler shift, very inefficient, unless you synthetically "boost" the energy differences. Still, the efficiency is probably between ghastly and abysmal. Hopefully better than Hall Effect and ion.

The ends and sides could also be vibrated. Shawyer claims its to keep the cavity in tune. Is that the only reason? My off the cuff reckoning is vibration aint good 'nuf without superconductors.

Gyromagnetic/electric material could be "spun" electrically at maybe MHz frequencies. Perhaps providing parametric amplification. Perhaps even oscillating all by itself; no (RF) power-input needed! A microwave alternator, or Raman Maser. Such a device would be a Jim dandy high-power microwave weapon, so I don't think there may be much open literature on the concept.

Many years ago I read about a Russian rocket-pumped Maser. Now I can understand how firing a high-speed stream of highly-ionized plasma down a slow-wave structure can oscillate (like a traveling-wave tube). Rocket exhaust velocity must be faster than microwave group velocity, and you've got a Cerenkov Maser, or Shawyer's "generator mode".

So can you synthesize a motivating one-handed-clap sound of imbalanced group velocity? Electromagnetic propulsion theorist say YES! (Unlike ancient astronaut theorists, we don't always say YES! do we?)

...
Conservation of angular momentum at the molecular, atomic and elementary level may also need to be taken into account.

David M

When dealing with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_angular_momentum_of_light (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_angular_momentum_of_light), you could copy the turbo-compressor, using rotors and dispersive stators to "unwind" the topological charge of the helical radiation flux.

Alas, for a nuclear dispersive stator to unwind matter waves into radiation waves.

As much as I would like to know all there is to know about all these subjects I must admit my ignorance to some fields.  I do find the suggestion of a resonating rotating helix intriguing but any extra shift in the wall moving one way would be countered by the back wall moving away, so suggesting no transfer of energy that I would be aware of.  I do believe the magnetic field is incapable of rotating unless it is space time that rotates but it's just my belief on that matter based on some previous experiments. 

I must admit a good portion of the lingo in what you suggest is beyond my current understanding (may change but I have limited time).  Looking up patch resonators did yield something but I am currently as a loss on what they are exactly.  I have had a fascination with invention and science since being a child, but must admit that with out building up from the basics, it's no more than gibberish to me.  I would love to see space travel advance and for us use tools responsibly but must admit to history and peoples use for tools for violence.  However, for a us  to survive it must not allowed for societies structure to degrade into chaos.  Generations of survival determines it will not be allowed for long before its stopped (some times even by societies collapse).  Those who fight against it fight themselves.  In that sense I am not too sorely afraid of the idea of introducing new technology that could potentially be used as weapons.  A hammer can be used as a weapon.  It all depends on the user.  Rather with out those tools the results could be worse.  All life could be lost in a cataclysm, us being all confined to a small ball but then again this small ball has seen its fair share of cataclysms already and here is life.  Rather, lets let our imaginations run amok and unravel what we can while we have the time so the next generation has a foundation to build on.  Let's be explicit so the next generation understands it for themselves and doesn't find it too hard to understand.  Time is fleeting and each of us can only know so much.  And knowing only so much, I must bow out when I am unclear what is exactly being suggested. 

With out explicit elucidation on how one might readily pushing against the vacuum and my lack of experimental evidence I am reduced to speculation.  I'm optimistic and hopeful but that alone will only get me started in considering possibilities. 

Don't get me wrong.  I find our search fascinating but I don't want to imply I know more than I do. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: fulygan4ik on 07/11/2017 08:16 am

  "insider"


If there is any article about it or if you have any other information about this upcoming test, we would be glad for links that you can provide.
1 - I live in Ukraine
2 - I do not speak English
3 - translation with the help of "Google translator"

Until there are no links - all the information after the press conference ... if NASA refuses to cooperate referring to US state laws:
++   https: //prod.nais.nasa.gov/pub/pub_library/unSol-Prop.html 
III. Submission
 (d) Interagency Coordination

NASA does not transfer formal submissions to or receive similar submissions from other agencies, except as they may be related to an interagency funding arrangement. Unsolicited proposals submitted to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) are not considered as formal submissions to NASA. ++

Is engaged EMdrive exactly Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)


sorry for the poor translation - Google translator not to speak Russian in perfection

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: mwvp on 07/11/2017 08:22 am
...
That brings to mind som e methods that dustinthewind might find of interest. What if you spin a helix, in a helical resonator? Or what if you spin patch resonators at different speeds at the apex and base? Or what if you spin birefringent dielectric spheres at the center of each mode of a multi-mode cavity at different speeds? Or what if you use magnet/electric tuned gyro-magnetic/electric materials at the center of the modes?

A large stored energy fraction, depending on the size of the propeller, is affected.

As much as I would like to know all there is to know about all these subjects I must admit my ignorance to some fields.  I do find the suggestion of a resonating rotating helix intriguing but any extra shift in the wall moving one way would be countered by the back wall moving away, so suggesting no transfer of energy that I would be aware of.  I do believe the magnetic field is incapable of rotating unless it is space time that rotates but it's just my belief on that matter based on some previous experiments. 
...

I found a bunch of papers on orbital angular momenta awhile back, radio and optics, one detailing the rotational Doppler shift. I can dredge up the cite if you really want. The issue I expect to hear is the mess between near and far field, which I can't answer other than both would be affected, significantly. And stray mechanical vibrations, or electrically tuned material non-linearity would be brutal when the energy transduction margin is hertz/sub-hertz at microwave frequencies. Parts per billion. Good luck.

...
I must admit a good portion of the lingo in what you suggest is beyond my current understanding (may change but I have limited time).  Looking up patch resonators did yield something but I am currently as a loss on what they are exactly.  I have had a fascination with invention and science since being a child, but must admit that with out building up from the basics, it's no more than gibberish to me.


I gathered from your comment on plasma in the waveguide you might not be quite up to speed. Several times I lit up a plasma in an old microwave. It would destroy the cavity Q, and be an obvious event. It wouldn't happen at under a dozen or so watts.

Electromagnetics is pretty deep. I was building radios, and referring to the ARRL handbook since I was a kid. So as I progressed in the little math and physics I know, it wasn't too abstract. I think understanding basic radio technology would be of great benefit before studying relativity and quantum mechanics. Relativity, with Lorentz bending of space and time between inertial frames becomes obvious. Quantum mechanics is spooky quantized statistics of EM fields


  I would love to see space travel advance and for us use tools responsibly but must admit to history and peoples use for tools for violence.


Ugly fact of life. I think, even when we (engineers) have built all the robots to do all the dirty work, when we have all the nuclear power we feel like having the robots supply, and all the raw materials the robots drag out of orbit, some tragically invidious so-and-so's will be urging their fellows to die for their privilege of putting their face on the coin of the realm, and regulating which guild gets to style hair and nails. Libido Dominandi won't go away; robots wont cry when you insult them. Consequently, it's prudent to be well-armed against those that are well armed, until the Good Lord returns, or we all have networked empathy neural implants.


With out explicit elucidation on how one might readily pushing against the vacuum and my lack of experimental evidence I am reduced to speculation.


Yes, it is marvelous and fantastic; swim through empty space waving a can of microwaves, or light. It's not the empty vacuum. The "vacuum" isn't a vacuum. It conducts matter and light. Matter and light waves carry momentum. When light is trapped in a bottle, it applies pressure. When the can accelerates, it affects the light, making it slosh around in traveling waves. Filter and exhaust the frequency components, and you change the can's momentum. In a way, its creating synthetic mass, or engineered matter.

In classical physics, matter and energy are concretes, time and space abstract notions. In modern physics, space-time is the only concrete, the "vacuum" is reality; it can manifest as matter or energy. Vacuum is a misnomer. Vacuum means void or empty. The vacuum has two (by the Standard Model upwards of 20 or so) very real, definite properties, electric permittivity and magnetic permeability. If a region of zero permittivity/permeability were to exist, it would reflect energy and matter.

A good starting point is the first chapter in Maken's book "Only Spacetime", and the Appendix. And researching Sagnac gyro, and Sagnac effect.

Free download @ http://onlyspacetime.com/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 07/11/2017 11:20 am
THE EM DRIVE and CBS' show "Salvation" Season 1 2017

SALVATION is a suspense thriller that centers on Liam Cole, an MIT grad student, and Darius Tanz, a tech superstar, who bring Pentagon official Grace Barrows a staggering discovery – that an asteroid is just six months away from colliding with Earth.

Premieres Wednesday, July 12 (9:00-10:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network

http://boingboing.net/2017/07/10/would-you-kill-to-stop-an-aste.html

Quote
Liz: Have you ever heard of the EmDrive, the electromagnetic drive?

Craig: If you go look it up, you'll be like, "Holy shit, this is unbelievable." It's going to change space travel if they can get it to work.

Liz: It's theoretical right now, but people claim that they've seen it work.

Craig: It's propulsion without fuel. It defies Newton's third law, which is why some people say it's impossible, but other people say, "Well, it works, we just don't know yet why it works." It's not very big. It uses electromagnets powered by tiny solar panels, and it produces a minuscule amount of thrust, like one Newton. But if you do this in space, you will be continuously accelerating forever. The speculation is you could be at the Moon in like four hours, and you could be at Mars in like four months. So this is unbelievable if they could make it work. Supposedly the Chinese are ready to try it in space now, and there have been experiments here on Earth.

Liz: NASA did a paper on it, so we've taken the EmDrive and that concept and our characters are advancing the technology.

Mark: We've been talking about the science in the show, but that's not really what it's about, is it?

Craig: We treat the science seriously, but it's really about the human endeavor to beat the asteroid, and not so much the nuts and bolts. In the end we're saying, "This is a very human side to science, and we must problem-solve at the highest level that humans can problem-solve if we're going to save the planet." We've spent a lot of time trying to make the science believable and realistic, and interesting, and fun, but mostly just very human.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bz_GSgxS3w
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: JasonAW3 on 07/11/2017 05:55 pm
THE EM DRIVE and CBS' show "Salvation" Season 1 2017


You know, it'd probably take something like a probable ELE asteroid impact to get some serious backing behind this...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: fulygan4ik on 07/11/2017 08:08 pm
Thank you for posting this. We have no means to verify your claims but you are not the first to come forward.


 :D
You so boldly stated ....
Are you ready to offer a design with a force of 100 Newton?
... but I can ....
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 07/11/2017 08:55 pm
Definitely related to stress tensor. And it's some kind of "momentum dump" with magnetic coupling.

Repeating myself from above - but the group organizing phenomena escapes me. By standard statistical physics and E&M, there shouldn't be one.

Why all in such a given direction? What triggers the "cascade"? How do we express conservation of such?

And a thousand related questions. Perhaps simple classical mechanics can bound these, to hint more in the direction of more answers?

The cascade would be triggered by the realignment of magnetic field lines as the oscillating and rotating fields connect with weaker outer fields, driven by electron pressure as verified recently by Fox, Sciortino et al.*. Often multiple reconnections occur suddenly and simultaneously therefore changing the entire magnetic field in what I would dub a cascade, though this cascade entirely depends on the safety factor.

The safety factor is expressed as q = m/n where m and n are the toroidal and poloidal mode numbers. Remember: the reconnectivity of different charged regions depends on the ratio of toroidal to poloidal AND toroidal-toroidal, poloidal-poloidal modes in the mean electron free path since we are considering distinct boundaries and magnetic field regions with discrete average energy density values. This can be understood as two waveforms which, when resonating with each other, do not cancel out or construct but rather transfer electron pressure and therefore magnetic field strength and momentum from the more energetic region to the lesser energetic region. At the point of reconnection where there is an outflow from the current sheet, in fact, the inductive component of the E field peaks while the entire ExB field flattens in an almost inverse relationship which creates a small but not insignificant pressure tensor making this event anisotropic and not like brownian motion in a regular hot gas. This further has to do with the nature of the fields when reconnecting, as parallel in-plane E fields are electrostatically driven while the out-of-plane inductive component dominates in terms of field strength. This is why I would invest in researching, maybe using neutrinos or some other penetrative radiation as an imaging technique, to find whether there are periodically spaced out and occasionally cascading null points + E tubes (experimentally, Hamada 2010 found the instability region to be around 2-3 mean electron paths in length) representing regions where reconnections are occurring in the interior of the cavity

While this may sound confusing it is quite a lot simpler if imagining the analogy of a twisted rope made from two strings unfurling due to tension. (This is why they are called 'flux ropes' or 'tubes' in the literature!) It will unwind from the point where it is wound tightest and, assuming the ends are tied fast, the center will gain a gap between the two strings which oppose each other. So, quite logically, do magnetic fields act due to the electron pressure and plasma potential no longer being constrained by sufficiently strong guide fields/other layers. Interesting to note here too is that Ji et al. (1995) found that the global helicity tends to be conserved while the total magnetic energy is dissipated, meaning that the system does not descend into chaos after reconnection and will instead charge up until the field lines shear in a specific way again. There are lots of analogies with rocks dropping in smoke, ropes, swirling water or cogs you could use to understand why there is group motion of particles in these fields but ultimately it serves one best to stick with the basic mathematics of push and pull, positive and negative.   
   
Magnetic self-organization in the closed cavity is something I have argued for because of the walls. The walls are conductive and form a strong waveguide*** when excited, hence why it doesn't explode or blast radiation outward like MVVP's non-conductive and unpolished microwaves, or like happens in on the surface of the Sun. The boundary forces the periodic motion of massive particles above and beyond simply the eigenmodes caused by photons following resonant closed paths.

--------------------------------------------

This conversation snippet from MVVP and Dustinthewind discussing having a dynamically changing peak E-field and/or changing waveform is great:
Quote
Once again, consider the cavity energy magnitude, field amplitudes, and you'll find what you inject is trivial in the short run. In the long run, it's everything. BTW a continuous phase offset, if I understand, is an FM chirp. Phase modulation and frequency modulation are essentially the same, differing in application and implementation. Sort of like the difference between X-rays and gamma rays. Can have similar photons with similar energy, indistinguishable, but from natural or synthetic origin.

Chirped**** and pulsed waveforms could really clarify some theoretical questions such as whether it is the relative distribution of energy in the cavity which matters, or the reactionary force from constantly shifting momentum. I.e. is the EM Drive effect due to a more or less continuous force from pressure gradients + time lag, or is it the sawtooth-like periodic spring-like 'sloshing' as described earlier and expanded by Rodal and others?** The discreteness of thrust vs the continuity of thrust, taken together with the location of random vs periodic E-field null points, will help us eliminate certain theories if we invest in these research questions.   

P.S. Fulygan4ik, please bring evidence not politics into this conversation please.

Update: Ignore the mention of neutrinos and exploding microwaves, that was a little too creative with new physics and not a result of proofreading. Will begin work on the changes in the Q factor to address MVVP and try to understand for myself what a drop in Q would look like.

* DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.125002 Sorry folks, not pushing my luck by sharing more copyrighted papers or screenshots thereof.
** Here too we could attempt, good luck, to find an MHD or experimental solution for the toroidal/poloidal modes of each field to find the ratios and predict null points/reconnection/flattening resistivity (u) profiles over time. Even if you do not subscribe to the cold plasma theory, you cannot deny the separated fields during resonance in any multipolar mode.
***  This waveguide is very complicated to fully understand due to quantum effects, magnetic dipoles, quasi-ions in the metallic lattice, evanescence/plasmonics/non-linearity of effects, different purities and interaction with the atmosphere, asymmetric heating and radiation and time arrows and gravity, asymmetric shape, seams with endcaps, and the changes of all these over time and input. This was not an exhaustive list of what the walls 'do' either, for that you'll need to read Thread 5-10 and have an elephant memory.
****Regarding the high pumping efficiency of chirped microwaves which some of you may find useful. Chirped-microwave assisted magnetization reversal. Wang and Wua, 2009. DOI: 10.1063/1.3121075
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: fulygan4ik on 07/11/2017 09:01 pm
...
Are you ready to offer a design with a force of 100 Newton?
... but I can ....
But you won't, isn't it?

If you talk about today - no
If NASA decides to redeem this technology - then everything will depend on the terms of the contract ..
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/11/2017 11:48 pm
I'm getting ready to test the 30W Spectrian linear class A RF amplifier. After discussions with the seller and running tests on a burner unit of his, we confirmed that these RF radio amps will function from ~11V to ~16V. Optimum is somewhere around 12.6 - 13, which is the nominal voltage of most 12V batteries. For each volt over 13V, power dissipation will increase 10W. This is due to additional dissipation in the high power FET used as a 12v regulator for the final and driver devices.

I'm using the cheap Chinese signal generator which has an output of -2.5dB. With the ~34dB gain expected from the amplifier, I should get ~31.5dB or ~1.4W. since I'm using a -40dB 5W attenuator in front of the spectrum analyser, I should measure ~-8.5dB. The Windfreak signal generator mounted on the torsional pendulum has more than enough output power (18dB) than what is needed (10dB) to drive the amp at full power.

I need to build the + 18 to +28v bias @ 50Ma, but that looks pretty simple. With any luck, I should soon have 10 times the RF power as before, but with only a 3A increase in power requirements.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 07/12/2017 12:32 am
I've never heard if people using neutrino's as an imaging technique since they are extremely hard to make and hard to interact with anything. Trillions go through you every second and probably none hit anything. Are you sure they didn't mean neutrons?

Quite possibly. The post said "neutrinos" so I ran with it.  ;D

The cascade would be triggered by the realignment of magnetic field lines as the oscillating and rotating fields connect with weaker outer fields, driven by electron pressure as verified recently by Fox, Sciortino et al.*.

Is reconnection relevant?

EmDrive does not appear to have plasmas - it's about an impressed resonant cavity of high intensity microwaves.

We've been futzing around with plasma arcing as a null hypothesis for a while.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Augmentor on 07/12/2017 12:43 am
I've never heard if people using neutrino's as an imaging technique since they are extremely hard to make and hard to interact with anything. Trillions go through you every second and probably none hit anything. Are you sure they didn't mean neutrons?

Quite possibly. The post said "neutrinos" so I ran with it.  ;D

The cascade would be triggered by the realignment of magnetic field lines as the oscillating and rotating fields connect with weaker outer fields, driven by electron pressure as verified recently by Fox, Sciortino et al.*.

Is reconnection relevant?

EmDrive does not appear to have plasmas - it's about an impressed resonant cavity of high intensity microwaves.

We've been futzing around with plasma arcing as a null hypothesis for a while.



To find out what is going on inside especially inhomogeneties, either turn the emDrive into a Schlieren photography setup using windows or even properly aligned  small holes, or put a small camera inside sensitive to a variety of frequencies.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 07/12/2017 02:13 am
I've never heard if people using neutrino's as an imaging technique since they are extremely hard to make and hard to interact with anything. Trillions go through you every second and probably none hit anything. Are you sure they didn't mean neutrons?

Quite possibly. The post said "neutrinos" so I ran with it.  ;D

The cascade would be triggered by the realignment of magnetic field lines as the oscillating and rotating fields connect with weaker outer fields, driven by electron pressure as verified recently by Fox, Sciortino et al.*.

Is reconnection relevant?

EmDrive does not appear to have plasmas - it's about an impressed resonant cavity of high intensity microwaves.

We've been futzing around with plasma arcing as a null hypothesis for a while.



To find out what is going on inside especially inhomogeneties, either turn the emDrive into a Schlieren photography setup using windows or even properly aligned  small holes, or put a small camera inside sensitive to a variety of frequencies.
Makes you wonder what a optically transparent Quartz tube through the center would see...
I think I'll make it so next run.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.LeBel on 07/12/2017 02:14 am
(...)

Space doesn’t really exist because it is a representation in one moment (drawing, illustrations etc.) of points that are not at the same moment (spacetime) except in our minds. The Earth-Moon “distance” is approximately 1 light second. No two points of this “distance” are at the same moment, or else light would not take any time to travel the distance.  We may use kilometers (or geodesics) for convenience but it doesn’t make space real. “Space” is a dimension of consciousness, not a dimension of the universe. So, we may forget the poetics of “curving space” or “this telling that” what to do.

In conclusion, “space” is a necessary tool for representing concepts of physical knowledge but it plays no part in the universe since it doesn’t exist. IMO, we should replace the “false cause” for motion as “curvature” or “geodesics” by the true and logical cause for motion, a higher probability of existence due to a differential in the rate of time. I don’t dispute any of the representations used in physics. Here, I only want to remind us to carefully remove our own observer contributions from our knowledge before we say that the universe is this or that.

 Marcel,

      "There is in particular one problem whose exhaustive solution could provide considerable elucidation. What becomes of the energy of a photon after complete emission? Does it spread out in all directions with further propagation in the sense of Huygens' wave theory, so constantly taking up more space, in boundless progressive attenuation? Or does it fly out like a projectile in one direction in the sense of Newton's emanation theory? In the first case, the quantum would no longer be in the position to concentrate energy upon a single point in space in such a way as to release an electron from its atomic bond, and in the second case, the main triumph of the Maxwell theory - the continuity between the static and the dynamic fields and, with it, the complete understanding we have enjoyed, until now, of the fully investigated interference phenomena - would have to be sacrificed, both being very unhappy consequences for today's theoreticians."
       Max Planck, Nobel Lecture, June 2, 1920.

       ****************************

Marcel,

much of the last three centuries of physics has been a battle to avoid acceptance of remotely acting forces. This has been a necessary struggle but one that is, in my opinion, ultimately doomed. I believe the understanding you have reached in the above quote, has a potential solution to Planck's dilemma, encapsulated within it.

If we accept that space exists as a consequence of the nature of human perception, we may then see that the presence of a charge has gravitational and therefore inertial consequence everywhere. We may also see that the acceleration of a charge accelerates the next nearest charge in line of sight and in resonance with it, with respect to the relative rates of passage of time within which they reside.

The line of sight being that geodesic specific to the interaction. This may be visualized without contradiction if the acceleration of the charges interacting electromagnetically are aligned to that geodesic at the moment of complex time at which they interact. We might then find better explanations for inertia, gravity, electromagnetic action and emdrive thrust. It may even be possible to find an explanation for fringe effects and Young's two slit experiment if geodesics intersecting atomic orbitals are considered.

Attempting always to nobble my own argument.  :) JMN..

Spupeng,
I have an explanation for the fringe. The direction of the photon is free i.e. it has a normal distribution tapering off on each side on infinity. This absence of real boundary is its freedom and uncertainty. It does not allow any specific state of existence for “direction”.

Once the photon goes through the slit, infinities are (destroyed) replaced by actual boundaries which forces the actual quantization of “direction” i.e. “direction” become a quantum number of the photon, with a limited number of values of allowed wave function within the slit opening. The photon will exit the slit following one of the allowed directions.

The simple fringe experiment is probably the first one in quantum mechanics.

Marcel
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 07/12/2017 03:07 am
Perhaps that's "arc deposition/sputtering" instead? Happens with magnetrons. For plasma, need to form a quasi-neutral domain with specific gas (ion).

A little column A, a little column B; If I recall the idea correctly, the drop in thrust in vacuum testing gets pinned on the lack of gasses in the cavity.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: fulygan4ik on 07/12/2017 07:36 am

Makes you wonder what a optically transparent Quartz tube through the center would see...
I think I'll make it so next run.

Shell

Quartz does not see anything - in the center "0" zone
As in the "bucket" Roger J. SHAWYER

You can put an iron nail in the center - it is heated at high power - it means your "copper pan" is poorly made - there are geometric deformations
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 07/12/2017 09:45 am
I will disagree with you on a camera seeing something through the end caps of the Quartz rod. The antenna is in the center Z axis and considering the angle of view of the video camera (AOV) or the angular spread that can be imaged by a camera. I'll be able to see ionization effects even slightly distorted through the sidewalls of the Quartz tube.

In a TE013  excited mode there will be a EM null or hole through the center of the frustum in the Z axis. Correct.

Shell
(http://i.imgur.com/KdbCTEu.jpg)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 07/12/2017 10:50 am

Makes you wonder what a optically transparent Quartz tube through the center would see...
I think I'll make it so next run.

Shell

Quartz does not see anything - in the center "0" zone
As in the "bucket" Roger J. SHAWYER

You can put an iron nail in the center - it is heated at high power - it means your "copper pan" is poorly made - there are geometric deformations
I will disagree with you on a camera seeing something through the end caps of the Quartz rod. The antenna is in the center Z axis and considering the angle of view of the video camera (AOV) or the angular spread that can be imaged by a camera. I'll be able to see ionization effects even slightly distorted through the sidewalls of the Quartz tube.

In a TE013  excited mode there will be a EM null or hole through the center of the frustum in the Z axis. Correct.

Shell
(http://i.imgur.com/KdbCTEu.jpg)

Hi Michelle,

Sure but don't forget the H field which is max through the lobes along the length axis.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 07/12/2017 03:52 pm

Makes you wonder what a optically transparent Quartz tube through the center would see...
I think I'll make it so next run.

Shell

Quartz does not see anything - in the center "0" zone
As in the "bucket" Roger J. SHAWYER

You can put an iron nail in the center - it is heated at high power - it means your "copper pan" is poorly made - there are geometric deformations
I will disagree with you on a camera seeing something through the end caps of the Quartz rod. The antenna is in the center Z axis and considering the angle of view of the video camera (AOV) or the angular spread that can be imaged by a camera. I'll be able to see ionization effects even slightly distorted through the sidewalls of the Quartz tube.

In a TE013  excited mode there will be a EM null or hole through the center of the frustum in the Z axis. Correct.

Shell
(http://i.imgur.com/KdbCTEu.jpg)

Hi Michelle,

Sure but don't forget the H field which is max through the lobes along the length axis.
It will be mainly the E-Field that any fireworks happen. The Magnetic susceptibility of the fused Quartz is: −11.28×10−6  with a Dielectric loss factor of less than 0.0004 at 20 °C @ 1 MHz. In plain English the Quartz rod isn't effected by the H (or some call it the B field) magnetic field.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 07/12/2017 03:59 pm


Shell
(http://i.imgur.com/KdbCTEu.jpg)
Shell, the TE013 data plot does show a top plate center high intensity surface current where your quartz rod will be entering, along with what looks like a helical antenna. That confuses me a little. Is the antenna offset, or is the plot just representational and not based on the actual build?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 07/12/2017 04:28 pm


Shell
(http://i.imgur.com/KdbCTEu.jpg)
Shell, the TE013 data plot does show a top plate center high intensity surface current where your quartz rod will be entering, along with what looks like a helical antenna. That confuses me a little. Is the antenna offset, or is the plot just representational and not based on the actual build?
No, it was just to show the E-Field locations of a TE013 mode, nothing else.
My Very Very Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: bmcgaffey20 on 07/12/2017 08:56 pm
emdrive.com is down?? anyone else having troubles?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 07/12/2017 09:11 pm
emdrive.com is down?? anyone else having troubles?
It is not just you. The server is not responding.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mark7777777 on 07/12/2017 09:23 pm
emdrive.com is down?? anyone else having troubles?
It is not just you. The server is not responding.

Btw a reminder for people that Emdrives.com takes you to the last post here.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 07/13/2017 05:36 am
emdrive.com is down?? anyone else having troubles?
It is not just you. The server is not responding.
Link is ok down here in Aus. 3:05pm ACST 13/7/2017
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 07/13/2017 05:48 am
(...)

Space doesn’t really exist because it is a representation in one moment (drawing, illustrations etc.) of points that are not at the same moment (spacetime) except in our minds. The Earth-Moon “distance” is approximately 1 light second. No two points of this “distance” are at the same moment, or else light would not take any time to travel the distance.  We may use kilometers (or geodesics) for convenience but it doesn’t make space real. “Space” is a dimension of consciousness, not a dimension of the universe. So, we may forget the poetics of “curving space” or “this telling that” what to do.

In conclusion, “space” is a necessary tool for representing concepts of physical knowledge but it plays no part in the universe since it doesn’t exist. IMO, we should replace the “false cause” for motion as “curvature” or “geodesics” by the true and logical cause for motion, a higher probability of existence due to a differential in the rate of time. I don’t dispute any of the representations used in physics. Here, I only want to remind us to carefully remove our own observer contributions from our knowledge before we say that the universe is this or that.

 Marcel,

      "There is in particular one problem whose exhaustive solution could provide considerable elucidation. What becomes of the energy of a photon after complete emission? Does it spread out in all directions with further propagation in the sense of Huygens' wave theory, so constantly taking up more space, in boundless progressive attenuation? Or does it fly out like a projectile in one direction in the sense of Newton's emanation theory? In the first case, the quantum would no longer be in the position to concentrate energy upon a single point in space in such a way as to release an electron from its atomic bond, and in the second case, the main triumph of the Maxwell theory - the continuity between the static and the dynamic fields and, with it, the complete understanding we have enjoyed, until now, of the fully investigated interference phenomena - would have to be sacrificed, both being very unhappy consequences for today's theoreticians."
       Max Planck, Nobel Lecture, June 2, 1920.

       ****************************

Marcel,

much of the last three centuries of physics has been a battle to avoid acceptance of remotely acting forces. This has been a necessary struggle but one that is, in my opinion, ultimately doomed. I believe the understanding you have reached in the above quote, has a potential solution to Planck's dilemma, encapsulated within it.

If we accept that space exists as a consequence of the nature of human perception, we may then see that the presence of a charge has gravitational and therefore inertial consequence everywhere. We may also see that the acceleration of a charge accelerates the next nearest charge in line of sight and in resonance with it, with respect to the relative rates of passage of time within which they reside.

The line of sight being that geodesic specific to the interaction. This may be visualized without contradiction if the acceleration of the charges interacting electromagnetically are aligned to that geodesic at the moment of complex time at which they interact. We might then find better explanations for inertia, gravity, electromagnetic action and emdrive thrust. It may even be possible to find an explanation for fringe effects and Young's two slit experiment if geodesics intersecting atomic orbitals are considered.

Attempting always to nobble my own argument.  :) JMN..

Spupeng,
I have an explanation for the fringe. The direction of the photon is free i.e. it has a normal distribution tapering off on each side on infinity. This absence of real boundary is its freedom and uncertainty. It does not allow any specific state of existence for “direction”.

Once the photon goes through the slit, infinities are (destroyed) replaced by actual boundaries which forces the actual quantization of “direction” i.e. “direction” become a quantum number of the photon, with a limited number of values of allowed wave function within the slit opening. The photon will exit the slit following one of the allowed directions.

The simple fringe experiment is probably the first one in quantum mechanics.

Marcel
Thanks Marcel,
hoping you are right but not quite keeping up.
       The shadow in the one slit in comparison to the fringes in the two slit, these are radically different mechanisms. Yes these experiments constitute the dawn of quantum mechanics but I cannot be the only one who struggles to understand them :)
       Could you explain a little further.   jmn..
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 07/13/2017 03:37 pm
New article I just saw in my daily space news reading related to EM waves and dielectrics.
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Giant_enhancement_of_electromagnetic_waves_revealed_within_small_dielectric_particles_999.html
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/13/2017 04:29 pm
New article I just saw in my daily space news reading related to EM waves and dielectrics.
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Giant_enhancement_of_electromagnetic_waves_revealed_within_small_dielectric_particles_999.html

It's a poorly translated and very confused article without really saying much except a lot of self praise by the Russian scientists.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star One on 07/13/2017 04:39 pm
New article I just saw in my daily space news reading related to EM waves and dielectrics.
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Giant_enhancement_of_electromagnetic_waves_revealed_within_small_dielectric_particles_999.html

It's a poorly translated and very confused article without really saying much except a lot of self praise by the Russian scientists.

I had great trouble making any sense of it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/13/2017 05:00 pm
New article I just saw in my daily space news reading related to EM waves and dielectrics.
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Giant_enhancement_of_electromagnetic_waves_revealed_within_small_dielectric_particles_999.html

It's a poorly translated and very confused article without really saying much except a lot of self praise by the Russian scientists.

I had great trouble making any sense of it.

As an old Cold Warrior, I have to say it's sad to see how Russian science appears to have deteriorated after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 07/13/2017 05:51 pm
Get your EMdrive to generate its own power via induced beta decay using electromagnetic radiation. Very interesting concept.


https://www.google.com/patents/EP0099946A1?cl=en

Cavity example begins at [0157]

Quote
[0169]
Output power is still expressed by Eq. (60) with the important proviso that the z employed in the evaluation of Wdind in Eq. (60) comes from Eq. (64) and not from Eq. (57). Equation (64) takes into consideration the spatially periodic decline to zero of the fields within the cavity. With the same set of assumptions employed for the transmission line example with 113Cd, one obtains again p = 1.68m forℓ= 10 4 m with z = 3.394 and P = 3x108W. A calculation of input power now requires an assumption for n. If n=10, then ν= 75kHz and U = 3 x 106W. In the case of a cavity, output thermal power is then about 100 times input power. For the same set of assumptions as employed for the transmission line 40K example, one obtains again p = 0.481m for ℓ = 104m with z = 18.647 and P = 2.5 x 109W. If n = 20, then v = 130kHz and U = 2.5 x 107w.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 07/13/2017 09:09 pm
Yes! First impressions: This must be related to the higher wave compression at boundaries discussed earlier! If the wave can be compressed into a theoretical non-linearly polarized nanowire (note: their model is probably difficult to extrapolate to an EM Drive scale due to the B field/E field size mismatch) due to resonance, as the authors argue, then wavelength remains constant while amplitude increases. It must be photons trapped in the magnetic layers leading to continuous particle excitation like a positive feedback loop. The more circularized the path the greater the field strength, in other words Q implies field strength even not between walls, fair enough.   

Quote
In contract[sic], for a high-index dielectric the light wavelength within the particle decreases, when its refractive index increases. Then, at large enough n the size of the particle becomes an integer multiple of the half of the wavelength, no matter how small the geometric size of the particle is. It gives rise to resonances, which, in turn, bring about a giant enhancement of the electromagnetic field within the particle.

A mini-cavity at half wavelength filled with water might be interesting... A quartz rod and walls (http://www.jpier.org/PIER/pier152/07.15061807.pdf) should also boost the field strength if I understand the implications correctly  :D

Imagine designs of a beautiful quartz helix in water with carbon doped wall and nanowire mesh balls in the upper cavity... All the signs point towards encouraging higher energy density via increased intra-cavity resonance...

Also have a look at some of their excellent literature review! Fascinating to see more research at this intersection of different fields!!! 

Edit: Reference list attached
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 07/13/2017 09:12 pm
New article I just saw in my daily space news reading related to EM waves and dielectrics.
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Giant_enhancement_of_electromagnetic_waves_revealed_within_small_dielectric_particles_999.html

It's a poorly translated and very confused article without really saying much except a lot of self praise by the Russian scientists.

I had great trouble making any sense of it.
I tested a simple sphere with 2mm in diameter and a eps_r=70 beyond 10GHz (~30mm wavelength ;) ) with FEKO and found similar results.
There seems no connection to the function of the EMDrive cavity at all but the paper seems to be conclusive regarding the field point of view.

They simply found resonating modes in undersized dielectric particles (compared to the much greater wavelength in free space of the exciting field). The effective wavelength is smaller in a particle with a high dielectric constant and when resonance take place# beside a small damping factor the field strength grows up to to an amount much higher than the field strength of the sourounding (exciting) field.
This is interesting regarding the in coupling properties but not magic.

# if n*pi/2 wavelength fit into the particle with respect to the local dielectric constant
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 07/14/2017 01:50 am
New article I just saw in my daily space news reading related to EM waves and dielectrics.
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Giant_enhancement_of_electromagnetic_waves_revealed_within_small_dielectric_particles_999.html

It's a poorly translated and very confused article without really saying much except a lot of self praise by the Russian scientists.

I had great trouble making any sense of it.

As an old Cold Warrior, I have to say it's sad to see how Russian science appears to have deteriorated after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Ditto the old Cold Warrior and deterioration, as well as fracturing of focus and goals of Soviet science.   When everyone was dedicated to defeating the Main Enemy funding was widely and (relatively speaking) lavishly available.

 Now it is my understanding from a few of my contacts still active in research there that funding is even harder to obtain than in the "West" and research is even more risk or failure or embarrassment averse that it is here. So if EMDrive work is going on there I would be most surprised if wasn't either VERY black  or those in charge are VERY confident of positive results.

Having said that however the paper does look as if it may  have some points of interest.   Does anyone have a link to the original Russian? 

Spasibo -
Herman - graybeardsyseng
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 07/14/2017 09:21 am
New article I just saw in my daily space news reading related to EM waves and dielectrics.
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Giant_enhancement_of_electromagnetic_waves_revealed_within_small_dielectric_particles_999.html

It's a poorly translated and very confused article without really saying much except a lot of self praise by the Russian scientists.

I had great trouble making any sense of it.

As an old Cold Warrior, I have to say it's sad to see how Russian science appears to have deteriorated after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Ditto the old Cold Warrior and deterioration, as well as fracturing of focus and goals of Soviet science.   When everyone was dedicated to defeating the Main Enemy funding was widely and (relatively speaking) lavishly available.

 Now it is my understanding from a few of my contacts still active in research there that funding is even harder to obtain than in the "West" and research is even more risk or failure or embarrassment averse that it is here. So if EMDrive work is going on there I would be most surprised if wasn't either VERY black  or those in charge are VERY confident of positive results.

Having said that however the paper does look as if it may  have some points of interest.   Does anyone have a link to the original Russian? 

Spasibo -
Herman - graybeardsyseng

I would not be so grim about their space research. I think their younger generation in Russia is doing pretty well.

Just today they lanuched the "Mayak". One of its purpose is to clear the space debris from our orbit.
"The mission team’s hope is to test new aero-braking techniques that could one day be used to safely and cheaply de-orbit space junk"

It should also be the brightest object on the sky if all goes well :D (except Sun and the Moon)

Link - http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/07/brightest-satellite-mayak-russian-space-science/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 07/14/2017 09:35 am
Well wishing to Kuang-Chi from Gilo industires reveal their nature of cooperation.

"We look forward to celebrating many more years of creating exciting and innovative technology for the future."

https://www.facebook.com/giloindustries/?nr

I hope that includes the EmDrive as well.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Flyby on 07/14/2017 11:13 am
We just need to be careful not to fall into the "wishful thinking" trap.
As there is no official press communication coming from Gilo industries, there is no 100% certainty that Gilo Industries is involved in EMdrive research/development.
IIRC, there are only circumstantial indications, based upon investment of Gilo in Shawyer's company...

It is therefor prudent to say that Gilo Industries MIGHT be involved in EMdrive research/development...

It is not because there is a positive attitude on this forum, to go along with the idea it might work, that we should omit the possibility it might just not work out....

Let us not forget that at this moment, a considerable part of the active forum participants just mentally pretend to accept the EMdrive. Such a positive attitude is needed to get rid of both pro/contra bias, and keep searching till a conclusive answer is to be found (be that a positive or negative one).

I find it admirable and in the true spirit of scientific curiosity that so many knowledgeable people try to come up with ideas and possibilities to explain what "might" be happening, even if there is still serious doubt about the validity of the test results obtained so far....
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 07/14/2017 01:00 pm
We just need to be careful not to fall into the "wishful thinking" trap.
As there is no official press communication coming from Gilo industries, there is no 100% certainty that Gilo Industries is involved in EMdrive research/development.
IIRC, there are only circumstantial indications, based upon investment of Gilo in Shawyer's company...

It is therefor prudent to say that Gilo Industries MIGHT be involved in EMdrive research/development...

It is not because there is a positive attitude on this forum, to go along with the idea it might work, that we should omit the possibility it might just not work out....

Let us not forget that at this moment, a considerable part of the active forum participants just mentally pretend to accept the EMdrive. Such a positive attitude is needed to get rid of both pro/contra bias, and keep searching till a conclusive answer is to be found (be that a positive or negative one).

I find it admirable and in the true spirit of scientific curiosity that so many knowledgeable people try to come up with ideas and possibilities to explain what "might" be happening, even if there is still serious doubt about the validity of the test results obtained so far....

It is not wishful thinking:
http://www.emdrive.com/ShrivenhampresentationV.3.pdf
Bottom of slide 15 as attached:
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 07/14/2017 01:18 pm
New article I just saw in my daily space news reading related to EM waves and dielectrics.
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Giant_enhancement_of_electromagnetic_waves_revealed_within_small_dielectric_particles_999.html

It's a poorly translated and very confused article without really saying much except a lot of self praise by the Russian scientists.

I had great trouble making any sense of it.

As an old Cold Warrior, I have to say it's sad to see how Russian science appears to have deteriorated after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Ditto the old Cold Warrior and deterioration, as well as fracturing of focus and goals of Soviet science.   When everyone was dedicated to defeating the Main Enemy funding was widely and (relatively speaking) lavishly available.

 Now it is my understanding from a few of my contacts still active in research there that funding is even harder to obtain than in the "West" and research is even more risk or failure or embarrassment averse that it is here. So if EMDrive work is going on there I would be most surprised if wasn't either VERY black  or those in charge are VERY confident of positive results.

Having said that however the paper does look as if it may  have some points of interest.   Does anyone have a link to the original Russian? 

Spasibo -
Herman - graybeardsyseng

I would not be so grim about their space research. I think their younger generation in Russia is doing pretty well.

Just today they lanuched the "Mayak". One of its purpose is to clear the space debris from our orbit.
"The mission team’s hope is to test new aero-braking techniques that could one day be used to safely and cheaply de-orbit space junk"

It should also be the brightest object on the sky if all goes well :D (except Sun and the Moon)

Link - http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/07/brightest-satellite-mayak-russian-space-science/


Oh I agree -I wasn't very clear when I posted last night - long day and late night !!  Their space research and work is quite good and very impressive.   I was bloviating  about some of their basic science research; which even there I may have been talking out of turn.  My apologies if anyone was offended.

BTW - their engineering/manufacturing approach to aerospace (the only area with which I have direct experience) has some interesting and valuable techniques.   I recall analysis a team I was on did on their system engineering approach to satellite design - this was back in the late 80's or early 90's IIRC..

 In this we examined several generations of sats spanning maybe 20 years of development.   One of our conclusions was that once they found something that worked they stuck with it.   An example is a specific multi-pin space rated connector.   It was something like a D-Sub connector family.   Don't recall their name for it.   It was vacuum rated and apparently quite able to handle LEO radiation levels.   IIRC they had an equivalent to a DA-15, DB-35 and DC-37 -  not the same as those just fairly similar.   The point is that once they got it working they used it just about EVERYWHERE. It even started showing up in new versions of man rated vehicles.  All sat builders used it because it was both a cost and risk reducer.   It wasn't particularly light but with the throw weight capability of their boosters that wasn't a big problem for them (yes every gram does count BUT so does every point of risk too).   

Why is this relevant to EMDrive.   Well for the experimenters it is useful to remember you don't have to re-invent every wheel.  If some technique or equipment has proved itself in RF work or some other aspect of building an EMDrive test bed,  it may well be worth considering it.  If a particular issue or questions seems to have solutions - research them/study them/ learn them. Discuss it  here - there are literally centuries of experience and knowledge here as well as  brilliant and creative people who will provide inputs, answer your questions and sometimes even provide solutions - FOR FREE. 

Ok - morning bloviation over. 

Herman
graybeardsyseng 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Kenjee on 07/14/2017 01:54 pm
No walls..
just cut offs.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Flyby on 07/14/2017 01:59 pm
It is not wishful thinking:
http://www.emdrive.com/ShrivenhampresentationV.3.pdf
Bottom of slide 15 as attached:

For a change, I'd prefer to have the news from a different angle : from Gilo themselves.

TBH TT, the communications coming from either you or Shawyer do not inspire much confidence anymore.

The ridiculous belittling style of that "military slideshow presentation" had a seriously negative impact on me.
It really undermines the credibility of the little valuable information it holds.
Roger may be an excellent engineer and a nice and kind person to talk to, but his marketing and communication style is an outright disaster.
It is already extremely hard to get such a controversial topic , as the EMdrive (with its apparent violation of CoM), digested/accepted by highly critical scientific crowd. On top of that, his (and yours) communication style only makes it a lot worse....

This here below is a communication killer, as it leaves a very negative perception with anybody that enjoyed some degree of science education:
Quote
How is Momentum Conserved?  EmDrive obeys Newton’s Laws
How is force produced?    Radiation Pressure. Maxwell.
Why are the end plate forces different?     Different group velocities due to different diameters. Cullen 1952
How is the force multiplied?     EmDrive is a Resonant cavity with a multiplication factor Q. Bailey 1955
Why is EmDrive an Open System?      Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity
Why are there no side wall forces?  Thrust due to travelling waves not standing waves.
How is energy conserved?  EmDrive is an electrical machine.
What limits thrust in high Q thrusters?  Internal Doppler shift.
How is thrust calculated?   Thrust equation.
How is thrust measured?   With great care.
This might impress a drill-sergeant... but that's hardly the public inhere that is interested in science, no?

alright....I'll confess.... I had to suppress a feeling of anger, after reading that page...

I had it with hollow, fancy buzz words and promises of flying cars...

In good tradition of scientific research, I want to see results...good or bad...
No more words, no more promises... the real deal is what we're all awaiting for...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: bmcgaffey20 on 07/14/2017 02:43 pm
yeah.... what he said. And one more thing too... No more of that "you will all be sorry" crap.  Im ready to all hail shawyer. Let me see the device though first please.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: JonathanD on 07/14/2017 03:20 pm
yeah.... what he said. And one more thing too... No more of that "you will all be sorry" crap.  Im ready to all hail shawyer. Let me see the device though first please.

2016 will be an interesting year!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/14/2017 05:39 pm
It is not wishful thinking:
http://www.emdrive.com/ShrivenhampresentationV.3.pdf
Bottom of slide 15 as attached:

For a change, I'd prefer to have the news from a different angle : from Gilo themselves.

TBH TT, the communications coming from either you or Shawyer do not inspire much confidence anymore.

The ridiculous belittling style of that "military slideshow presentation" had a seriously negative impact on me.
It really undermines the credibility of the little valuable information it holds.
Roger may be an excellent engineer and a nice and kind person to talk to, but his marketing and communication style is an outright disaster.
It is already extremely hard to get such a controversial topic , as the EMdrive (with its apparent violation of CoM), digested/accepted by highly critical scientific crowd. On top of that, his (and yours) communication style only makes it a lot worse....

This here below is a communication killer, as it leaves a very negative perception with anybody that enjoyed some degree of science education:
Quote
How is Momentum Conserved?  EmDrive obeys Newton’s Laws
How is force produced?    Radiation Pressure. Maxwell.
Why are the end plate forces different?     Different group velocities due to different diameters. Cullen 1952
How is the force multiplied?     EmDrive is a Resonant cavity with a multiplication factor Q. Bailey 1955
Why is EmDrive an Open System?      Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity
Why are there no side wall forces?  Thrust due to travelling waves not standing waves.
How is energy conserved?  EmDrive is an electrical machine.
What limits thrust in high Q thrusters?  Internal Doppler shift.
How is thrust calculated?   Thrust equation.
How is thrust measured?   With great care.
This might impress a drill-sergeant... but that's hardly the public inhere that is interested in science, no?

alright....I'll confess.... I had to suppress a feeling of anger, after reading that page...

I had it with hollow, fancy buzz words and promises of flying cars...

In good tradition of scientific research, I want to see results...good or bad...
No more words, no more promises... the real deal is what we're all awaiting for...

I don't think Shawyer has to prove COM since there other theories that independently show how COM can be accounted for. As an engineer, he only has to prove thrust. His communicarion style doesn't bother me and I've enjoyed some degree of science education.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Flyby on 07/14/2017 08:15 pm
I don't think Shawyer has to prove COM since there other theories that independently show how COM can be accounted for. As an engineer, he only has to prove thrust. His communication style doesn't bother me and I've enjoyed some degree of science education.
You're absolutely right...
Nobody asked Shawyer to prove anything as he should be wise enough to see it is clearly not his expertise field.
but then....then...why persist - never the less - attempting to give such aggravating non-sense to what appear to be some valid questions?
My rant is by no means an attack on his qualification as an engineer or a person, but has everything to do with his outrageous ability to shoot himself in the foot or cutting the branch he's sitting on...

I am totally baffled that as an engineer,  he even dares to produce answers like these, without considering the remote possibility of a PR disaster :
How is thrust measured?   With great care.

That is not the answer I'd expect from a qualified engineer.... so....

-Either it is deliberately "playing stupid" in order to say a lot , but reveal nothing. But then he's way better off by just telling nothing.

-Or he's so locked up in his mindset that he totally misses the point, that the art of how to communicate ideas is almost as important as the idea itself.

The resulting perception of such non-sense is one of charlatanism, which hurts a broader scientific interest in the EMdrive.

Even for a simple layman like me, with STEM college education and a MArch univ degree, I can't possibly understand that he, as a qualified engineer, can be satisfied with those ridiculously simplified answers.

It would be far better to let the results speak for themselves , instead of attempting to fabricate his own marketing material and communication strategies. In his specific case, it is horrendously contra-productive...

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 07/14/2017 08:45 pm

I don't think Shawyer has to prove COM since there other theories that independently show how COM can be accounted for. As an engineer, he only has to prove thrust. His communicarion style doesn't bother me and I've enjoyed some degree of science education.

Agree. He doesn't have to explain how it works, just show that it works. That's actually my personal little grievance with him of late.

So far he has only provided visible proof of the first experiments with minute amounts of thrust. There are schematics, photos, even videos of them in action.

This is what made a few people interested enough in them to try a replication on their own. 

But he has not provided a single shred of proof about his more outrageous claims of hyper-strong Emdrives since. No pictures of the working setup, no videos or tables of results. Nothing but some schematics and photos of presumed superconducting devices being prepared and a lot of promises and "breadcrumbs".

That is completely in contrast with what he did before, showing the meat of the stew: the devices assembled and working. Ergo, no evidence, just believe me something big is upcoming.

You see why many are upset and not willing to believe?

If it wasn't for the terrific people doing experiments and sharing their results in the open, this whole story would have ended for me long ago, and placed besides so many cranky claims made before.

But as a philosophical realist, I can't bury the findings of several independent people in the sand and be done with it. This has to be explained. Either as experimental error, but not just dismissed as such, but carefully explained why this error looks like thrust.

Or confirmed and then we can toll the bells and sing hallelujah. But not a second before.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star One on 07/15/2017 07:38 am
I don't think Shawyer has to prove COM since there other theories that independently show how COM can be accounted for. As an engineer, he only has to prove thrust. His communication style doesn't bother me and I've enjoyed some degree of science education.
You're absolutely right...
Nobody asked Shawyer to prove anything as he should be wise enough to see it is clearly not his expertise field.
but then....then...why persist - never the less - attempting to give such aggravating non-sense to what appear to be some valid questions?
My rant is by no means an attack on his qualification as an engineer or a person, but has everything to do with his outrageous ability to shoot himself in the foot or cutting the branch he's sitting on...

I am totally baffled that as an engineer,  he even dares to produce answers like these, without considering the remote possibility of a PR disaster :
How is thrust measured?   With great care.

That is not the answer I'd expect from a qualified engineer.... so....

-Either it is deliberately "playing stupid" in order to say a lot , but reveal nothing. But then he's way better off by just telling nothing.

-Or he's so locked up in his mindset that he totally misses the point, that the art of how to communicate ideas is almost as important as the idea itself.

The resulting perception of such non-sense is one of charlatanism, which hurts a broader scientific interest in the EMdrive.

Even for a simple layman like me, with STEM college education and a MArch univ degree, I can't possibly understand that he, as a qualified engineer, can be satisfied with those ridiculously simplified answers.

It would be far better to let the results speak for themselves , instead of attempting to fabricate his own marketing material and communication strategies. In his specific case, it is horrendously contra-productive...

I find it rather interesting that you are trying to sell these posts as not an attack on his person, yet when reading from a disinterested standpoint they sure do come across that way?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: moreno7798 on 07/15/2017 02:29 pm
It is not wishful thinking:
http://www.emdrive.com/ShrivenhampresentationV.3.pdf
Bottom of slide 15 as attached:

For a change, I'd prefer to have the news from a different angle : from Gilo themselves.

TBH TT, the communications coming from either you or Shawyer do not inspire much confidence anymore.

The ridiculous belittling style of that "military slideshow presentation" had a seriously negative impact on me.
It really undermines the credibility of the little valuable information it holds.
Roger may be an excellent engineer and a nice and kind person to talk to, but his marketing and communication style is an outright disaster.
It is already extremely hard to get such a controversial topic , as the EMdrive (with its apparent violation of CoM), digested/accepted by highly critical scientific crowd. On top of that, his (and yours) communication style only makes it a lot worse....

This here below is a communication killer, as it leaves a very negative perception with anybody that enjoyed some degree of science education:
Quote
How is Momentum Conserved?  EmDrive obeys Newton’s Laws
How is force produced?    Radiation Pressure. Maxwell.
Why are the end plate forces different?     Different group velocities due to different diameters. Cullen 1952
How is the force multiplied?     EmDrive is a Resonant cavity with a multiplication factor Q. Bailey 1955
Why is EmDrive an Open System?      Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity
Why are there no side wall forces?  Thrust due to travelling waves not standing waves.
How is energy conserved?  EmDrive is an electrical machine.
What limits thrust in high Q thrusters?  Internal Doppler shift.
How is thrust calculated?   Thrust equation.
How is thrust measured?   With great care.
This might impress a drill-sergeant... but that's hardly the public inhere that is interested in science, no?

alright....I'll confess.... I had to suppress a feeling of anger, after reading that page...

I had it with hollow, fancy buzz words and promises of flying cars...

In good tradition of scientific research, I want to see results...good or bad...
No more words, no more promises... the real deal is what we're all awaiting for...

All I'm really interested in is this:
https://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdf (https://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdf)

Now, tell me how that is wrong.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 07/15/2017 03:15 pm
All I'm really interested in is this:
https://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdf (https://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdf)

Now, tell me how that is wrong.
I assume you have not taken any classes in electrodynamics, because if you had , it shouldn't be hard to find dozens of errors in Shawyer's papers.

First error is the original statement of force difference between the end plates ignoring the force on the sidewalls.

Next, he points to the Lorentz force equation and puts in the "group velocity of the EM wave" rather than "the velocity of the charged particle" which is the actual definition of v in that equation.

After that he makes a claim that special relativity magically makes it an open system. There is nothing in special relativity that supports this.

And that is all just on one page. Need more?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 07/15/2017 04:42 pm
All I'm really interested in is this:

https://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdf (https://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdf)

Now, tell me how that is wrong.
I assume you have not taken any classes in electrodynamics, because if you had , it shouldn't be hard to find dozens of errors in Shawyer's papers.

First error is the original statement of force difference between the end plates ignoring the force on the sidewalls.

Next, he points to the Lorentz force equation and puts in the "group velocity of the EM wave" rather than "the velocity of the charged particle" which is the actual definition of v in that equation.

After that he makes a claim that special relativity magically makes it an open system. There is nothing in special relativity that supports this.

And that is all just on one page. Need more?
I've stated from the start of my visits over 2 years ago, building several cavities and test stands that you can not have an enclosed system that self accelerates without having a path to the outside universe, otherwise stuff just bounces around according to dear old Maxwell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations

Even Dr. white's theory of Quantum Vacuum particles makes it outside the cavity and as does the MACH effects, or any theory that maybe causes a gravitational link or disturbance to the outside.

Anyone who says that they have a theory of just particles of light or matter that stay inside of the enclosed frame environment of the cavity bouncing around giving thrusts is going to get flack and questions asked in do they understand completely Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism have been called the "second great unification in physics" and I don't believe Shawyer's theories trump them.

Further reading.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law

My Very Best,
Shell

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 07/15/2017 05:58 pm
A micromechanical proof-of-principle experiment for measuring the gravitational force of milligram masses


Quote
This paper addresses a simple question: how small can one make a
gravitational source mass and still detect its gravitational coupling to a nearby test
mass? We describe an experimental scheme based on micromechanical sensing to
observe gravity between milligram-scale source masses, thereby improving the current
smallest source mass values by three orders of magnitude and possibly even more.
We also discuss the implications of such measurements both for improved precision
measurements of Newton’s constant and for a new generation of experiments at the
interface between quantum physics and gravity.
....
For this reason, simply scaling down a Cavendish experiment is not sufficient
to measure the gravitational effects of small source masses.
Instead, we periodically modulate the gravitational potential created by a small
source mass in order to resonantly enhance the amplitude response of a cantilever test
mass.

‡ For simplicity we assume that the effective mass of the oscillator mode is identical to the gravitational
mass.
§ The frequency shifts in actual measurements of G are typically one order of magnitude higher, as
the geometry of a torsion balance pendulum is only vaguely approximated by our 1-dimensional, linear
model.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.07539.pdf
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/15/2017 08:10 pm
It is not wishful thinking:
http://www.emdrive.com/ShrivenhampresentationV.3.pdf
Bottom of slide 15 as attached:

For a change, I'd prefer to have the news from a different angle : from Gilo themselves.

TBH TT, the communications coming from either you or Shawyer do not inspire much confidence anymore.

The ridiculous belittling style of that "military slideshow presentation" had a seriously negative impact on me.
It really undermines the credibility of the little valuable information it holds.
Roger may be an excellent engineer and a nice and kind person to talk to, but his marketing and communication style is an outright disaster.
It is already extremely hard to get such a controversial topic , as the EMdrive (with its apparent violation of CoM), digested/accepted by highly critical scientific crowd. On top of that, his (and yours) communication style only makes it a lot worse....

This here below is a communication killer, as it leaves a very negative perception with anybody that enjoyed some degree of science education:
Quote
How is Momentum Conserved?  EmDrive obeys Newton’s Laws
How is force produced?    Radiation Pressure. Maxwell.
Why are the end plate forces different?     Different group velocities due to different diameters. Cullen 1952
How is the force multiplied?     EmDrive is a Resonant cavity with a multiplication factor Q. Bailey 1955
Why is EmDrive an Open System?      Einstein’s theory of Special Relativity
Why are there no side wall forces?  Thrust due to travelling waves not standing waves.
How is energy conserved?  EmDrive is an electrical machine.
What limits thrust in high Q thrusters?  Internal Doppler shift.
How is thrust calculated?   Thrust equation.
How is thrust measured?   With great care.
This might impress a drill-sergeant... but that's hardly the public inhere that is interested in science, no?

alright....I'll confess.... I had to suppress a feeling of anger, after reading that page...

I had it with hollow, fancy buzz words and promises of flying cars...

In good tradition of scientific research, I want to see results...good or bad...
No more words, no more promises... the real deal is what we're all awaiting for...

All I'm really interested in is this:
https://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdf (https://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdf)

Now, tell me how that is wrong.

You should be really interested in Shawyer's work! There seems to be a general consensus here that Shawyer's theory as to how it works is flawed yet obviously, there is enough serious interest that the EMDrive may indeed work that many are pursuing builds and tests. But Shawyer's insights with microwave engineering led him to his concept and his equation. As a working equation, Shawyer's thrust equation seems also to have some predictive power even if the derivation is flawed, perhaps it's close to, or an approximation to the correct equation that could be derived from correct physics.

Remember that Shawyer is an engineer, not a theoretical physicist which may have allowed him the freedom to explore this concept without giving up first as theory might have convinced him the whole thing is impossible. In other words, he didn't outsmart himself. So, please take the criticism of Shawyer's theory paper in context. If it really works, he is the inventor of a device of major importance and that also will lead directly to a better understanding of physics.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/15/2017 08:37 pm
All I'm really interested in is this:

https://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdf (https://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdf)

Now, tell me how that is wrong.
I assume you have not taken any classes in electrodynamics, because if you had , it shouldn't be hard to find dozens of errors in Shawyer's papers.

First error is the original statement of force difference between the end plates ignoring the force on the sidewalls.

Next, he points to the Lorentz force equation and puts in the "group velocity of the EM wave" rather than "the velocity of the charged particle" which is the actual definition of v in that equation.

After that he makes a claim that special relativity magically makes it an open system. There is nothing in special relativity that supports this.

And that is all just on one page. Need more?
I've stated from the start of my visits over 2 years ago, building several cavities and test stands that you can not have an enclosed system that self accelerates without having a path to the outside universe, otherwise stuff just bounces around according to dear old Maxwell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations

Even Dr. white's theory of Quantum Vacuum particles makes it outside the cavity and as does the MACH effects, or any theory that maybe causes a gravitational link or disturbance to the outside.

Anyone who says that they have a theory of just particles of light or matter that stay inside of the enclosed frame environment of the cavity bouncing around giving thrusts is going to get flack and questions asked in do they understand completely Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism have been called the "second great unification in physics" and I don't believe Shawyer's theories trump them.

Further reading.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law

My Very Best,
Shell

Since the microwave energy gets converted to heat (phonons) in the cavity walls, and that heat must ultimately propagate to the outer surface and radiate away, it's not truly a closed system with respect to radiation and should be able to at least provide a reduced photon thrust in some direction by virtue of the Stephan-Boltzmann law of radiation. I don't  think it's even possible to have a perfectly closed system with respect to electromagnetic radiation. Has anyone modeled that aspect of the cavity design? Thanks.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 07/15/2017 08:51 pm
All I'm really interested in is this:

https://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdf (https://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdf)

Now, tell me how that is wrong.
I assume you have not taken any classes in electrodynamics, because if you had , it shouldn't be hard to find dozens of errors in Shawyer's papers.

First error is the original statement of force difference between the end plates ignoring the force on the sidewalls.

Next, he points to the Lorentz force equation and puts in the "group velocity of the EM wave" rather than "the velocity of the charged particle" which is the actual definition of v in that equation.

After that he makes a claim that special relativity magically makes it an open system. There is nothing in special relativity that supports this.

And that is all just on one page. Need more?
I've stated from the start of my visits over 2 years ago, building several cavities and test stands that you can not have an enclosed system that self accelerates without having a path to the outside universe, otherwise stuff just bounces around according to dear old Maxwell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations

Even Dr. white's theory of Quantum Vacuum particles makes it outside the cavity and as does the MACH effects, or any theory that maybe causes a gravitational link or disturbance to the outside.

Anyone who says that they have a theory of just particles of light or matter that stay inside of the enclosed frame environment of the cavity bouncing around giving thrusts is going to get flack and questions asked in do they understand completely Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism have been called the "second great unification in physics" and I don't believe Shawyer's theories trump them.

Further reading.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law

My Very Best,
Shell

Since the microwave energy gets converted to heat (phonons) in the cavity walls, and that heat must ultimately propagate to the outer surface and radiate away, it's not truly a closed system with respect to radiation and should be able to at least provide a reduced photon thrust in some direction by virtue of the Stephan-Boltzmann law of radiation. I don't  think it's even possible to have a perfectly closed system with respect to electromagnetic radiation. Has anyone modeled that aspect of the cavity design? Thanks.
This was discussed during the past threads from the beginning on. We talk about much more thrust than generated by a photon rocket.
Quote
The observed thrust of experimental results has been argued to exceed the maximum efficiency of a perfectly collimated photon rocket, comprised between 3.33 and 6.67 µN/kW.
http://www.wikiwand.com/en/RF_resonant_cavity_thruster

However, you are right about there is no perfect isolated system within our universe.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 07/15/2017 10:20 pm
All I'm really interested in is this:

https://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdf (https://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdf)

Now, tell me how that is wrong.
I assume you have not taken any classes in electrodynamics, because if you had , it shouldn't be hard to find dozens of errors in Shawyer's papers.

First error is the original statement of force difference between the end plates ignoring the force on the sidewalls.

Next, he points to the Lorentz force equation and puts in the "group velocity of the EM wave" rather than "the velocity of the charged particle" which is the actual definition of v in that equation.

After that he makes a claim that special relativity magically makes it an open system. There is nothing in special relativity that supports this.

And that is all just on one page. Need more?
--
Further reading.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law

My Very Best,
Shell

Since the microwave energy gets converted to heat (phonons) in the cavity walls, and that heat must ultimately propagate to the outer surface and radiate away, it's not truly a closed system with respect to radiation and should be able to at least provide a reduced photon thrust in some direction by virtue of the Stephan-Boltzmann law of radiation. I don't  think it's even possible to have a perfectly closed system with respect to electromagnetic radiation. Has anyone modeled that aspect of the cavity design? Thanks.
This was discussed during the past threads from the beginning on. We talk about much more thrust than generated by a photon rocket.
Quote
The observed thrust of experimental results has been argued to exceed the maximum efficiency of a perfectly collimated photon rocket, comprised between 3.33 and 6.67 µN/kW.
http://www.wikiwand.com/en/RF_resonant_cavity_thruster

However, you are right about there is no perfect isolated system within our universe.

One had only look at gravitational waves and high energy errant photons. Oh and the QV is of course always volatile with spontaneous aggregations of energy. There used to be a great deal of enthusiasm about the excitation of the quantum vacuum. Well  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Req on 07/16/2017 01:39 am
All I'm really interested in is this:

https://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdf (https://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdf)

Now, tell me how that is wrong.
I assume you have not taken any classes in electrodynamics, because if you had , it shouldn't be hard to find dozens of errors in Shawyer's papers.

First error is the original statement of force difference between the end plates ignoring the force on the sidewalls.

Next, he points to the Lorentz force equation and puts in the "group velocity of the EM wave" rather than "the velocity of the charged particle" which is the actual definition of v in that equation.

After that he makes a claim that special relativity magically makes it an open system. There is nothing in special relativity that supports this.

And that is all just on one page. Need more?
I've stated from the start of my visits over 2 years ago, building several cavities and test stands that you can not have an enclosed system that self accelerates without having a path to the outside universe, otherwise stuff just bounces around according to dear old Maxwell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations

Even Dr. white's theory of Quantum Vacuum particles makes it outside the cavity and as does the MACH effects, or any theory that maybe causes a gravitational link or disturbance to the outside.

Anyone who says that they have a theory of just particles of light or matter that stay inside of the enclosed frame environment of the cavity bouncing around giving thrusts is going to get flack and questions asked in do they understand completely Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism have been called the "second great unification in physics" and I don't believe Shawyer's theories trump them.

Further reading.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law

My Very Best,
Shell

Since the microwave energy gets converted to heat (phonons) in the cavity walls, and that heat must ultimately propagate to the outer surface and radiate away, it's not truly a closed system with respect to radiation and should be able to at least provide a reduced photon thrust in some direction by virtue of the Stephan-Boltzmann law of radiation. I don't  think it's even possible to have a perfectly closed system with respect to electromagnetic radiation. Has anyone modeled that aspect of the cavity design? Thanks.

Bob, I think I speak for pretty much everybody when asking that you please do not make this into another Blacklight Power thread.  Shawyer does not need or want your defense, and it's not even useful given that many people here are actually trying to advance the overall goal already.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 07/16/2017 02:23 pm
A micromechanical proof-of-principle experiment for measuring the gravitational force of milligram masses


Quote
This paper addresses a simple question: how small can one make a
gravitational source mass and still detect its gravitational coupling to a nearby test
mass? We describe an experimental scheme based on micromechanical sensing to
observe gravity between milligram-scale source masses, thereby improving the current
smallest source mass values by three orders of magnitude and possibly even more.
We also discuss the implications of such measurements both for improved precision
measurements of Newton’s constant and for a new generation of experiments at the
interface between quantum physics and gravity.
....
For this reason, simply scaling down a Cavendish experiment is not sufficient
to measure the gravitational effects of small source masses.
Instead, we periodically modulate the gravitational potential created by a small
source mass in order to resonantly enhance the amplitude response of a cantilever test
mass.

‡ For simplicity we assume that the effective mass of the oscillator mode is identical to the gravitational
mass.
§ The frequency shifts in actual measurements of G are typically one order of magnitude higher, as
the geometry of a torsion balance pendulum is only vaguely approximated by our 1-dimensional, linear
model.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.07539.pdf

I'm having a little difficulty understanding this in detail. Equation 3d seems to have different units of measure than 3a, b & c. Is x(t) a position, displacement or signal strength? Also, their terminologies like, "mechanical susceptibility" and "displacement power" are unfamiliar to me.

Anyone care to explain?

Thanks.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 07/16/2017 07:05 pm
A micromechanical proof-of-principle experiment for measuring the gravitational force of milligram masses


Quote
This paper addresses a simple question: how small can one make a
gravitational source mass and still detect its gravitational coupling to a nearby test
mass? We describe an experimental scheme based on micromechanical sensing to
observe gravity between milligram-scale source masses, thereby improving the current
smallest source mass values by three orders of magnitude and possibly even more.
We also discuss the implications of such measurements both for improved precision
measurements of Newton’s constant and for a new generation of experiments at the
interface between quantum physics and gravity.
....
For this reason, simply scaling down a Cavendish experiment is not sufficient
to measure the gravitational effects of small source masses.
Instead, we periodically modulate the gravitational potential created by a small
source mass in order to resonantly enhance the amplitude response of a cantilever test
mass.

‡ For simplicity we assume that the effective mass of the oscillator mode is identical to the gravitational
mass.
§ The frequency shifts in actual measurements of G are typically one order of magnitude higher, as
the geometry of a torsion balance pendulum is only vaguely approximated by our 1-dimensional, linear
model.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.07539.pdf

I'm having a little difficulty understanding this in detail. Equation 3d seems to have different units of measure than 3a, b & c. Is x(t) a position, displacement or signal strength? Also, their terminologies like, "mechanical susceptibility" and "displacement power" are unfamiliar to me.

Anyone care to explain?

Thanks.

Equation 3d has the same dimensions as Eq. 3c




x is a position

(x0 − xsup) is a difference between positions, which gives you a displacement




"displacement power spectral density" Sxx has units of m2 /Hz = s* m2  (square meter times second)

Explanation: Power spectral density in general has units of whatever you measure, squared, and divided by frequency.  So if you measure displacement in meters, it has units of m2/Hz.
If you measure acceleration in g's, "acceleration power spectral density" would have units of g2/Hz or if you measure in (m/s2) it would have units of (m/s2)2/Hz.  If you measure velocity, "velocity power spectral density"will have units of (m/s)2/Hz.




"displacement power" Pxx has units of m2  (square meter)

Explanation: "displacement power" Pxx is defined in p.5 immediately prior to Eq. (3) as the integral of Sxx with respect to omega.  So the integral of something measured in m2/Hz with respect to frequency, will have units of m2.




The transfer function TE is dimensionless (the way it is defined in the paper)




Q is dimensionless




"mechanical susceptibility" is defined in the text, p.5 after Eq. (2)




Think of these quantities as "analogs to..." Obviously m^2 is a unit of surface area, and not a unit of power, and so on.  Ditto for the transfer function being dimensionless...
Or you can think of some implicit constants being defined as unity, like in General Relativity, we take the speed of light c=1, instead of 299 792 458 m / s, and we use in GR -t +x instead of -t*c +x , which looks wrong since time and position have different units, but it is right if you take c=1 . 

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mark7777777 on 07/16/2017 08:34 pm
http://cannae.com/cannae-exhibit-at-the-henry-ford-museum/

JUNE 2, 2017

CANNAE EXHIBIT AT THE HENRY FORD MUSEUM
Our media partner House Industries has a display at the Henry Ford Museum, in Dearborn, MI.  In the display are featured artifacts, images and design work for the Cannae Inc. thruster project.  In this image, you can see a copper resonating cavity, some 3D printed satellite models and a variety of Cannae logos and images.  House Industries also has 2 pages featured on Cannae in their new book, “House Industries: The Process is the Inspiration,” which is available on Amazon.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 07/16/2017 09:34 pm
A micromechanical proof-of-principle experiment for measuring the gravitational force of milligram masses

...
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.07539.pdf

I'm having a little difficulty understanding this in detail. Equation 3d seems to have different units of measure than 3a, b & c. Is x(t) a position, displacement or signal strength? Also, their terminologies like, "mechanical susceptibility" and "displacement power" are unfamiliar to me.

Anyone care to explain?

Thanks.

Equation 3d has the same dimensions as Eq. 3c


No, it doesn't. 3c has units of m2 but 3d has units of m2/s. There's no way to multiply by c and get that. The Gamma at the end makes the units different.
Quote from: Rodal



x is a position

(x0 − xsup) is a difference between positions, which gives you a displacement




"displacement power spectral density" Sxx has units of m2 /Hz = s* m2  (square meter times second)

Explanation: Power spectral density in general has units of whatever you measure, squared, and divided by frequency.  So if you measure displacement in meters, it has units of m2/Hz.
If you measure acceleration in g's, "acceleration power spectral density" would have units of g2/Hz or if you measure in (m/s2) it would have units of (m/s2)2/Hz.  If you measure velocity, "velocity power spectral density"will have units of (m/s)2/Hz.



Okay, but equation [2] has units of m2, not m2/Hz, and the 2nd term on 2nd line of equation [2] has units of Watts/kg. It contradicts the definition.
Quote from: Rodal



"displacement power" Pxx has units of m2  (square meter)

Explanation: "displacement power" Pxx is defined in p.5 immediately prior to Eq. (3) as the integral of Sxx with respect to omega.  So the integral of something measured in m2/Hz with respect to frequency, will have units of m2.




The transfer function TE is dimensionless (the way it is defined in the paper)




Q is dimensionless




"mechanical susceptibility" is defined in the text, p.5 after Eq. (2)




Think of these quantities as "analogs to..." Obviously m^2 is a unit of surface area, and not a unit of power, and so on.  Ditto for the transfer function being dimensionless...
Or you can think of some implicit constants being defined as unity, like in General Relativity, we take the speed of light c=1, instead of 299 792 458 m / s, and we use in GR -t +x instead of -t*c +x , which looks wrong since time and position have different units, but it is right if you take c=1 .

Thanks for this. The right constant's to use to correct the units are not obvious. It makes it very difficult to follow and gain understanding when the equations fail dimensional analysis. It's fine to abbreviate in cases where it does not cause confusion. This is not one of those cases IMO. :o
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 07/16/2017 09:42 pm
A micromechanical proof-of-principle experiment for measuring the gravitational force of milligram masses

...
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.07539.pdf

I'm having a little difficulty understanding this in detail. Equation 3d seems to have different units of measure than 3a, b & c. Is x(t) a position, displacement or signal strength? Also, their terminologies like, "mechanical susceptibility" and "displacement power" are unfamiliar to me.

Anyone care to explain?

Thanks.

Equation 3d has the same dimensions as Eq. 3c


No, it doesn't. 3c has units of m2 but 3d has units of m2/s.
Wrong. Eq. 3d has unit of m2 as I proved previously.

Pxx has units of m2
Q is dimensionless
TE is dimensionless
Sxx has units of m2/Hz=m2 / (1/sec)=m2  * s
Γ has units of 1/sec

If you multiply

Q xTE xSxx xΓ= 1 x 1 x (m2 /(1/s)) x (1/s) = m2

When you multiply   (m2/Hz) * (1/s) you get units of m2, because the unit of time cancels out.

Please let's not make this into a never ending argument back and forth on whether you don't like their choice of units.  You said that you had difficulty understanding the units. They are as I defined above.  Equations 3 c an 3 d have the same units for displacement power: m2.

I am not going to discuss the units in the other equations as I have work to do and  I thought I was just helping here, did not want to get into a never ending argument about the definition of units in somebody else's paper  ::)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 07/16/2017 10:57 pm
No much EmDrive news lately… Since this thread has somewhat calmed down a bit, for those interested in the hypothesis of negative energy states and negative mass in cosmology, and their profound implication for spacetime engineering and interstellar travel, I wrote a few posts starting page 4 and ongoing of the parallel NSF thread Theoretical FTL.

This is not directly connected to resonant cavities but as an aside on the (anti)gravitational hypotheses of the EmDrive as well as space flight applications, some readers here may find the subject interesting, in particular for those interested in the theoretical aspects of general relativity.

Thanks to dustinthewind for having triggered those posts with his former questions about the lack of primordial antimatter in the universe, dark matter, the direction of the arrow of time, and parallel dimensions, which perfectly fit the cosmological model presented.

There is also a theoretical discussion about how energy density and pressure are related in physics, and the sign (positive or negative) of those quantities in general relativity.

Comments are welcome of course: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13542.msg1701797#msg1701797 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13542.msg1701797#msg1701797)

N.B.: A series of videos presenting the model are currently in the process of being subtitled in English. More on that later.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: chongma on 07/17/2017 10:49 am
recent summary video posted on youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M51c6DrzJU0
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 07/17/2017 02:29 pm
A micromechanical proof-of-principle experiment for measuring the gravitational force of milligram masses

...
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.07539.pdf

I'm having a little difficulty understanding this in detail. Equation 3d seems to have different units of measure than 3a, b & c. Is x(t) a position, displacement or signal strength? Also, their terminologies like, "mechanical susceptibility" and "displacement power" are unfamiliar to me.

Anyone care to explain?

Thanks.

Equation 3d has the same dimensions as Eq. 3c


No, it doesn't. 3c has units of m2 but 3d has units of m2/s.
Wrong. Eq. 3d has unit of m2 as I proved previously.

Pxx has units of m2
Q is dimensionless
TE is dimensionless
Sxx has units of m2/Hz=m2 / (1/sec)=m2  * s
Γ has units of 1/sec

If you multiply

Q xTE xSxx xΓ= 1 x 1 x (m2 /(1/s)) x (1/s) = m2

When you multiply   (m2/Hz) * (1/s) you get units of m2, because the unit of time cancels out.

Please let's not make this into a never ending argument back and forth on whether you don't like their choice of units.  You said that you had difficulty understanding the units. They are as I defined above.  Equations 3 c an 3 d have the same units for displacement power: m2.

I am not going to discuss the units in the other equations as I have work to do and  I thought I was just helping here, did not want to get into a never ending argument about the definition of units in somebody else's paper  ::)
I have a few more minutes now to show that Eq. 3b (the displacement power due to thermal noise) in p.5 of https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.07539.pdf is also dimensionally correct and consistent with the units of Eq. 3c and 3d, all of these additive terms having units of square meter, the unit of displacement power Pxx:

Pxx (displacement power) has units of m2
Q (quality factor of resonance) is dimensionless
ωo (angular frequency) has units of 1/s
kB  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_constant) has units of J/K=(kg*m2/s2)/K  (where m=meter).  Where I used the fact that energy has units of force times length, and force has units of mass times acceleration, therefore energy has units of mass times acceleration times length.
m (test mass) has units of kg
T (temperature) has units of K (Kelvin)
Γ has units of 1/sec

If you multiply

Q x(1/ωo 3)xkBxTx(1/m)xΓ= 1 x(s3)x[(kg m2/s2)/K]x(1/kg)xKx(1/s)=m2

you get square meters, the units of "displacement power" Pxx  (*)

QED (quod erat demonstrandum)

(http://cdn.iopscience.com/images/0264-9381/33/12/125031/Full/cqgaa23bff1_lr.jpg)
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-FD_t3XySmeQ/VughXfW626I/AAAAAAAADAI/zeReDXfEbKge98O7qwBYt86uZY5TrzUvg/s1600/aspelmeyer.jpg)
(http://aspelmeyer.quantum.at/fileadmin/_processed_/csm_millig_descriptive_6b5da62b06.png)




Now, for Eq. 3a (the displacement power due to gravitational force) in p.5 of https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.07539.pdf is also dimensionally correct and consistent with the units of Eq. 3b, 3c and 3d, all of these additive terms having units of square meter, the unit of displacement power Pxx:

Pxx (displacement power) has units of m2
Q (quality factor of resonance) is dimensionless
ωo (angular frequency) has units of 1/s
G (Newton's gravitational constant) has units of m3/(kg s2)
M (source mass) has units of kg
ds (displacement amplitude of sinusoidal excitation of the source mass) has units of length (m)
do (distance between source mass M  to the test mass m) has units of length (m)

If you multiply

Q x(1/ωo 4)x(G M)2xds2/do6= 1 x(s4)x{[m3/(kg s2)] kg}2x m2/m6=m2

you get square meters, the units of "displacement power" Pxx 

QED (quod erat demonstrandum)

-------------------
(*) The right hand side of the equation is expressed in terms of SI units.  Therefore, while "m" in the left-hand side of the equation stands for mass -the symbol used by the authors-, notice that "m" in the right-hand side of the equation stands for the SI unit of length: meter. 
"x" stands for "times": the multiplication symbol.

(http://cdn.iopscience.com/images/0264-9381/33/12/125031/Full/cqgaa23bff2_lr.jpg)

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 07/17/2017 07:03 pm
...you get square meters, the units of "displacement power" Pxx 

QED (quod erat demonstrandum)

-------------------
(*) The right hand side of the equation is expressed in terms of SI units.  Therefore, while "m" in the left-hand side of the equation stands for mass -the symbol used by the authors-, notice that "m" in the right-hand side of the equation stands for the SI unit of length: meter. 
"x" stands for "times": the multiplication symbol.


What you say is perfectly correct. I saw this yesterday "provided" Sxx has units of m2/Hz. However, if you look at the first line of their equation 2, I get m2, but line 2 of equation 2 gives m2/Hz. So there seems to be a factor of "time" missing in the first line. That is what caused the confusion. It must be that the Delta function has units of "s", because I don't see anywhere else it could be.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/17/2017 07:06 pm
All I'm really interested in is this:

https://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdf (https://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdf)

Now, tell me how that is wrong.
I assume you have not taken any classes in electrodynamics, because if you had , it shouldn't be hard to find dozens of errors in Shawyer's papers.

First error is the original statement of force difference between the end plates ignoring the force on the sidewalls.

Next, he points to the Lorentz force equation and puts in the "group velocity of the EM wave" rather than "the velocity of the charged particle" which is the actual definition of v in that equation.

After that he makes a claim that special relativity magically makes it an open system. There is nothing in special relativity that supports this.

And that is all just on one page. Need more?
I've stated from the start of my visits over 2 years ago, building several cavities and test stands that you can not have an enclosed system that self accelerates without having a path to the outside universe, otherwise stuff just bounces around according to dear old Maxwell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations

Even Dr. white's theory of Quantum Vacuum particles makes it outside the cavity and as does the MACH effects, or any theory that maybe causes a gravitational link or disturbance to the outside.

Anyone who says that they have a theory of just particles of light or matter that stay inside of the enclosed frame environment of the cavity bouncing around giving thrusts is going to get flack and questions asked in do they understand completely Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism have been called the "second great unification in physics" and I don't believe Shawyer's theories trump them.

Further reading.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law

My Very Best,
Shell

Since the microwave energy gets converted to heat (phonons) in the cavity walls, and that heat must ultimately propagate to the outer surface and radiate away, it's not truly a closed system with respect to radiation and should be able to at least provide a reduced photon thrust in some direction by virtue of the Stephan-Boltzmann law of radiation. I don't  think it's even possible to have a perfectly closed system with respect to electromagnetic radiation. Has anyone modeled that aspect of the cavity design? Thanks.
This was discussed during the past threads from the beginning on. We talk about much more thrust than generated by a photon rocket.
Quote
The observed thrust of experimental results has been argued to exceed the maximum efficiency of a perfectly collimated photon rocket, comprised between 3.33 and 6.67 µN/kW.
http://www.wikiwand.com/en/RF_resonant_cavity_thruster

However, you are right about there is no perfect isolated system within our universe.

Yes, I know about the enhanced thrust over a pure photon rocket! I should have been more clear. I'm wondering if there couldn't be some mechanism of enhancement due to the configuration since photon thrust is power/c yet radiated power goes as temperature raised to the fourth power as per the Stephan-Boltzmann Law. Photons, phonons and power are not conserved quantities. Energy is. So for a given energy, can the photon power, and thus thrust, be enhanced by clever use of the SB law? That was implied in the modeling question. I suspect not but don't know. If so, it would certainly give new meaning to the term 'heat engine'  ;D Thanks.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 07/17/2017 07:28 pm
...you get square meters, the units of "displacement power" Pxx 

QED (quod erat demonstrandum)

-------------------
(*) The right hand side of the equation is expressed in terms of SI units.  Therefore, while "m" in the left-hand side of the equation stands for mass -the symbol used by the authors-, notice that "m" in the right-hand side of the equation stands for the SI unit of length: meter. 
"x" stands for "times": the multiplication symbol.


What you say is perfectly correct. I saw this yesterday "provided" Sxx has units of m2/Hz. However, if you look at the first line of their equation 2, I get m2, but line 2 of equation 2 gives m2/Hz. So there seems to be a factor of "time" missing in the first line. That is what caused the confusion. It must be that the Delta function has units of "s", because I don't see anywhere else it could be.
Their Eq. (2) is also correct dimensionally.  The text calls the Appendix, where the origin of this equation is fully explained.

1) the first factor in absolute value brackets in their Eq. (2), χ, has dimensions of inverse squared frequency (1/ω2), hence it has dimensions of time squared, in SI units: s2

2) the second factor in absolute value brackets in their Eq. (2), is defined as the amplitude of the system and it has dimensions of frequency squared ω2, which, when squared and multiplied by the first factor squared, χ2 , cancel out, so all you have left is dS2 which has dimensions of length square times the Dirac Delta function of frequency.

By standard definition, the Dirac delta function always has the same dimensions as the inverse of its argument,

(if you forgot this fact and you need an Internet reference, see for example:  https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/33760/what-are-the-units-or-dimensions-of-the-dirac-delta-function)

since the argument of the Dirac delta function in Eq.(2) is frequency, the Dirac delta functions has dimensions of inverse frequency in this case.

Therefore you are left with dimensions of length square divided by frequency, which is consistent with the definition of displacement power spectral density : m2/ Hz.

consistent with what I posted here:  https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1702885#msg1702885

Explanation: Power spectral density in general has units of whatever you measure, squared, and divided by frequency.  So if you measure displacement in meters, it has units of m2/Hz.
If you measure acceleration in g's, "acceleration power spectral density" would have units of g2/Hz or if you measure in (m/s2) it would have units of (m/s2)2/Hz.  If you measure velocity, "velocity power spectral density"will have units of (m/s)2/Hz.

QED (quod erat demonstrandum)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/18/2017 02:07 am
3D printer arrived! I have it set up and fully calibrated. A test model was printed and the quality is very good!  ;D

I should be able to start printing the spherical end-plates as early as tomorrow. I want to double check the geometry of the 3D models as they were created several weeks ago.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 07/18/2017 07:17 am
3D printer arrived! I have it set up and fully calibrated. A test model was printed and the quality is very good!  ;D

I should be able to start printing the spherical end-plates as early as tomorrow. I want to double check the geometry of the 3D models as they were created several weeks ago.

Monomorphic,
I am concerned that this highly distracting device will delay your test campaign  ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 07/18/2017 10:12 am
2nd paper about the EmDrive and McCulloch's MiHsC just published in EPL and freely available:

• McCulloch, M. E. (July 2017). "Testing quantised inertia on emdrives with dielectrics" (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1209/0295-5075/118/34003/pdf) (PDF). EPL. 118 (3). doi:10.1209/0295-5075/118/34003.

In this second EPL paper, the speed of light does not vary anymore within the cavity. Instead, more Unruh waves fit the wide end of the cavity than its narrow end, continuously shifting the center of inertial mass of the microwaves towards the wide end: the cavity then has to move towards the small end, for momentum to be conserved. As the speed of light does not change in the latter model, there is no more relativistic violation, which was the main criticism of the 1st paper.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/18/2017 02:45 pm
There area a few ways of doing this, but to conserve filament and maintain geometry and strength, I will be using break-away supports. I'm also able to save on filament using a 20% infill.  Each big end spherical quarter is ~136 cm3.  For a total of 544 cm3. Which is something like 250 meters of filament.

Correction, Pronterface says each quarter is 63 meters of filament and will take 18 hours each to print!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 07/18/2017 04:53 pm
2nd paper about the EmDrive and McCulloch's MiHsC just published in EPL and freely available:

• McCulloch, M. E. (July 2017). "Testing quantised inertia on emdrives with dielectrics" (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1209/0295-5075/118/34003/pdf) (PDF). EPL. 118 (3). doi:10.1209/0295-5075/118/34003.

In this second EPL paper, the speed of light does not vary anymore within the cavity. Instead, more Unruh waves fit the wide end of the cavity than its narrow end, continuously shifting the center of inertial mass of the microwaves towards the wide end: the cavity then has to move towards the small end, for momentum to be conserved. As the speed of light does not change in the latter model, there is no more relativistic violation, which was the main criticism of the 1st paper.

I read the paper a couple of weeks ago. His equations apparently conserve momentum between the frustum and the EM momentum inside, but it still remains unclear how momentum escapes from inside the cavity to propel the frustum. He relies on his theory and the assumption that the difference in the Unruh spectrum between the two ends is enough to result in thrust. IMO, the real mechanism is the power being lost "inefficiently" to heating the copper and the air, where the exchange of momentum between the photons and the random moving atoms  is non-conservative.

Todd
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/18/2017 05:26 pm
First layer adhesion successful. That is usually a good sign. Now so long as the power doesn't go out I should be fine. I will pick up a beefy uninterruptible power supply (UPS) tomorrow. This printer draws 70W.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saOVV9tYwjM
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 07/18/2017 06:36 pm
First layer adhesion successful. That is usually a good sign. Now so long as the power doesn't go out I should be fine. I will pick up a beefy uninterruptible power supply (UPS) tomorrow. This printer draws 70W.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saOVV9tYwjM
Wish I had a "love" button on here instead of a "like". Very sweet monomorphic!

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/18/2017 08:15 pm
2nd paper about the EmDrive and McCulloch's MiHsC just published in EPL and freely available:

• McCulloch, M. E. (July 2017). "Testing quantised inertia on emdrives with dielectrics" (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1209/0295-5075/118/34003/pdf) (PDF). EPL. 118 (3). doi:10.1209/0295-5075/118/34003.

In this second EPL paper, the speed of light does not vary anymore within the cavity. Instead, more Unruh waves fit the wide end of the cavity than its narrow end, continuously shifting the center of inertial mass of the microwaves towards the wide end: the cavity then has to move towards the small end, for momentum to be conserved. As the speed of light does not change in the latter model, there is no more relativistic violation, which was the main criticism of the 1st paper.

I read the paper a couple of weeks ago. His equations apparently conserve momentum between the frustum and the EM momentum inside, but it still remains unclear how momentum escapes from inside the cavity to propel the frustum. He relies on his theory and the assumption that the difference in the Unruh spectrum between the two ends is enough to result in thrust. IMO, the real mechanism is the power being lost "inefficiently" to heating the copper and the air, where the exchange of momentum between the photons and the random moving atoms  is non-conservative.

Todd

I can't think of any situation where such interactions could be non-conservative. I believe momentum is conserved on a photon by photon basis from photon generation to photon destruction and every interaction in between. As an aside, notice that the paper suggests the average index of refraction in the cavity plays a direct role.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 07/18/2017 09:06 pm
2nd paper about the EmDrive and McCulloch's MiHsC just published in EPL and freely available:

• McCulloch, M. E. (July 2017). "Testing quantised inertia on emdrives with dielectrics" (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1209/0295-5075/118/34003/pdf) (PDF). EPL. 118 (3). doi:10.1209/0295-5075/118/34003.

In this second EPL paper, the speed of light does not vary anymore within the cavity. Instead, more Unruh waves fit the wide end of the cavity than its narrow end, continuously shifting the center of inertial mass of the microwaves towards the wide end: the cavity then has to move towards the small end, for momentum to be conserved. As the speed of light does not change in the latter model, there is no more relativistic violation, which was the main criticism of the 1st paper.

I read the paper a couple of weeks ago. His equations apparently conserve momentum between the frustum and the EM momentum inside, but it still remains unclear how momentum escapes from inside the cavity to propel the frustum. He relies on his theory and the assumption that the difference in the Unruh spectrum between the two ends is enough to result in thrust. IMO, the real mechanism is the power being lost "inefficiently" to heating the copper and the air, where the exchange of momentum between the photons and the random moving atoms  is non-conservative.

Todd

I can't think of any situation where such interactions could be non-conservative. I believe momentum is conserved on a photon by photon basis from photon generation to photon destruction and every interaction in between. As an aside, notice that the paper suggests the average index of refraction in the cavity plays a direct role.

Dissipative forces like Friction, are non-conservative. The energy lost to heat is random, it cannot also be used for the kinetic energy put into thrust. As long as heat is being generated, some of the energy is not going into acceleration of the frustum. Your notion of "on a photon by photon basis" is an ideal situation, which assumes perfect conductors and no air to absorb momentum and recoils. It's not realistic.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SteveD on 07/18/2017 10:15 pm
Monomorphic, am I correct that the test article you are building has 3D printed endplates with sidewalls of some form of cardboard all covered with conductive tape?  Seems like an affordable build, though I am reminded of some of the construction materials used for early aircraft.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/18/2017 10:32 pm
Monomorphic, am I correct that the test article you are building has 3D printed endplates with sidewalls of some form of cardboard all covered with conductive tape?  Seems like an affordable build, though I am reminded of some of the construction materials used for early aircraft.

The sidewalls are constructed of clear plastic sheet, not cardboard. Cardboard was too wrinkly when formed into the necessary curve.  The plastic formed a nice smooth surface to adhere the EMI copper shielding adhesive foil to.  I picked up the plastic sheet at the local arts and crafts store. It is used by college art students for some kind of printing process.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/19/2017 12:26 am
2nd paper about the EmDrive and McCulloch's MiHsC just published in EPL and freely available:

• McCulloch, M. E. (July 2017). "Testing quantised inertia on emdrives with dielectrics" (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1209/0295-5075/118/34003/pdf) (PDF). EPL. 118 (3). doi:10.1209/0295-5075/118/34003.

In this second EPL paper, the speed of light does not vary anymore within the cavity. Instead, more Unruh waves fit the wide end of the cavity than its narrow end, continuously shifting the center of inertial mass of the microwaves towards the wide end: the cavity then has to move towards the small end, for momentum to be conserved. As the speed of light does not change in the latter model, there is no more relativistic violation, which was the main criticism of the 1st paper.

I read the paper a couple of weeks ago. His equations apparently conserve momentum between the frustum and the EM momentum inside, but it still remains unclear how momentum escapes from inside the cavity to propel the frustum. He relies on his theory and the assumption that the difference in the Unruh spectrum between the two ends is enough to result in thrust. IMO, the real mechanism is the power being lost "inefficiently" to heating the copper and the air, where the exchange of momentum between the photons and the random moving atoms  is non-conservative.

Todd

I can't think of any situation where such interactions could be non-conservative. I believe momentum is conserved on a photon by photon basis from photon generation to photon destruction and every interaction in between. As an aside, notice that the paper suggests the average index of refraction in the cavity plays a direct role.

Dissipative forces like Friction, are non-conservative. The energy lost to heat is random, it cannot also be used for the kinetic energy put into thrust. As long as heat is being generated, some of the energy is not going into acceleration of the frustum. Your notion of "on a photon by photon basis" is an ideal situation, which assumes perfect conductors and no air to absorb momentum and recoils. It's not realistic.

You brought non-conservative up in the context of generating thrust. Momentum is always conserved even with non-conservative forces. Yes, forces can be non-conservative and dissipative like, friction but that's never going to lead to a net thrust. You were talking about this dissipative forces leading to a net thrust. I don't see a thrust generating mechanism here.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: John Gallagher on 07/19/2017 12:56 am
New breakthrough discovery-every quantum particle travels backwards. physics.org, 7-18
What is this about?????
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 07/19/2017 01:48 am
2nd paper about the EmDrive and McCulloch's MiHsC just published in EPL and freely available:

• McCulloch, M. E. (July 2017). "Testing quantised inertia on emdrives with dielectrics" (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1209/0295-5075/118/34003/pdf) (PDF). EPL. 118 (3). doi:10.1209/0295-5075/118/34003.

In this second EPL paper, the speed of light does not vary anymore within the cavity. Instead, more Unruh waves fit the wide end of the cavity than its narrow end, continuously shifting the center of inertial mass of the microwaves towards the wide end: the cavity then has to move towards the small end, for momentum to be conserved. As the speed of light does not change in the latter model, there is no more relativistic violation, which was the main criticism of the 1st paper.

I read the paper a couple of weeks ago. His equations apparently conserve momentum between the frustum and the EM momentum inside, but it still remains unclear how momentum escapes from inside the cavity to propel the frustum. He relies on his theory and the assumption that the difference in the Unruh spectrum between the two ends is enough to result in thrust. IMO, the real mechanism is the power being lost "inefficiently" to heating the copper and the air, where the exchange of momentum between the photons and the random moving atoms  is non-conservative.

Todd

I can't think of any situation where such interactions could be non-conservative. I believe momentum is conserved on a photon by photon basis from photon generation to photon destruction and every interaction in between. As an aside, notice that the paper suggests the average index of refraction in the cavity plays a direct role.

Dissipative forces like Friction, are non-conservative. The energy lost to heat is random, it cannot also be used for the kinetic energy put into thrust. As long as heat is being generated, some of the energy is not going into acceleration of the frustum. Your notion of "on a photon by photon basis" is an ideal situation, which assumes perfect conductors and no air to absorb momentum and recoils. It's not realistic.

You brought non-conservative up in the context of generating thrust. Momentum is always conserved even with non-conservative forces. Yes, forces can be non-conservative and dissipative like, friction but that's never going to lead to a net thrust. You were talking about this dissipative forces leading to a net thrust. I don't see a thrust generating mechanism here.

The "Q" of the system depends on the power dissipation (losses). If the EmDrive works without radiating momentum, it is because the power dissipation is asymmetrical. I can't think of any other way it could work, if it works.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: mwvp on 07/19/2017 02:43 am
Yes, forces can be non-conservative and dissipative like, friction but that's never going to lead to a net thrust. You were talking about this dissipative forces leading to a net thrust. I don't see a thrust generating mechanism here.

If you were on a cart with a large swinging pendulum swinging forward and back in the direction of the carts travel, and you dragged your feet off the cart on the road every time the pendulum swung forward (friction), you would ratchet forward. You would be selectively dissipating momentum as heat.

You can do this trick with a dispersive laser cavity. Depending on the sideband you selectively tune, you can enhance or dampen vibrations with radiation pressure.

I assert the frustrum does just this; the frustrum is both the accelerating mass accelerated by radiation pressure and the resonant cavity.

from http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.0733 pg 20

(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=39004.0;attach=1096724;image)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 07/19/2017 11:40 am
https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2017/research/quantum-particle-backwards/

"However, this is no longer true on microscopic scales - quantum particles can partially go into reverse and travel in the direction opposite to their momentum. This unique property is known as ‘backflow’."

“We have shown that backflow can always occur, even if a force is acting on the quantum particle while it travels. The backflow effect is the result of wave-particle duality and the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, and it is already well understood in an idealised case of force-free motion.”

More news from NASA:
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/07/nasa-technologist-proposes-acceleration-mechanics-for-new-propellant-less-space-drives.html
"By applying entanglement to the thin-shell mechanism, one can allow the thin-shell to be the observer between an object’s density and its surrounding environment density in order to conserve both entanglement and energy between the two densities. Whereby, changes to these densities invoke changes to the thin-shell thickness about an object, which when non-uniform across the object, accelerates the object in order to conserve energy and momentum between the thin-shell and the two densities."

Edit: Note that the chameleon theory was presented earlier.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: JohnFornaro on 07/19/2017 12:28 pm
First layer adhesion successful. That is usually a good sign. Now so long as the power doesn't go out I should be fine. I will pick up a beefy uninterruptible power supply (UPS) tomorrow. This printer draws 70W.

Nice to see a desktop 3D printer.

Will it do steel?  How much did it cost?

Maybe a website for the manufacturer?

Thanx!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: JohnFornaro on 07/19/2017 12:30 pm
Yes, forces can be non-conservative and dissipative like, friction but that's never going to lead to a net thrust. You were talking about this dissipative forces leading to a net thrust. I don't see a thrust generating mechanism here.

If you were on a cart with a large swinging pendulum swinging forward and back in the direction of the carts travel, and you dragged your feet off the cart on the road every time the pendulum swung forward (friction), you would ratchet forward. You would be selectively dissipating momentum as heat.

I'm better at analogies than math, and see them as aids in my 'disability'.

In space, what is the "road" that you drag your feet off of with such rhythm?

Isn't that the crux of the CoM objection?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 07/19/2017 03:45 pm
FYI: http://news.stanford.edu/2017/07/15/maryam-mirzakhani-stanford-mathematician-and-fields-medal-winner-dies/ (http://news.stanford.edu/2017/07/15/maryam-mirzakhani-stanford-mathematician-and-fields-medal-winner-dies/)


"Mastering these approaches allowed Mirzakhani to pursue her fascination for describing the geometric and dynamic complexities of curved surfaces – spheres, doughnut shapes and even amoebas – in as great detail as possible. Her work was highly theoretical in nature, but it could have impacts concerning the theoretical physics of how the universe came to exist and, because it could inform quantum field theory, secondary applications to engineering and material science. Within mathematics, it has implications for the study of prime numbers and scamgraphy."[/size]
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/19/2017 05:30 pm
Yes, forces can be non-conservative and dissipative like, friction but that's never going to lead to a net thrust. You were talking about this dissipative forces leading to a net thrust. I don't see a thrust generating mechanism here.

If you were on a cart with a large swinging pendulum swinging forward and back in the direction of the carts travel, and you dragged your feet off the cart on the road every time the pendulum swung forward (friction), you would ratchet forward. You would be selectively dissipating momentum as heat.

You can do this trick with a dispersive laser cavity. Depending on the sideband you selectively tune, you can enhance or dampen vibrations with radiation pressure.

I assert the frustrum does just this; the frustrum is both the accelerating mass accelerated by radiation pressure and the resonant cavity.

from http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.0733 pg 20

(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=39004.0;attach=1096724;image)

I think in order for that to work one has to fundamentally change the properties of something, for example, photons in flight, without undoing the effect one is trying to accomplish, the net thrust. Prof. Woodward's Mach Effect thrusters do that by changing the mass and McCulloch's theory of the EMDrive does that with Unruh radiation and quantized inertia.

How does this idea propose to do that?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: mwvp on 07/19/2017 07:15 pm
Yes, forces can be non-conservative and dissipative like, friction but that's never going to lead to a net thrust. You were talking about this dissipative forces leading to a net thrust. I don't see a thrust generating mechanism here.

If you were on a cart with a large swinging pendulum swinging forward and back in the direction of the carts travel, and you dragged your feet off the cart on the road every time the pendulum swung forward (friction), you would ratchet forward. You would be selectively dissipating momentum as heat.

I'm better at analogies than math, and see them as aids in my 'disability'.

In space, what is the "road" that you drag your feet off of with such rhythm?

Isn't that the crux of the CoM objection?

Excellent point; I think of it as the "boot-strap" objection - you can't pull yourself up by your boot-straps or move a car when inside pushing on the steering wheel, et.

I can't think of a non-technical metaphor for Lorentz Invariance. All I can say is study the Sagnac Effect, checkout BAE's photonic laser thruster.

Because unlike in materials in which the speed of wave propagation in materials in different inertial frames differs, in the vacuum the speed of light is an absolute and the same for all inertial frames. Special relativity isn't generally disputed.

Consequently, momentum is conserved via the Doppler Effect.

Again, Macken in his book free book "Only Spacetime" in and at the end of chapter 1 appendix explains a lot by comparing particles to energy in resonant cavities, and analyzing the dynamics. http://onlyspacetime.com/

It may help to stop seeing particles as objects in the "void" of a vacuum, and instead think of the vacuum as a solid that allows the propagation of dark soliton/oscillon-like "holes".

Energy, propagating  (far-field) as photons or microwaves in a resonant cavity apply momentum and oppose change of the metallic can they propagate in. If you wave a can of light around, the light in the can will slosh around by and according to the Doppler Effect, implicit in Lorentz invariance and special relativity. You do not move the vacuum photons propagate in when you shake a can. If it were a chunk of glass with sound waves, or sound in air, then as you shake the cavity the sound is dragged along with the medium its propagating in.

In light is propagating in a refractive material, then you will drag the light around, according to the Fresnel Drag equation. The higher the permiability or permittivity, the less Sagnac effect Doppler shift.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: mwvp on 07/19/2017 07:20 pm
Yes, forces can be non-conservative and dissipative like, friction but that's never going to lead to a net thrust. You were talking about this dissipative forces leading to a net thrust. I don't see a thrust generating mechanism here.

If you were on a cart with a large swinging pendulum swinging forward and back in the direction of the carts travel, and you dragged your feet off the cart on the road every time the pendulum swung forward (friction), you would ratchet forward. You would be selectively dissipating momentum as heat.

You can do this trick with a dispersive laser cavity. Depending on the sideband you selectively tune, you can enhance or dampen vibrations with radiation pressure.

I assert the frustrum does just this; the frustrum is both the accelerating mass accelerated by radiation pressure and the resonant cavity.

from http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.0733 pg 20

(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=39004.0;attach=1096724;image)

I think in order for that to work one has to fundamentally change the properties of something, for example, photons in flight, without undoing the effect one is trying to accomplish, the net thrust. Prof. Woodward's Mach Effect thrusters do that by changing the mass and McCulloch's theory of the EMDrive does that with Unruh radiation and quantized inertia.

How does this idea propose to do that?

When you accelerate the cavity, the dispersion (refractive index gradient or group-velocity gradient) Doppler shifts the photons. Either the can has less apparent inertia/mass as you accelerate base to apex, or more apparent mass if the acceleration is apex to base. Base to apex field amplitude decreases. Apex to base field amplitude increases (motor/generator).

Again, see the end of chapter 1 in Macken for the math. Or BAE's photonic thruster discussion of Doppler Shift and conservation of momentum.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/19/2017 07:21 pm
The "Q" of the system depends on the power dissipation (losses). If the EmDrive works without radiating momentum, it is because the power dissipation is asymmetrical. I can't think of any other way it could work, if it works.

Since you brought up the Q factor here I want to quote a question I had almost a year ago that I never got an answer to;

Quote
A question I would like some thought to. Please don't get mad if this seems stupid.

These devices seem critically dependent on high Q to enhance and multiply the force differential which is extremely difficult to achieve since destructive interference has infinite possibilities to happen.  I wonder if there is fundamentally a different way to get to the same end yet without needing to sustain resonance. What  I'm thinking of is an asymmetrically designed device that acts more as a waveguide to recirculate the radiation as opposed to bounce it back and forth interacting with the ends. This mode of operation would be similar to photon recycling schemes recently validated by experiment.

BTW, concerning resonance, in recent photon recycling experiments by Y. Bae, an effective resonance was set up between mirrors so stable, the author could move the mirror around with his hand and maintain the resonance. He used a so-called gain medium in the loop. Do you builders have an analogy with microwaves? Thanks.

The first part which reflects my earlier naive understanding of EmDrive forces, still I'm thinking of waveguides that allow the waves to propagate one way along the outer surface and come back in the center, along an inner surface. I was thinking that multiple looping of the waves in the waveguide and impinging on the end plates would be a poor mans substitute for cavity resonance. In the second part, which could apply to the usual cavity designs, I'm wondering if a gain medium for microwaves exists that would stabilize the resonance as it does in Bae's experiments. He can move a mirror with his hand around and maintain resonance! Or even more heretical, could there be an optical version of the EMDrive cavity that took advantage of the same principle on which the EMDrive works, if it works, but was easier and safer to operate? Such a device might be visualized as a flat plate with a multitude of LED lasers and micro cavities or perhaps still one larger device with stabilized resonance. Bae achieved around a half megawatt intracavity power in his small tabletop demo from a 500 W laser. Please be patient with this question. Thanks.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/19/2017 07:52 pm
Yes, forces can be non-conservative and dissipative like, friction but that's never going to lead to a net thrust. You were talking about this dissipative forces leading to a net thrust. I don't see a thrust generating mechanism here.

If you were on a cart with a large swinging pendulum swinging forward and back in the direction of the carts travel, and you dragged your feet off the cart on the road every time the pendulum swung forward (friction), you would ratchet forward. You would be selectively dissipating momentum as heat.

You can do this trick with a dispersive laser cavity. Depending on the sideband you selectively tune, you can enhance or dampen vibrations with radiation pressure.

I assert the frustrum does just this; the frustrum is both the accelerating mass accelerated by radiation pressure and the resonant cavity.

from http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.0733 pg 20

(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=39004.0;attach=1096724;image)

I think in order for that to work one has to fundamentally change the properties of something, for example, photons in flight, without undoing the effect one is trying to accomplish, the net thrust. Prof. Woodward's Mach Effect thrusters do that by changing the mass and McCulloch's theory of the EMDrive does that with Unruh radiation and quantized inertia.

How does this idea propose to do that?

When you accelerate the cavity, the dispersion (refractive index gradient or group-velocity gradient) Doppler shifts the photons. Either the can has less apparent inertia/mass as you accelerate base to apex, or more apparent mass if the acceleration is apex to base. Base to apex field amplitude decreases. Apex to base field amplitude increases (motor/generator).

Again, see the end of chapter 1 in Macken for the math. Or BAE's photonic thruster discussion of Doppler Shift and conservation of momentum.

Thanks for the explanation and free book reference!

Reminds me of the Doppler shift for relativistic photon rockets. For beam powered photon rockets, the more relativistic the ship the higher percentage of beam energy gets converted to ship kinetic energy and it approaches 100% as v approaches c. I wondered if one could fool Mother Nature by coupling EM radiation in one direction to relativistic electrons in or on the cavity preferentially over the reverse direction and thus convert more energy into kinetic energy going one way. I though this might break the conversion limit. Probably not but it's fun to think about.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: JasonAW3 on 07/19/2017 08:08 pm
This may have already been answered long ago, but; Has anyone considered that the EM drive is somehow tapping into the Earth's magnetic lines of force?

      While the overall field seems quite low, the overall magnetic flow could be a factor.

      Like I said, it likely was covered, but I'd like to put that out there in case it wasn't...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 07/19/2017 10:17 pm
This may have already been answered long ago, but; Has anyone considered that the EM drive is somehow tapping into the Earth's magnetic lines of force?

      While the overall field seems quite low, the overall magnetic flow could be a factor.

      Like I said, it likely was covered, but I'd like to put that out there in case it wasn't...
Yes and it is addressed in part by moving the test bed to different angles in respect to the magnetic field. Mono's test rig is on wheels or casters to make it easy and quick.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: JasonAW3 on 07/19/2017 10:32 pm
This may have already been answered long ago, but; Has anyone considered that the EM drive is somehow tapping into the Earth's magnetic lines of force?

      While the overall field seems quite low, the overall magnetic flow could be a factor.

      Like I said, it likely was covered, but I'd like to put that out there in case it wasn't...
Yes and it is addressed in part by moving the test bed to different angles in respect to the magnetic field. Mono's test rig is on wheels or casters to make it easy and quick.

Ok, but what about magnetic isolation?  Anybody test this rig in a Faraday cage?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: otlski on 07/19/2017 11:20 pm
This may have already been answered long ago, but; Has anyone considered that the EM drive is somehow tapping into the Earth's magnetic lines of force?

      While the overall field seems quite low, the overall magnetic flow could be a factor.

      Like I said, it likely was covered, but I'd like to put that out there in case it wasn't...
Yes and it is addressed in part by moving the test bed to different angles in respect to the magnetic field. Mono's test rig is on wheels or casters to make it easy and quick.

Ok, but what about magnetic isolation?  Anybody test this rig in a Faraday cage?

To be clear, it has been talked about and certain experimenters have capability to move the test bed; no one has done it with any rigor at say all four compass points, and no one appears to have the run-to-run repeatability or control over the other variables (level, CG).  I don't know about testing in a Faraday cage.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 07/19/2017 11:28 pm
This may have already been answered long ago, but; Has anyone considered that the EM drive is somehow tapping into the Earth's magnetic lines of force?

      While the overall field seems quite low, the overall magnetic flow could be a factor.

      Like I said, it likely was covered, but I'd like to put that out there in case it wasn't...
Yes and it is addressed in part by moving the test bed to different angles in respect to the magnetic field. Mono's test rig is on wheels or casters to make it easy and quick.

Ok, but what about magnetic isolation?  Anybody test this rig in a Faraday cage?
Faraday cages don't provide magnetic isolation. Most metals just block electric fields or oscillating fields (because oscillating fields by definition are both electric and magnetic, and damping one damps both)

Faraday cages have effectively been used by some (A vacuum chamber like used by NASA is a decent Faraday cage, depending on window size), but to block the Earth's magnetic field you would need mu-metal shielding. Pretty sure this has been discussed, but not implemented.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/20/2017 02:14 am
To be clear, it has been talked about and certain experimenters have capability to move the test bed; no one has done it with any rigor at say all four compass points, and no one appears to have the run-to-run repeatability or control over the other variables (level, CG).  I don't know about testing in a Faraday cage.

Once I have the new high power amplifier working I will be testing at all four compass points. The torsional pendulum does have its own leveling system built into the legs of the stand. 

The cavity is a faraday cage of sorts. I suppose people mean enclosing the electronics in a faraday cage. But it would be better to enclose everything in a mumetal box, if the geomagnetic field is suspected. That is prohibitively expensive for a cavity AND the battery, and electronics. Plus it introduces a large amount of ferromagnetic material to the test stand - which I've always been told should be avoided.

Included below are the plots from two tests done at different orientations to the geomagnetic field. In the first, the cavity is aligned east-west, in the second north-south. There was a large reduction in noise in the second plot because of mitigation efforts, so it is true that it is not a very rigorous comparison.  Rerunning this experiment with proper controls is very high on my list.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: otlski on 07/20/2017 02:45 am
To be clear, it has been talked about and certain experimenters have capability to move the test bed; no one has done it with any rigor at say all four compass points, and no one appears to have the run-to-run repeatability or control over the other variables (level, CG).  I don't know about testing in a Faraday cage.

Once I have the new high power amplifier working I will be testing at all four compass points. The torsional pendulum does have its own leveling system built into the legs of the stand. 

The cavity is a faraday cage of sorts. I suppose people mean enclosing the electronics in a faraday cage. But it would be better to enclose everything in a mumetal box, if the geomagnetic field is suspected. That is prohibitively expensive for a cavity AND the battery, and electronics. Plus it introduces a large amount of ferromagnetic material to the test stand - which I've always been told should be avoided.

Like with all aspects of this, the difficulty in successfully running the experiment should not be underestimated.  In theory the amount of deflection in the torsion pendulum will be directly related to the thrust (assuming it is real) and the torsional spring rate.  However, it does not end there.  If the apparatus has a minor CG offset from the rotational axis, and an out of level condition exists, this will create a gravity pendulum which will either add or subtract from the stiffness thought to be established solely from the torsion wire.  Whether it adds or subtracts from the stiffness depends on the vector of the CG offset relative to the tilt.  The amount of stiffness change is related to that same vector and the magnitude of the CG offset.  Since your thrust estimates will be driven by the amount of deflection and the supposed stiffness, the uncertainty due to level and CG are likely going to be a big wildcard.  I say this with some experience where out of level conditions negatively impact our equipment (most of which have air bearings and torsion rods) with as little as 0.001" per foot out of level.   This is not an easy level to achieve given casters etc.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/20/2017 02:55 am
The first 3D print failed 10 hours in because the plate separated from the support material. After a quick redesign, which made the flanges thicker, the print was successful after another 16 hours! Next step is to create a silicone mold and cast 4 duplicates out of epoxy resin. Then repeat the process for the small end. However, the small end is where the antennna is located, so some extra design work will need to go into how the coax attaches - with an eye to adding a linear actuator that controls the z position of the antenna.

Below is a progress shot of the second print, and the finished product.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/20/2017 03:35 am
If the apparatus has a minor CG offset from the rotational axis, and an out of level condition exists, this will create a gravity pendulum which will either add or subtract from the stiffness thought to be established solely from the torsion wire.

Great care is taken to make sure the torsional pendulum beam is level. Center of gravity is controlled via counterweights on both x and y axis. There are two bubble levels used to monitor CG as well as a high resolution 3-axis compass, 3-axis gyroscope, and 3-axis accelerometer: https://www.phidgets.com/?tier=3&catid=10&pcid=8&prodid=32

It is also important that the beam be as perfectly level as possible for the laser displacement sensors to function properly.   
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: mwvp on 07/20/2017 04:50 am
...

Reminds me of the Doppler shift for relativistic photon rockets. For beam powered photon rockets, the more relativistic the ship the higher percentage of beam energy gets converted to ship kinetic energy and it approaches 100% as v approaches c.

That is a very relevant observation that hasn't gotten its fair share of attention here; utilization aspect of propulsion efficiency. Usually efficiency is discussed as the fraction of input energy that ends up as exhaust kinetic energy, and not the fraction of input energy that ends up increasing the kinetic energy of the vehicle, the whole system.

As a didactic hypothetical, lets consider a battery-transmitter-antenna with mass approaching the limit of zero, and a very large transmitted power. It would accelerate at the limit approaching C. From a "rest" inertial-frame observer, the Doppler shift observed would make the transmitter power appear a near static electric charge, or magnetic dipole. All the transmitted power increases the kinetic energy of the ship, at efficiency/utilization approaches 100%. At 50%, you get an observed 1/2 frequency Doppler shift, and half efficiency.

And the EM drive, unlike BAE, is dissipating  half the power (optimally) to create an unbalanced radiation pressure. So make that 25% for a compact EM drive that radiates heat rather than radiation.

Optimally, to create an efficient Doppler-shift approaching 0 Hz, the cavity Q must be high enough to match the Doppler shift from cavity acceleration. If it were 0.1 M/S^2, f=3 GHz, Doppler shift would be around 1 Hz, and the cavity Q needs to be 10^9, a billion. Five orders of magnitude more than our non-superconducting cavities can muster. And what precision will be needed, and control system bandwidth and design, to keep that cavity in tune?

So its no wonder measured thrust is five orders of magnitude down. Not to mention the torsion scales used just measure static, not dynamic thrust. I would expect some static thrust to be present from the resistance of the waveguide phase-shifting reflected power.

And I'm not surprised to see Shawyer mounting his frustrum on springs, as if he were going to shake it to increase acceleration and improve efficiency; as if it were a Woodward device, exploiting increased inertia not moment to moment in mass, but according to which direction the frustrum was accelerating and which direction energy was exchanged between the field and the frustrum motion.

...

 I wondered if one could fool Mother Nature by coupling EM radiation in one direction to relativistic electrons in or on the cavity preferentially over the reverse direction and thus convert more energy into kinetic energy going one way. I though this might break the conversion limit. Probably not but it's fun to think about.

Yep, I think electron beams could have very desirable properties, including dispersion from relativistic effects.

How a magnetron tube is coupled to the frustum should be taken into account. What inertial back-action effects between sloshing fields in the cavity, and the mass of the affected electrons in the tube would occur? Could a beam-tube be designed as a kinetic transducer?

In your last post, you mentioned laser gain-media. Electrons  moving in cavities/waveguides can function as gain-media and transducers. They even call them "free-electron lasers" Of course, so can semiconductors. Particle accelerator, especially relativistic, is a non-trivial exercise above my pay-grade. But you could think of a magnetron tube, or a semiconductor negative-resistance oscillator configuration as a sort of "laser" gain medium.

Another useful characteristic of magnetrons and other beam tubs is they can be tuned with electric and magnetic fields, and can thus be used as parametric and non-reciprocal components. Might as well make friends with non-linearity because you've got to deal with it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Notsosureofit on 07/20/2017 04:22 pm

Optimally, to create an efficient Doppler-shift approaching 0 Hz, the cavity Q must be high enough to match the Doppler shift from cavity acceleration. If it were 0.1 M/S^2, f=3 GHz, Doppler shift would be around 1 Hz, and the cavity Q needs to be 10^9, a billion. Five orders of magnitude more than our non-superconducting cavities can muster. And what precision will be needed, and control system bandwidth and design, to keep that cavity in tune?


Interesting point, but what formula are you using to calculate the Doppler shift vs acceleration ?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 07/20/2017 06:43 pm
The first 3D print failed 10 hours in because the plate separated from the support material. After a quick redesign, which made the flanges thicker, the print was successful after another 16 hours! Next step is to create a silicone mold and cast 4 duplicates out of epoxy resin. Then repeat the process for the small end. However, the small end is where the antennna is located, so some extra design work will need to go into how the coax attaches - with an eye to adding a linear actuator that controls the z position of the antenna.

Below is a progress shot of the second print, and the finished product.
Monomorphic,

How long before you think your "pie" will be done?
And how are you securing your "EM-Pie-Plate" together?

My Very Best,
Shell

PS: It looks much better than I though it could.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/20/2017 07:26 pm
How long before you think your "pie" will be done?
And how are you securing your "EM-Pie-Plate" together?

I will probably have the big end-plate finished over the weekend, or by next week. I'm working out what kind of filler I should mix in with the epoxy resin. I'm leaning towards foam beads to save weight, but I have to use the right foam or it will dissolve in the epoxy and leave a big mess.   

The 'pie' will be secured together with epoxy and possibly other means like pegs between the pieces.  I may also use the current flat copper end-plate as a backing since it is the same diameter. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/20/2017 07:55 pm
Optimally, to create an efficient Doppler-shift approaching 0 Hz, the cavity Q must be high enough to match the Doppler shift from cavity acceleration. If it were 0.1 M/S^2, f=3 GHz, Doppler shift would be around 1 Hz, and the cavity Q needs to be 10^9, a billion. Five orders of magnitude more than our non-superconducting cavities can muster. And what precision will be needed, and control system bandwidth and design, to keep that cavity in tune?

So its no wonder measured thrust is five orders of magnitude down. Not to mention the torsion scales used just measure static, not dynamic thrust. I would expect some static thrust to be present from the resistance of the waveguide phase-shifting reflected power.

Thanks for the response. If this idea worked, one might try incorporating Prof. Woodward's neat trick of vibrating the parts of the cavity, the end plates, that would need to fool the waves into seeing a few orders of magnitude higher acceleration. Semiconductor based MHz range mechanical resonators might be useful.

How a magnetron tube is coupled to the frustum should be taken into account. What inertial back-action effects between sloshing fields in the cavity, and the mass of the affected electrons in the tube would occur? Could a beam-tube be designed as a kinetic transducer?

In your last post, you mentioned laser gain-media. Electrons  moving in cavities/waveguides can function as gain-media and transducers. They even call them "free-electron lasers" Of course, so can semiconductors. Particle accelerator, especially relativistic, is a non-trivial exercise above my pay-grade. But you could think of a magnetron tube, or a semiconductor negative-resistance oscillator configuration as a sort of "laser" gain medium.

Thanks. It would be interesting to see if these kinds of devices experienced high internal stresses or even as yet unexplained forces....  ;D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 07/20/2017 08:47 pm
How long before you think your "pie" will be done?
And how are you securing your "EM-Pie-Plate" together?

I will probably have the big end-plate finished over the weekend, or by next week. I'm working out what kind of filler I should mix in with the epoxy resin. I'm leaning towards foam beads to save weight, but I have to use the right foam or it will dissolve in the epoxy and leave a big mess.   

The 'pie' will be secured together with epoxy and possibly other means like pegs between the pieces.  I may also use the current flat copper end-plate as a backing since it is the same diameter.

Looks beautiful so far. Please also consider using one or more of the following options to compress the plates together and prevent the pieces from being lossy along the seams:
1. A ring strap/clamp and/or plastic vacuum wrap,
2. Using rivets and screws through the edges in a symmetric pattern,
3. Cutting a groove and adding a protrusion along one of the inner sides to slot the pieces together,
4. A press to push the pieces together and maybe even spot weld them together (unrealistic but still the best known method for fusing components seamlessly),
5. Heat treatment/light welding/soldering and polish.

Thank you for your hard work and dedication, we all eagerly await your latest test campaign.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: knowles2 on 07/20/2017 11:06 pm
Just thought I pop in an tell you guys and girls that EM Drive made an experience on CBS Salvation. First time I seen EM Drive show up in a science fiction show.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Req on 07/21/2017 12:12 am
Just thought I pop in an tell you guys and girls that EM Drive made an experience on CBS Salvation. First time I seen EM Drive show up in a science fiction show.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1701347#msg1701347
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: mwvp on 07/21/2017 01:16 am

Optimally, to create an efficient Doppler-shift approaching 0 Hz, the cavity Q must be high enough to match the Doppler shift from cavity acceleration. If it were 0.1 M/S^2, f=3 GHz, Doppler shift would be around 1 Hz, and the cavity Q needs to be 10^9, a billion. Five orders of magnitude more than our non-superconducting cavities can muster. And what precision will be needed, and control system bandwidth and design, to keep that cavity in tune?


Interesting point, but what formula are you using to calculate the Doppler shift vs acceleration ?

I'm not using a formula, just reason. I refer to (field) energy "sloshing" around (at the group velocity).  What determines group velocity, guide wavelength and dispersion? In a frustrum, coupling between the mode-sections is maximum. So its pretty much the size and Q of the cavity. Slow amplitude variations caused by small Doppler spreads will be filtered. And in our accelerating context, its the stale, old energy built up in the cavity that experiences the largest phase-shifts for a small acceleration. But that stale, old energy will decay in a lower Q cavity, leaving only newer, fresher energy to produce a smaller amplitude variation for a smaller phase shift.

For equations, I just posted the link to Macken's book, Appendix ch. 1. Bradshaw (at Arxiv) on Dispersion has good material on Doppler shifts, Snell's law/scattering on moving media and dispersive meda. And Rumpf has Maxwell's equ. for moving media, but doesn't elaborate. I can cite, if your specific about what you're after.

I can't give you an analytical solution, but I know how to go about solving a simplified approximation. A rigorous 3D simulation could be done by modifying Meep a bit, and running it a fast, very fast machine. I would give it a shot for money, but not for fun.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 07/21/2017 07:57 am
New breakthrough discovery-every quantum particle travels backwards. physics.org, 7-18
What is this about?????
John,
this is the product of desperation. the quantum is never going to make sense in linear time alone. Attempts will be made to trick the math into agreement with experiment until a better understanding of time itself is achieved. My bet is that a complex conjugate of the real time measurement is required. This would relieve the problem of direction at least, maybe much more.
To a John from a John..   :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 07/21/2017 04:25 pm
FYI: Pions & Gravitons?


https://goo.gl/m7RhtP (https://goo.gl/m7RhtP)

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 07/21/2017 05:01 pm
FYI: Pions & Gravitons?


https://goo.gl/m7RhtP (https://goo.gl/m7RhtP)

free pdf of the article (the article is behind a paywall in the Nature link):  https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1703/1703.10682.pdf

This experiment concerns a solid-state flat-spacetime (no gravitons) analogue to a curved spacetime gravitational anomaly (the axial anomaly, responsible for the decay of a neutral pion into two photons. Similarly in a curved spacetime the axial-gravitational anomaly can give rise to the decay of the pion into two gravitons.).  This experiment does not involve gravitons or actual detection of any gravitational anomaly in real spacetime. 

https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2017/07/scientists-observe-gravitational-anomaly-on-earth/

Quote from: www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2017/07/scientists-observe-gravitational-anomaly-on-earth/
Appearing in a paper published today in Nature, an international team of physicists, material scientists and string theoreticians, have observed such a material, an effect of a most exotic quantum anomaly that hitherto was thought to be triggered only by the curvature of space-time as described by Einstein’s theory of relativity. But to the surprise of the team, they discovered it also exists on Earth in the properties of solid state physics, which much of the computing industry is based on, spanning from tiny transistors to cloud data centers.

The experiment uses the mathematical techniques from string theory - but it doesn't prove anything concerning string theory as a quantum gravity theory of our universe.  But it does validate some of the analytical methods used in string theory (string theory derived holography), which worked great for this particular physical material experiment in flat spacetime
 
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1610.04413.pdf
 
The authors of
 
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1311.0878.pdf
 
proposed this experiment precisely because the gravitational anomaly is considered to be impossible to probe in high energy contexts.  It is really not possible (now or in the foreseeable future to our greatgrandchildren) to prove or disprove string theory (or its competitor theories of quantum gravity like quantum loop gravity) in a high energy context or to detect gravitons.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 07/21/2017 05:27 pm
FYI: Pions & Gravitons?


https://goo.gl/m7RhtP (https://goo.gl/m7RhtP)

free pdf of the article (the article is behind a paywall in the Nature link):  https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1703/1703.10682.pdf (https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1703/1703.10682.pdf)

This experiment concerns a solid-state flat-spacetime (no gravitons) analogue to a curved spacetime gravitational anomaly (the axial anomaly, responsible for the decay of a neutral pion into two photons. Similarly in a curved spacetime the axial-gravitational anomaly can give rise to the decay of the pion into two gravitons.).  This experiment does not involve gravitons or actual detection of any gravitational anomaly in real spacetime. 

https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2017/07/scientists-observe-gravitational-anomaly-on-earth/ (https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2017/07/scientists-observe-gravitational-anomaly-on-earth/)

Quote from: www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2017/07/scientists-observe-gravitational-anomaly-on-earth/
Appearing in a paper published today in Nature, an international team of physicists, material scientists and string theoreticians, have observed such a material, an effect of a most exotic quantum anomaly that hitherto was thought to be triggered only by the curvature of space-time as described by Einstein’s theory of relativity. But to the surprise of the team, they discovered it also exists on Earth in the properties of solid state physics, which much of the computing industry is based on, spanning from tiny transistors to cloud data centers.

The experiment uses the mathematical techniques from string theory - but it doesn't prove anything concerning string theory as a quantum gravity theory of our universe.  But it does validate some of the analytical methods used in string theory (string theory derived holography), which worked great for this particular physical material experiment in flat spacetime
 
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1610.04413.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1610.04413.pdf)
 
The authors of
 
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1311.0878.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1311.0878.pdf)
 
proposed this experiment precisely because the gravitational anomaly is considered to be impossible to probe in high energy contexts.  It is really not possible (now or in the foreseeable future to our greatgrandchildren) to prove or disprove string theory (or its competitor theories of quantum gravity like quantum loop gravity) in a high energy context or to detect gravitons.
Thanks for the links Jose. I had not seen anything on this before today's article in the Times. It seems to me that this solid state discovery has potential for both research and applications. Only time will tell and hoping for a major breakthrough is what fuels the drive to discover and understand.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 07/21/2017 05:59 pm
FYI: Pions & Gravitons?


https://goo.gl/m7RhtP (https://goo.gl/m7RhtP)

free pdf of the article (the article is behind a paywall in the Nature link):  https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1703/1703.10682.pdf

This experiment concerns a solid-state flat-spacetime (no gravitons) analogue to a curved spacetime gravitational anomaly (the axial anomaly, responsible for the decay of a neutral pion into two photons. Similarly in a curved spacetime the axial-gravitational anomaly can give rise to the decay of the pion into two gravitons.).  This experiment does not involve gravitons or actual detection of any gravitational anomaly in real spacetime. 

https://www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2017/07/scientists-observe-gravitational-anomaly-on-earth/

Quote from: www.ibm.com/blogs/research/2017/07/scientists-observe-gravitational-anomaly-on-earth/
Appearing in a paper published today in Nature, an international team of physicists, material scientists and string theoreticians, have observed such a material, an effect of a most exotic quantum anomaly that hitherto was thought to be triggered only by the curvature of space-time as described by Einstein’s theory of relativity. But to the surprise of the team, they discovered it also exists on Earth in the properties of solid state physics, which much of the computing industry is based on, spanning from tiny transistors to cloud data centers.

The experiment uses the mathematical techniques from string theory - but it doesn't prove anything concerning string theory as a quantum gravity theory of our universe.  But it does validate some of the analytical methods used in string theory (string theory derived holography), which worked great for this particular physical material experiment in flat spacetime
 
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1610.04413.pdf
 
The authors of
 
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1311.0878.pdf
 
proposed this experiment precisely because the gravitational anomaly is considered to be impossible to probe in high energy contexts.  It is really not possible (now or in the foreseeable future to our greatgrandchildren) to prove or disprove string theory (or its competitor theories of quantum gravity like quantum loop gravity) in a high energy context or to detect gravitons.

The experiment matters a great deal here. The theory attached is interesting to consider.

Suggest one does not get hung up concentrating on the theory, but the experiment and its ramifications. Theory will attend to itself.

Also, the role this might play in the interpretation of momentum/transients, especially in condensed matter ensembles, might be applicable here.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 07/21/2017 06:02 pm
...
Thanks for the links Jose. I had not seen anything on this before today's article in the Times. It seems to me that this solid state discovery has potential for both research and applications. Only time will tell and hoping for a major breakthrough is what fuels the drive to discover and understand.

...The experiment matters a great deal here. The theory attached is interesting to consider.

Suggest one does not get hung up concentrating on the theory, but the experiment and its ramifications. Theory will attend to itself.

Also, the role this might play in the interpretation of momentum/transients, especially in condensed matter ensembles, might be applicable here.
Yes, Bob, it is very exciting, because this experiment was precisely proposed as an analogue of the gravitational anomaly that unfortunately we cannot test directly.  I did not get the time to post it myself, and I very much appreciate it that you picked this up and posted it  ;)

(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/07/20/science/20anomaly/20anomaly-facebookJumbo.jpg)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/21/2017 11:56 pm
Small spherical end-plate design with custom linear actuator coming along. I will be 3D printing the two main parts of the linear actuator. The rods are aluminum and the lead screw is stainless steel. There is ~1.1 cm of z axis translation. As soon as the new uninterruptible power supply (UPS) charges, I will begin printing.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 07/22/2017 03:17 pm
Small spherical end-plate design with custom linear actuator coming along.....


And the linear actuator is for what? Shawyer bump? Antenna positioning? Photon Torpedo launcher? ;D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/22/2017 04:59 pm
And the linear actuator is for what? Shawyer bump? Antenna positioning? Photon Torpedo launcher? ;D

The linear actuator is for moving the antenna along the z axis of the frustum. This is how impedance is matched to 50Ω. Before, I had to unscrew a nut and move the antenna up and down by hand. It was not very accurate and a lengthy process. With this new actuator, I will simply crank a knob. Much more accurate, and very quick.

Here is the completed actuator. It works very well. I was surprised at how easy it is to create custom parts with the 3D printer.

Edit: Also included a cutaway of the small end-plate to better illustrate how the linear actuator works.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Stormbringer on 07/23/2017 06:55 am
look up articles or papers on weyl semimetals experiment showing gravity conservation symmetry breaking.

I would post a link to the article but its at NBF and folks get tetchy about excessive posting of NBF articles.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/25/2017 12:33 pm
Finished the mold for the large end-plate quarter. I ran out of silicone for the small end-plate, but more arrives tomorrow.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 07/25/2017 04:31 pm
Finished the mold for the large end-plate quarter. I ran out of silicone for the small end-plate, but more arrives tomorrow.

Monomorphic, what material will the end plates be covered with on the inside of the cavity? Thanks.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/25/2017 04:39 pm
Monomorphic, what material will the end plates be covered with on the inside of the cavity? Thanks.

EMI shielding copper adhesive foil will be used on the inside surface. This is the same material used for the lining of the side walls.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 07/25/2017 10:05 pm
Yes yes, the source. https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/07/carbon-superconductivity-raised-from-11-kelvin-up-to-57-kelvin.html

Actually quite achievable in space with the right orientation. Potentially useful.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Tcarey on 07/27/2017 06:06 am
Monomorphic, what material will the end plates be covered with on the inside of the cavity? Thanks.

EMI shielding copper adhesive foil will be used on the inside surface. This is the same material used for the lining of the side walls.

Mono.. I am curious about one thing. How do you bond the individual pieces of the copper foil electrically to form a single surface? Is the adhesive electrically conductive at microwave frequencies?

Thanks for what you do.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/27/2017 12:48 pm
Mono.. I am curious about one thing. How do you bond the individual pieces of the copper foil electrically to form a single surface? Is the adhesive electrically conductive at microwave frequencies?

The adhesive is conductive at microwave frequencies. According to the spec sheet, there should be -75dB of attenuation at 2.45GHz. This was confirmed with measurements using a spectrum analyser. So for 43dB (20W) input, only -32dB (0.000000063W) will leak out of the cavity. A vast majority of the RF remains inside.

That being said, there is an increase in resistivity, but that is mostly a product of the thickness of the foil. There are other options such as silver conductive paint and electroplating, should there be any issues with the conductive adhesive. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: yawan on 07/29/2017 12:25 am
I’ve been thinking about quantum vacuum for a while now.  This is the best I’ve come up with so far.  I know it's not in line with standard theory, but it makes sense to me.  Hopefully it will help someone.
Vacuum fluctuations are a sea of neutrinos and antineutrinos.
Pairs of them collide all the time.  They produce another particle/antiparticle pair, either a new pair of neutrinos, two charged leptons, or a quark/antiquark pair. What you can produce depends on how much energy there is from the colliding neutrinos.
Now electrical forces affect these collisions, and that is how light gets propagated.
They are also the carriers of electromagnetic fields, since lack of electrons on one side and more of them on the other will create a disbalance in neutrino anti neutrino densities.
There are enough of high energy collisions to produce electron positron pairs quite often.  This leads to the positron eating the electrons in orbit around atoms, and another electron from the pair creation taking its place.  Since this process repeats itself every 10-18 s it look to us like the electron is in a thousand places at the same time.  The more energetic the electron the more often this will happen, and the neutrino balance around the atom will be affected.  This leads to high energy electrons acting like a probability around the atom, and to the electrons interacting with themselves forming strange looking orbits around the atom.
Around the nucleus of an atom the virtual neutrino cloud is denser.  There are many more collisions and the probability of popping an electron/positron pair is higher.  This creates a potential well around the atom.  If the potential well is overcome there is fusion. 
If we look at helium 2 for example, in case an electron positron pair pops up in the middle you will get neutron and beta decay.  If that doesn’t happen in time atom will fall apart.
It's just a theory I’ve been working on.  Can’t get the math right yet, but I’m interested to hear what other people think of it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/30/2017 01:17 pm
I had a problem with the small end-plate mold - it must have been a bad batch or I didn't mix it long enough as the mold basically started falling apart. So I went ahead and printed all of those parts over ~15 hours. The tolerance on these 3D printed parts is really good.

The large end-plate mold is still in pristine condition after three pours. It looks like that will turn out fine, but If I have to, I can print the remainder in ~45 hours.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 07/30/2017 04:42 pm
I had a problem with the small end-plate mold - it must have been a bad batch or I didn't mix it long enough as the mold basically started falling apart. So I went ahead and printed all of those parts over ~15 hours. The tolerance on these 3D printed parts is really good.

The large end-plate mold is still in pristine condition after three pours. It looks like that will turn out fine, but If I have to, I can print the remainder in ~45 hours.

Nice saucer section. The hole at the top is for the Bridge? ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/30/2017 07:54 pm
I was able to find CAD files of the various SMA connectors and nuts I have available. These are needed for the linear actuator that controls the z-axis position of the antenna. So that has been redesigned somewhat.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SteveD on 07/30/2017 08:12 pm

The large end-plate mold is still in pristine condition after three pours. It looks like that will turn out fine, but If I have to, I can print the remainder in ~45 hours.

I'm a bit torn on that.  The cheaper and easier it is to reproduce the expirement the quicker things will progress. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 07/30/2017 08:56 pm
I was able to find CAD files of the various SMA connectors and nuts I have available. These are needed for the linear actuator that controls the z-axis position of the antenna. So that has been redesigned somewhat.
It is known that the 90 degree connectors produce high reflections. If this is possible please don't use this component.
There will be much lower reflection when you connect the coaxial cable direct to the straight SMA connector section.
 
However the tuning mechanism itself looks very great. :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/30/2017 09:05 pm
It is known that the 90 degree connectors produce high reflections. If this is possible please don't use this component.
There will be much lower reflection when you connect the coaxial cable direct to the straight SMA connector section.

Thanks X_Ray!  Easy enough to eliminate the 90 degree angle connector. I can connect SMA cable directly to the jack.  :D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 07/31/2017 02:59 pm
It is known that the 90 degree connectors produce high reflections. If this is possible please don't use this component.
There will be much lower reflection when you connect the coaxial cable direct to the straight SMA connector section.

Thanks X_Ray!  Easy enough to eliminate the 90 degree angle connector. I can connect SMA cable directly to the jack.  :D
... and this shows the immense value that this forum provides to the world. "Old dog shares old tricks." (No offense intended X-Ray  :) )
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 07/31/2017 08:15 pm
Here is the completed linear actuator. Not only can it control the antenna z-axis position, but it is also possible to rotate the antenna 360 degrees by loosening the SMA nut. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 08/01/2017 04:01 am
Has anyone heard from Phil? It's been a long while.


Hey Traveller, anything new to report? Isn't the symposium in Australia coming up soon?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Sjors Boomschors on 08/01/2017 09:06 pm
Here is the completed linear actuator. Not only can it control the antenna z-axis position, but it is also possible to rotate the antenna 360 degrees by loosening the SMA nut.

@Monomorphic

I like your postings allot, seeing you make progress on this is exiting to follow.
Wanted to trow out one idea, hope not to late to be included into the final design.

- Is the EM-Drive not suposed to be fully enclossed?

I could be wrong on this, but making a hole to adjust the antenna will give hot air a location to escape the drive cavaty and create fals trust. Did you think of a solution to prevent this in anyway?

Was thinking to prevent this by adding a harmonic / flexible air seal, to prevent hot air to excape.

The image show Suction cups or Vacuum cups probebly not best solution but will give a good idea.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/01/2017 09:26 pm
I could be wrong on this, but making a hole to adjust the antenna will give hot air a location to escape the drive cavity and create false trust. Did you think of a solution to prevent this in anyway?

A small rubber grommet or membrane around the antenna feed hole can be used. This will surround the SMA jack as it moves and act as a seal to help prevent outgasing.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/01/2017 10:21 pm
Images of the big-end spherical castings. A third quarter is curing in the mold now and I will have the fourth finished tomorrow. Each casting requires two pours with 12 minutes of mixing each.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 08/02/2017 07:15 am
Has anyone heard from Phil? It's been a long while.


Hey Traveller, anything new to report? Isn't the symposium in Australia coming up soon?

Bob,
Phil is OK I think and the conference details are as below;

from:    http://www.iac2017.org/

"Elon Musk from SpaceX will attend IAC2017 and deliver a short address to delegates on Friday afternoon 29 September. He plans to provide delegates with an update on his plans for settling Mars.

His talk will also be live-streamed globally.

Potential delegates to IAC2017 are reminded that the standard registration period ends on 20 September and that registration is for the entire period of the Congress – from 25-29 September. Registrations for one or two days are not accepted.

The exhibition is open to the general public on Friday morning from 0900-1300hrs. However, only registered delegates can attend the plenary events, including the Elon Musk's presentation."
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 08/02/2017 12:35 pm
Has anyone heard from Phil? It's been a long while.


Hey Traveller, anything new to report? Isn't the symposium in Australia coming up soon?

Bob,
Phil is OK I think and the conference details are as below;

from:    http://www.iac2017.org/

"Elon Musk from SpaceX will attend IAC2017 and deliver a short address to delegates on Friday afternoon 29 September. He plans to provide delegates with an update on his plans for settling Mars.

His talk will also be live-streamed globally.

Potential delegates to IAC2017 are reminded that the standard registration period ends on 20 September and that registration is for the entire period of the Congress – from 25-29 September. Registrations for one or two days are not accepted.

The exhibition is open to the general public on Friday morning from 0900-1300hrs. However, only registered delegates can attend the plenary events, including the Elon Musk's presentation."

We were told that 2015 , 2016   ,   now past mid 2017, was going to be "a very interesting year"
anything to report on if, what and when something real and interesting regarding the EM Drive is ever going to be shown? at this conference?

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/02/2017 01:30 pm
....

Hi Jose,

No need to attend IAC 2017 as I'm working with a client to produce and fly a TRL 9 EmDrive thruster. Understand Dr Tajmar is presenting something on EmDrive at the conference.

How is your work going with Dr.Woodward?

Phil
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 08/02/2017 01:35 pm
....

Hi Jose,

No need to attend IAC 2017 as I'm working with a client to produce and fly a TRL 9 EmDrive thruster. Understand Dr Tajmar is presenting something on EmDrive at the conference.

How is your work going with Dr.Woodward?

Phil

Hi  Phil, thank you for the update on Tajmar, as I did not know Tajmar was presenting more work on the EM Drive there.   Looking forward to more news on his presentation   :)
Concerning NIAC, we are presenting in the 2017 NIAC SYMPOSIUM, Denver, CO., Sep. 25-27, 2017.  Public meeting, I would expect it will be broadcasted over the Internet (as it was last year in Raleigh NC):  https://www.nasa.gov/content/niac-symposium
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: jak Kennedy on 08/02/2017 03:04 pm
We were told that 2015 , 2016   ,   now past mid 2017, was going to be "a very interesting year"
anything to report on if, what and when something real and interesting regarding the EM Drive is ever going to be shown? at this conference?

Anyone have an idea of when an EM drive may fly? Not counting any classified missions.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 08/02/2017 03:55 pm
So I've been reading up on these "pear shaped" nuclei as research on the side not related to EmDrive but I realized that the frustum shape of the EmDrive is a octupole shape, noting that a quadrupole or higher order moment is required for the production of gravitational radiation. I've been stuck on accelerating quadrupoles this whole time (older posts) but what we really have here are octupole moments. An interesting difference between the quadrupole and octupole moments is that an octupole points in a definite direction.

http://www.nature.com/news/pear-shaped-nucleus-boosts-search-for-new-physics-1.12952

In the image below, note the orientation of the higher density (deep red areas) and the direction of thrust and the difference between left and right.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 08/02/2017 04:12 pm
So I've been reading up on these "pear shaped" nuclei as research on the side not related to EmDrive but I realized that the frustum shape of the EmDrive is a octupole shape, noting that a quadrupole or higher order moment is required for the production of gravitational radiation. I've been stuck on accelerating quadrupoles this whole time (older posts) but what we really have here are octupole moments. An interesting difference between the quadrupole and octupole moments is that an octupole points in a definite direction.

http://www.nature.com/news/pear-shaped-nucleus-boosts-search-for-new-physics-1.12952

In the image below, note the orientation of the higher density (deep red areas) and the direction of thrust and the difference between left and right.

The standard terminology for TE21p or TM21p modes is to call them quadrupoles, since they have 4 alternating poles around the circumference

(http://slideplayer.com/9928531/32/images/4/TE+modes+quadrupole+mode+used+in+Radio+Frequency+Quadrupole.jpg)

(http://images.slideplayer.com/26/8368271/slides/slide_32.jpg)

(http://fayllar.org/weve-seen-a-number-of-examples-of-technology-transfer-in-parti/img47.jpg)

T. Damour quotes Maxwell as the originator of this terminology, which comes from the intersection of rays into a spherical surface forming "poles".  The EM Drive (particularly when using a spherical end) resonance can be best analyzed with spherical waves, and the number of "poles" are counted in the mode shape as seen in the circular cross-section perpendicular to the longitudinal axis.


TE012p or TM012p is a monopole
TE11p or TM11p is a dipole
TE21p or TM21p  is a quadrupole

The number of poles in a TEm1p or TMm1p mode shape is thus given by = 2*m, two times the first number appearing in the mode shape identification

An octupole would thus be given by a mode shape TE41p or TM41p which are mode shapes significantly higher in resonant frequency than the monopoles and quadrupole mode shapes.

The mode shape most used by NASA (TM212) is thus a quadrupole.

The mode shapes most used by Shawyer, Yang, and others (TE012 and TE013) are monopoles.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 08/02/2017 04:46 pm
Rodal, since I'm talking about the production of gravitational radiation, I'm referring to distributions of mass/energy in 3d.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 08/02/2017 04:55 pm
Rodal, since I'm talking about the production of gravitational radiation, I'm referring to distributions of mass/energy in 3d.
The terminology is the same in General Relativity.  It has to do with the intersection of rays emanating from the inside into a ball's spherical surface producing "poles" on the spherical surface.  It is the same terminology used by Thibault Damour, one of the main people in GR (responsible for the 3PN, and 4PN, for  gravitational waves from compact binary systems, and with Alessandra Buonanno, he invented the "effective one-body" approach to solving the orbital trajectories of binary black holes.) who attributes the terminology to Maxwell, originally for electromagnetic waves.

Same terminology for quadrupoles used by Kip Thorne and everybody in General Relativity

Here is a drawing of a quadrupole gravitational wave:

(http://background.uchicago.edu/~whu/polar/tensorlobe.gif)

(https://universe-review.ca/I15-59-gw1.jpg)

By the way, according to Einstein's General Relativity the minimum number of poles for a gravitational wave is 4 (quadrupole).

However, scalar tensor theories may allow for monopole gravitational waves (which are heretofore undetected).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 08/02/2017 05:11 pm
Some people are even arguing seeing a quadrupole (and higher ) in the CMB (this is controversial):

(https://manvantura.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/map_teg_2-3.png?w=768&h=455)

http://background.uchicago.edu/~whu/Presentations/polar.pdf
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/02/2017 06:21 pm
....

Hi Jose,

No need to attend IAC 2017 as I'm working with a client to produce and fly a TRL 9 EmDrive thruster. Understand Dr Tajmar is presenting something on EmDrive at the conference.

How is your work going with Dr.Woodward?

Phil

Hi  Phil, thank you for the update on Tajmar, as I did not know Tajmar was presenting more work on the EM Drive there.   Looking forward to more news on his presentation   :)
Concerning NIAC, we are presenting in the 2017 NIAC SYMPOSIUM, Denver, CO., Sep. 25-27, 2017.  Public meeting, I would expect it will be broadcasted over the Internet (as it was last year in Raleigh NC):  https://www.nasa.gov/content/niac-symposium

I know you are interested in scaling up the effect but are you and the team expanding the search beyond PZT stacks?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 08/02/2017 09:27 pm
Hi  Phil, thank you for the update on Tajmar, as I did not know Tajmar was presenting more work on the EM Drive there.   Looking forward to more news on his presentation   :)
Concerning NIAC, we are presenting in the 2017 NIAC SYMPOSIUM, Denver, CO., Sep. 25-27, 2017.  Public meeting, I would expect it will be broadcasted over the Internet (as it was last year in Raleigh NC):  https://www.nasa.gov/content/niac-symposium (https://www.nasa.gov/content/niac-symposium)
Dynamite.  I'm planning on attending the NIAC Symposium. I hope to see you and others there.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: JonathanD on 08/03/2017 03:29 am
Dynamite.

Look, I'm just layman, but I REALLY don't think that's a good idea :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 08/03/2017 03:56 am
Dynamite.

Look, I'm just layman, but I REALLY don't think that's a good idea :)
I guess I could follow Freeman Dyson and go nuclear.  ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 08/03/2017 07:01 am
Rodal, since I'm talking about the production of gravitational radiation, I'm referring to distributions of mass/energy in 3d.
The terminology is the same in General Relativity.  It has to do with the intersection of rays emanating from the inside into a ball's spherical surface producing "poles" on the spherical surface.  It is the same terminology used by Thibault Damour, one of the main people in GR (responsible for the 3PN, and 4PN, for  gravitational waves from compact binary systems, and with Alessandra Buonanno, he invented the "effective one-body" approach to solving the orbital trajectories of binary black holes.) who attributes the terminology to Maxwell, originally for electromagnetic waves.

Same terminology for quadrupoles used by Kip Thorne and everybody in General Relativity

Here is a drawing of a quadrupole gravitational wave:

(http://background.uchicago.edu/~whu/polar/tensorlobe.gif)

(https://universe-review.ca/I15-59-gw1.jpg)

By the way, according to Einstein's General Relativity the minimum number of poles for a gravitational wave is 4 (quadrupole).

However, scalar tensor theories may allow for monopole gravitational waves (which are heretofore undetected).
Here they show the radiation pattern of the quadrupole as being two bowls together instead of being four lobes which I thought was interesting.  Also they mention the similarity of magnetic dipole radiation to that of electric quadrupole radiation.

Quote from: http://physics.oregonstate.edu/~leeys/COURSES/ph633/EMCh9.pdf page 10 and 11.
This result is similar to Eq. 9.48, indicating that electric quadrupole and magnetic dipole radiation have the same basic strength.
Similar to this image here:
(http://images.slideplayer.com/25/7869754/slides/slide_14.jpg)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 08/03/2017 01:09 pm
Rodal et al, what I'm trying to communicate to you is that the entire frustum (not the electric multipoles of any single mode being excited), and the shaped contents (because it's cone, not a symmetric cylinder) therein, amounts to one big time varying octupole (when viewed longitudinally), which according to what I've studied is fully capable of emitting gravitational radiation. Going back to the gravitational induction equation, the gravitational EMF produced would be dependent on the rate of change of flux in time, and the disturbance in spacetime would propagate as a disturbance of spacetime itself, as a wave. From what I've read, a gravitational wave rocket would do no better than a photon rocket, but an EmDrive is reported to outperform a photon rocket; my intuition tells me that the "fast switching" (talking about the gravitational equivalent of db/dt) within the cavity could be responsible for the anomalous performance.

Interesting discussion of this in an astrophysical setting on page 14 here:
http://www.drrobertbaker.com/docs/War%20on%20Terror%20Applications.pdf

http://slideplayer.com/slide/5158008/

While there's been plenty of attention to astrophysical sources of gravitational radiation, I see no reason to write off the production of such radiation in a lab setting. We're producing (very weak) gravitational waves all the time, and this is echoed here.

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2016/02/everything-you-need-to-know-about.html
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/03/2017 02:23 pm
Dynamite.  I'm planning on attending the NIAC Symposium. I hope to see you and others there.

I was able to talk my better half into making a long weekend trip out of it, so I plan on attending. It will be good to see you again Bob and to meet the gang!

Dr. Rodal, I didn't see a schedule. Do you know what day and time your group will be presenting? Please let me know.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/03/2017 02:37 pm
I finished the 3D parts for printing the side walls. The cone angle is well within what the printer can print without needing supports. As with the end-plates, I split the side walls into four identical top and bottom quarters. I've also included images of what the completed frustum looks like including a cutaway.

All the parts are now complete and I've double checked that TE013 is at ~2.405GHz using the same mesh exported to FEKO. If there is interest, I can collect all the STL files and gcode for the parts and put them on Thingiverse.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 08/03/2017 05:06 pm
Dynamite.  I'm planning on attending the NIAC Symposium. I hope to see you and others there.

I was able to talk my better half into making a long weekend trip out of it, so I plan on attending. It will be good to see you again Bob and to meet the gang!

Dr. Rodal, I didn't see a schedule. Do you know what day and time your group will be presenting? Please let me know.
The schedule has not been disclosed yet.  Judging from last year, the time allowed for each presentation is short: ~15  minutes, and there will be some time for questions and answers. Heidi will be making the presentation.  Here is video for the last couple of years so that you can have a better idea of what to expect:

2016 Raleigh NC
https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2016

2015  Seattle, WA
https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2015

It will be live broadcasted through livestream.com
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/03/2017 06:00 pm
I finished the 3D parts for printing the side walls. The cone angle is well within what the printer can print without needing supports. As with the end-plates, I split the side walls into four identical top and bottom quarters. I've also included images of what the completed frustum looks like including a cutaway.

All the parts are now complete and I've double checked that TE013 is at ~2.405GHz using the same mesh exported to FEKO. If there is interest, I can collect all the STL files and gcode for the parts and put them on Thingiverse.

Great work! Do you think you will someday build a Cannae type device also? Anyone else here working on Cannae devices?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/03/2017 09:13 pm
Do you think you will someday build a Cannae type device also? Anyone else here working on Cannae devices?

I don't have any plans to work on a Cannae drive at this time. I'm not aware of anyone working on duplicating Cannae's work either. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: jpo234 on 08/03/2017 10:08 pm
Hi  Phil, thank you for the update on Tajmar, as I did not know Tajmar was presenting more work on the EM Drive there.   Looking forward to more news on his presentation   :)


The SpaceDrive Project – Developing Revolutionary Propulsion at TU Dresden (https://iafastro.directory/iac/paper/id/38595/summary/)
Overview of Electric Propulsion Developments at TU Dresden for Micro and Small-Satellites (https://iafastro.directory/iac/paper/id/38586/summary/)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SteveD on 08/04/2017 04:51 am
All the parts are now complete and I've double checked that TE013 is at ~2.405GHz using the same mesh exported to FEKO. If there is interest, I can collect all the STL files and gcode for the parts and put them on Thingiverse.

Please do.  The Fall semester is about to start.  Replications by advanced undergrad or grad students is likely to be helpful in building support for EMDrive research.  Making files available would help speed this process.  Though I am worried about earlier reports that indicated rf should not be injected from the small base.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 08/04/2017 05:07 am
Hi  Phil, thank you for the update on Tajmar, as I did not know Tajmar was presenting more work on the EM Drive there.   Looking forward to more news on his presentation   :)


The SpaceDrive Project – Developing Revolutionary Propulsion at TU Dresden (https://iafastro.directory/iac/paper/id/38595/summary/)
Overview of Electric Propulsion Developments at TU Dresden for Micro and Small-Satellites (https://iafastro.directory/iac/paper/id/38586/summary/)

I'm seeing "Overview of Electric Propulsion Developments at TU Dresden for Micro and Small-Satellites"

Did the title change?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 08/04/2017 05:18 am

I'm seeing "Overview of Electric Propulsion Developments at TU Dresden for Micro and Small-Satellites"

Did the title change?

It seems there are two papers being presented by Dr. Tajmar on this year's IAC, one with the intriguing title referring to The SpaceDrive project and the other much more conventional with the title you refer.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 08/04/2017 01:53 pm
Interesting lead here. I remember bringing up the notion of "jerk" before.

https://www.google.com/patents/US6417597

d2ω/dt2=second time derivative of the spindle's angular velocity, ω, or third time derivative of it's angle, termed, a “jerk”. In fact, as noted by M. S. Turner and R. V. Wagoner “Gravitational Radiation from Slowly Rotating ‘Supernova’ Preliminary Results,” in Sources of Gravitational Radiation, Edited by L. L. Smarr, Cambridge University Press , 1979, p. 383 that “If the angular velocity ω . . . is non-uniform, octupole (post-Newtonian) radiation is generated (in addition to the quadrupole (Newtonian) radiation . . . ” (emphasis added) and on p. 385 they state “This radiation is generated not by non-spherical distribution of matter . . . , but by internal motions.”



So for instance, imagine you're in a race car, traveling around a track that is a perfect circle. You would feel a constant acceleration, but no jerk. Now imagine you're traveling around an egg shaped track, you would feel non-uniform acceleration as you make the turns.
http://dynref.engr.illinois.edu/avt.html

Edit:
added:
Looks pretty "jerky".
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1627599#msg1627599
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 08/04/2017 02:33 pm
FYI : New York Times story on the "Loyal Engineers Steering the Voyager Probes"


https://goo.gl/ohrRwn (https://goo.gl/ohrRwn)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Eusa on 08/05/2017 09:16 am
I noticed common principles between McCulloch's quantized inertia and my hypothesis concerning to the equivalency between space as massless radiation and matter as massive fields:

Σp(st_r) = nh/Σλ(st_r) = Σm(st_m)*c  |  in energetic closed spacetime section consisting st_r (radiation) and st_m (matter).

Σm(st_m)*c  is intristic inner mass momentum of the matter in respect of free fall inertial frame and Σλ(st_r) is the sum of all massless quanta wavelengths, n is the amount of quanta.

Of course, all partial energetic closed spacetime sections are spatially "hairy" or  intristic highly curved - the equation applies best for the whole universe.

The conclusion of that hypothesis is: massive matter gravitates, massless radiation not. Photons at emissions and at absorptions are part of massive matter structure.

Then, if you produced big amount of quanta massless radiation you could produce little extra space. If this process was asymmetric maybe you could produce little thrust too...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/05/2017 01:09 pm
32 hours and 20 minutes of printing for one-quarter set of sidewalls.  :o   A pretty intense thunderstorm rolled through during the last 5% of printing that made me very nervous. The power went out a couple of times, but the uninterruptible power supply did its job.  I should be able to print for up to an hour before the battery is exhausted. And 99% of the time, power is restored almost immediately, so this should work out just fine.

I think I can adjust the settings of the printer to get each set finished in 19 hours with only a little loss in print resolution, but I really like the quality of the current settings a lot. Current settings are 0.15mm layers. I want to see if 0.2mm is noticeably different. 0.35mm layers is possible. The end-plates were printed using 0.05mm layers, the finest quality setting available.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 08/05/2017 04:03 pm
32 hours and 20 minutes of printing for one-quarter set of sidewalls.  :o   A pretty intense thunderstorm rolled through during the last 5% of printing that made me very nervous. The power went out a couple of times, but the uninterruptible power supply did its job.  I should be able to print for up to an hour before the battery is exhausted. And 99% of the time, power is restored almost immediately, so this should work out just fine.

I think I can adjust the settings of the printer to get each set finished in 19 hours with only a little loss in print resolution, but I really like the quality of the current settings a lot. Current settings are 0.15mm layers. I want to see if 0.2mm is noticeably different. 0.35mm layers is possible. The end-plates were printed using 0.05mm layers, the finest quality setting available.

Very cool!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: glennfish on 08/06/2017 11:37 pm
32 hours and 20 minutes of printing for one-quarter set of sidewalls.  :o   A pretty intense thunderstorm rolled through during the last 5% of printing that made me very nervous. The power went out a couple of times, but the uninterruptible power supply did its job.  I should be able to print for up to an hour before the battery is exhausted. And 99% of the time, power is restored almost immediately, so this should work out just fine.

I think I can adjust the settings of the printer to get each set finished in 19 hours with only a little loss in print resolution, but I really like the quality of the current settings a lot. Current settings are 0.15mm layers. I want to see if 0.2mm is noticeably different. 0.35mm layers is possible. The end-plates were printed using 0.05mm layers, the finest quality setting available.

Questions?

What is the specific material being used?

How do you plan to coat it, and with what?  In my mind's eye, I'd pop this into a vacuum chamber after fabrication and do a sliver coat through sublimation, followed by an aluminum coat through sputtering.  Aluminum only to prevent oxidation.   Not sure about copper.... you could do a copper plate chemically.

Is there any modeling available that indicates that 0.05mm is comparable to a copper plate which would have a smoothness off the rolling press of typically 100 microns?

Just curious.  Answers not required.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 08/07/2017 01:44 am
(...) Do you think you will someday build a Cannae type device also? Anyone else here working on Cannae devices?

Great question Bob012345,
if Guido Fetta's results are em thrust then there must be longitudonal asymetry in his lobes and it would be nice to know exactly how they are arranged.

Presuming that the design idea came from a working knowlege of linear particle accelerators, somone familiar with that technology might be able to get some good results.

My question is, can a Fetta type resonator be constructed that would resonate at 60 GHz and what would the dimensions of its lobes be?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/07/2017 03:30 pm
What is the specific material being used?

How do you plan to coat it, and with what?  In my mind's eye, I'd pop this into a vacuum chamber after fabrication and do a sliver coat through sublimation, followed by an aluminum coat through sputtering.  Aluminum only to prevent oxidation.   Not sure about copper.... you could do a copper plate chemically.

Is there any modeling available that indicates that 0.05mm is comparable to a copper plate which would have a smoothness off the rolling press of typically 100 microns?

Base material is PLA (Polylactic acid).

Initially, the end-plates will be covered with single pieces of copper foil. I will use an adhesive to bind the copper to the PLA. The interior surface of the side walls will be covered in overlapping 3 inch strips of EMI shielding copper adhesive foil. The conductive adhesive is pressure sensitive, so the harder the pieces are pressed together, the lower the resistivity. This is because conductivity is achieved via small flakes of metal suspended in the acrylic adhesive. When pressed together, these metal flakes make physical contact between the pieces of foil. I've used this method on the current flat end-plate frustum.

0.05mm is 50 micrometers. I am also lightly sanding the parts so they are smooth.  There is a way to smooth the PLA using acetone, but I've not tried that.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: rhubley on 08/07/2017 05:07 pm

Initially, the end-plates will be covered with single pieces of copper foil. I will use an adhesive to bind the copper to the PLA.

Are you not worried the heat generated by the frustum warping the PLA scaffold?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/07/2017 05:42 pm
(...) Do you think you will someday build a Cannae type device also? Anyone else here working on Cannae devices?

Great question Bob012345,
if Guido Fetta's results are em thrust then there must be longitudonal asymetry in his lobes and it would be nice to know exactly how they are arranged.

Presuming that the design idea came from a working knowlege of linear particle accelerators, somone familiar with that technology might be able to get some good results.

My question is, can a Fetta type resonator be constructed that would resonate at 60 GHz and what would the dimensions of its lobes be?

Fetta claims his device works by the Lorentz force. I'm not sure exactly how since I don't have his paper but I've been thinking a lot about how a Lorentz force might work but I'm not confident enough to say yet. Also, looking at his design for a Deep Space Probe, the device actually is stated to have an area of some 90 square meters which is huge. His pancake like structures are over 3 meter in diameter yet operate with less  than 20 watts but at only 50MHz. The large size is dictated by passive cooling of the superconducting chambers.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/07/2017 06:07 pm
Are you not worried the heat generated by the frustum warping the PLA scaffold?

If I were using a higher powered amp, I might be worried, but the amp I am using will top out around 25W. To preserve the amp, I plan on running tests between 2W - 20W. Test duration is usually less than one minute so I do not expect enough heat to be absorbed to cause problems due to the internal surface area (~0.28m2). PLA glass transition temp is 65C (150F). So if I can keep everything well below that temperature, there shouldn't be any warping.

   
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: aero on 08/07/2017 06:44 pm
Are you not worried the heat generated by the frustum warping the PLA scaffold?

If I were using a higher powered amp, I might be worried, but the amp I am using will top out around 25W. To preserve the amp, I plan on running tests between 2W - 20W. Test duration is usually less than one minute so I do not expect enough heat to be absorbed to cause problems due to the large internal surface area (~2.8m2). PLA glass transition temp is 65C (150F). So if I can keep everything well below that temperature, there shouldn't be any warping.

   

You should probably re-check that internal surface area calculation. ...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/07/2017 06:53 pm


You should probably re-check that internal surface area calculation. ...

Whoops!  Thanks aero, let me correct that.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 08/07/2017 07:46 pm


You should probably re-check that internal surface area calculation. ...

Whoops!  Thanks aero, let me correct that.

James could you re quote the dimensions of your current build please.

Thanks
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/07/2017 07:51 pm
James could you re quote the dimensions of your current build please.

small diameter: 17.8cm (36.41cm spherical radius)
height: 24cm
big diameter: 29.9cm (61.161cm spherical radius)

It's the same dimensions as the current flat end frustum, except with spherical ends.  I have also listed the spherical radii. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/07/2017 09:42 pm
X_Ray, attached is the STL file of the cavity interior that I used to create the 3D print files. It was created in another CAD program to get around FEKO's limitation of drawing parabolic surfaces instead of spherical ones. You can import this using the mesh import. Make sure you set the scale factor under advanced tab to .001 so it will import at the correct scale. Then you can remesh it using FEKO's mesh function by deselecting use model mesh. Then create a new mesh as usual.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 08/08/2017 01:47 am
Are you not worried the heat generated by the frustum warping the PLA scaffold?

If I were using a higher powered amp, I might be worried, but the amp I am using will top out around 25W. To preserve the amp, I plan on running tests between 2W - 20W. Test duration is usually less than one minute so I do not expect enough heat to be absorbed to cause problems due to the internal surface area (~0.28m2). PLA glass transition temp is 65C (150F). So if I can keep everything well below that temperature, there shouldn't be any warping.

Safe to say that the heat absorbed by the frustum due to energy input cannot exceed that generated by the energy input. Can we go further and subtract the energy of any thrust achieved from that figure?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThinkerX on 08/08/2017 02:32 am
Ok, gotta ask...

will Shell and/or Stardrive be publishing any of their accumulated research soon?

Say...by years end?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: demofsky on 08/08/2017 03:24 am
Are you not worried the heat generated by the frustum warping the PLA scaffold?

If I were using a higher powered amp, I might be worried, but the amp I am using will top out around 25W. To preserve the amp, I plan on running tests between 2W - 20W. Test duration is usually less than one minute so I do not expect enough heat to be absorbed to cause problems due to the internal surface area (~0.28m2). PLA glass transition temp is 65C (150F). So if I can keep everything well below that temperature, there shouldn't be any warping.

Safe to say that the heat absorbed by the frustum due to energy input cannot exceed that generated by the energy input. Can we go further and subtract the energy of any thrust achieved from that figure?
Depends on how conservative an analysis you want to do.  Since we are looking at failure modes it might be better to ignore thrust.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Flyby on 08/08/2017 08:46 am
Are you not worried the heat generated by the frustum warping the PLA scaffold?

If I were using a higher powered amp, I might be worried, but the amp I am using will top out around 25W. To preserve the amp, I plan on running tests between 2W - 20W. Test duration is usually less than one minute so I do not expect enough heat to be absorbed to cause problems due to the internal surface area (~0.28m2). PLA glass transition temp is 65C (150F). So if I can keep everything well below that temperature, there shouldn't be any warping.

Personally I would have taken PETG instead of PLA as it has a higher glass transition temp (80°C). It is just as cheap to use and has only a slightly higher printing temp compared to PLA.

ABS has an ever higher glass transition temperature, but is notorious for warping and splitting.
Through the years of experience , I've developed a distaste for using ABS. It is toxic and damn hard to get right in daily use (The splitting and warping ruined many prints destined for clients)

PETG is actually food safe and has a superior layer binding, and unlike PLA, it has a superior impact resistance. IF you accidentally drop a PLA piece, it is very likely pieces might brake off. Not so with PETG..

Apparently, PEEK is the ultimate printable material to use (glass transition at 143°C), but helas, it needs a special hot-end due to a much higher melting point. I have yet to try it...

added:
Oh, I forgot about PC (polycarbonate) filaments.... Extremely tough and with a high glass temp of 147°C.
Again, it needs a high temp hot-end (265-300°C, depending on speed)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/08/2017 03:07 pm
Personally I would have taken PETG instead of PLA as it has a higher glass transition temp (80°C). It is just as cheap to use and has only a slightly higher printing temp compared to PLA.

I used PLA because a roll came with the printer.  :-\  There's a growing list of things I wish I had done, like bolt holes so I don't have to drill holes and epoxy everything together. The next version will be much more thought out. I also want to replace the Y axis bearings on the printer with something less noisy. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 08/09/2017 04:32 am
http://emdrive.com/  (http://emdrive.com/)is worth a look today :-)

              Plans for 3G Demonstrator developing...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 08/09/2017 04:46 am
http://emdrive.com/  (http://emdrive.com/)is worth a look today :-)

              Plans for 3G Demonstrator developing...
Thanks for the link. But let's wait until real details and data is provided before we fire up the barbie.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 08/09/2017 05:43 am
http://emdrive.com/  (http://emdrive.com/)is worth a look today :-)

              Plans for 3G Demonstrator developing...
Thanks for the link. But let's wait until real details and data is provided before we fire up the barbie.

We know that they allow Mr. Shawyer to release very little information about any progress considering all NDA in place. It is first time ever he speaks about 3rd generation, but I think we already saw the patent few months back.

Still this is very interesting information indeed. If I find anything more about this sudden release I will post it here.

Link for patent mentioned in the presentation:

https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-find-publication-getPDF.pdf?PatentNo=GB2537119&DocType=A&JournalNumber=6647

Can also someone elaborate on the use of Sapphire substrate?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Flyby on 08/09/2017 08:29 am
there was already a discussion about that in thread 8:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1607569#msg1607569

Unless I'm mistaken, it had something to do with spahire being the ideal substrate to place a layer of YBCO on.
This configuration pops up in other experiments also, like the quantum locking experiment :
https://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/student-voices/a_closer_look_at_quantum.



added :
found out exactly why a sapphire substrate is used, in this document :
https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=ucin971281869&disposition=attachment

Basically,  "the thermal expansion match" between sapphire and YBCO (superconducting material) is the reason to why YBCO is placed upon a sapphire substrate. Apparently, YBCO (brittle?) would crack is placed upon a material that does not have a matching thermal expansion..


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 08/09/2017 09:57 am
there was already a discussion about that in thread 8:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1607569#msg1607569

Unless I'm mistaken, it had something to do with spahire being the ideal substrate to place a layer of YBCO on.
This configuration pops up in other experiments also, like the quantum locking experiment :
https://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/student-voices/a_closer_look_at_quantum.



added :
found out exactly why a sapphire substrate is used, in this document :
https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=ucin971281869&disposition=attachment

Basically,  "the thermal expansion match" between sapphire and YBCO (superconducting material) is the reason to why YBCO is placed upon a sapphire substrate. Apparently, YBCO (brittle?) would crack is placed upon a material that does not have a matching thermal expansion..


Interesting, basicaly he chose sapphire substrate as a material that he sees as ideal for this device.

"Besides its excellent electrical insulating properties, sapphire has high thermal conductivity. CMOS chips on sapphire are especially useful for high-power radio-frequency (RF) "


from wikipedia  - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapphire (almost to the bottom)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/09/2017 12:28 pm
With a 2,400 liter tank of LH2, it won't be cheap to fill up!  Best to produce the LH2 on site ($0.70/liter) vs off site ($2.20/liter). I wonder how big the battery would need to be if we eliminate the fuel cells and used a dedicated refrigeration system for cooling the emdrives.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 08/09/2017 12:42 pm
He'd better hire a designer for his PAV too. Why not just put the tanks (as well as three couples of EmDrives) at the vertices of an equilateral triangle:
(http://www.shinryu.fr/img/years/2012/articles/culture/grendizer/ovt01.gif)

Then you just have to modulate the power applied at each vertex to pitch and roll, thus accelerate and move forward, turn, slow down and stand still of even move backward, like a helicopter. But a totally silent one with no rotating airfoil!

*Sigh* This is still just plain science fiction.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Flyby on 08/09/2017 01:05 pm
My biggest problem is the proposed 1.54kN/kW...
Really ?? kilo-Newtons ? :o 1540 Newtons per kiloWatt?
And all this while we have yet to see a solid milli-Newton scale result ??

Not that I do not want to believe it could work, but this sure doesn't make it sound "believable"..
It rather falls in the category of "wishful thinking" instead of "engineering optimism"...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Req on 08/09/2017 01:07 pm
I'm sorry but this is just getting ridiculous.  I suppose next he'll be announcing gen4 with an E-Cat power source and a negative energy FTL drive that kicks in once it's reached orbit?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 08/09/2017 01:44 pm
My biggest problem is the proposed 1.54kN/kW...
Really ?? kilo-Newtons ? :o 1540 Newtons per kiloWatt?
And all this while we have yet to see a solid milli-Newton scale result ??

Not that I do not want to believe it could work, but this sure doesn't make it sound "believable"..
It rather falls in the category of "wishful thinking" instead of "engineering optimism"...

It only needs to move with a speed of 1m/s to provide free energy.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 08/09/2017 01:48 pm
My biggest problem is the proposed 1.54kN/kW...
Really ?? kilo-Newtons ? :o 1540 Newtons per kiloWatt?
And all this while we have yet to see a solid milli-Newton scale result ??

Not that I do not want to believe it could work, but this sure doesn't make it sound "believable"..
It rather falls in the category of "wishful thinking" instead of "engineering optimism"...

It only needs to move with a speed of 1m/s to provide free energy.

If Rodal's hypothesis pans out, it doesn't provide energy as much as it robs kinetic energy from orbital momentum, like a gravity-assist does but in solid state and somewhat independent of relative orbital motion.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Kenjee on 08/09/2017 02:26 pm
Hey Mono, your .stl in comsol goes like this.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 08/09/2017 03:28 pm
My biggest problem is the proposed 1.54kN/kW...
Really ?? kilo-Newtons ? :o 1540 Newtons per kiloWatt?
And all this while we have yet to see a solid milli-Newton scale result ??

Not that I do not want to believe it could work, but this sure doesn't make it sound "believable"..
It rather falls in the category of "wishful thinking" instead of "engineering optimism"...

It only needs to move with a speed of 1m/s to provide free energy.


Notice from http://www.emdrive.com/3GEmDrive.pdf that Shawyer now claims 7,800 times that amount: 7.8 km/s and ability to go to Low Earth Orbit single-stage carrying a payload of 100 kg  ::) :

3G Launch Vehicle Demonstrator

Launcher provides launch to LEO, one orbit, and return to site
Payload 100kg
Altitude 250km
Velocity 7.8 km/s = 28,080 km/hr = 17,448 miles/hour

The velocity required for a 200 km LEO circular orbit: 7.8 km/s (17,450 mph), so this is what he is claiming for velocity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed

His claims are getting more and more bizarre, as 11 years have gone by since his article in New Scientist in 2006.   ::)

https://www.newscientist.com/blog/fromthepublisher/2006/10/emdrive-on-trial.html

See this for comparison with a chemical rocket (which has to carry propellant):

https://www.quora.com/How-many-kN-engine-do-I-need-to-send-100kg-into-lower-orbit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minotaur_I

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/NFIRE1.jpg/405px-NFIRE1.jpg)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 08/09/2017 03:32 pm
My biggest problem is the proposed 1.54kN/kW...
Really ?? kilo-Newtons ? :o 1540 Newtons per kiloWatt?
And all this while we have yet to see a solid milli-Newton scale result ??

Not that I do not want to believe it could work, but this sure doesn't make it sound "believable"..
It rather falls in the category of "wishful thinking" instead of "engineering optimism"...

It only needs to move with a speed of 1m/s to provide free energy.


Notice from http://www.emdrive.com/3GEmDrive.pdf that Shawyer now claims 7,800 times that amount: 7.8 km/s and ability to go to Low Earth Orbit:

3G Launch Vehicle Demonstrator

Launcher provides launch to LEO,
one orbit, and return to site

Payload 100kg
Altitude 250km
Velocity 7.8km/s = 28,080 km/hr = 17,448 miles/hour

His claims are getting more and more bizarre, as 11 years have gone by since his article in New Scientist in 2006.   ::)

https://www.newscientist.com/blog/fromthepublisher/2006/10/emdrive-on-trial.html

And all without a clear third party verification of millinewton thrust levels per kilowatt in his apparatuses...  :-\
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 08/09/2017 04:53 pm
Found two articles that got released today on the latest news about the EmDrive.

Both from IB Times.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-designs-reusable-launch-vehicle-personal-flight-vehicle-revealed-1634322

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/could-emdrive-save-planet-world-ending-asteroid-strike-1634279

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/09/2017 05:23 pm
My biggest problem is the proposed 1.54kN/kW...
Really ?? kilo-Newtons ? :o 1540 Newtons per kiloWatt?
And all this while we have yet to see a solid milli-Newton scale result ??

Not that I do not want to believe it could work, but this sure doesn't make it sound "believable"..
It rather falls in the category of "wishful thinking" instead of "engineering optimism"...

It only needs to move with a speed of 1m/s to provide free energy.


Notice from http://www.emdrive.com/3GEmDrive.pdf that Shawyer now claims 7,800 times that amount: 7.8 km/s and ability to go to Low Earth Orbit single-stage carrying a payload of 100 kg  ::) :

3G Launch Vehicle Demonstrator

Launcher provides launch to LEO, one orbit, and return to site
Payload 100kg
Altitude 250km
Velocity 7.8 km/s = 28,080 km/hr = 17,448 miles/hour

The velocity required for a 200 km LEO circular orbit: 7.8 km/s (17,450 mph), so this is what he is claiming for velocity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed

His claims are getting more and more bizarre, as 11 years have gone by since his article in New Scientist in 2006.   ::)

https://www.newscientist.com/blog/fromthepublisher/2006/10/emdrive-on-trial.html

See this for comparison with a chemical rocket (which has to carry propellant):

https://www.quora.com/How-many-kN-engine-do-I-need-to-send-100kg-into-lower-orbit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minotaur_I


Aren't you and your team ultimately wanting to generate large thrusts for the MEGA device, isn't that what the NAIC proposal is all about when you talk about a 400Kg payload rendezvous with Proxima Centauri in 20 years? Thanks.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/09/2017 06:01 pm
I'm sorry but this is just getting ridiculous.  I suppose next he'll be announcing gen4 with an E-Cat power source and a negative energy FTL drive that kicks in once it's reached orbit?

It may be (I have no idea!) But I'll say this much, that new PDF has actually gotten my attention as now it's shown on an actual vehicle that is interesting to a wider base on a site like this! Let's keep the support and critics to technical.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 08/09/2017 06:13 pm
It's not a matter of acceptability of the concept, but of scale and believability.

Anyone believing these space drives may exist buys into the scientific eccentricity that comes with them.

All thruster devices more efficient than a perfectly efficient photon rocket share this same characteristic: they shouldn't exist according to known physics.

Yet some apparently do. With experiments to prove it.

But the scale of things and the road there matters. It's different to say you can see a few micro/millinewtons on a tabletop experiment you can show at work, than saying you have thrusters ready to put a replica of the Enterprise in orbit by the next month, but without showing a path of development with gradually stronger devices to validate your sayings, with visible demonstrations that challenge or destroy our skepticism.

Mr. Shawyer has fallen into telling tales of enormously strong Emdrives existing, somewhere, but he isn't allowed to show them, the same as their owners.

That is absurd. A demonstration of such a device would make a very strong point for the companies and nations supposedly researching the topic, it would also make his critics shut up in awe and it would make him a potentially very rich man in his old age. Why hide it?

Not even for national security reasons. When the Soviets had a way to launch a satellite before the USA, they didn't hide it, but touted it far a wide to show the superiority of Communism. Or the dangerous game NK is playing, showing they can sting anyone wanting to mess with them.

The most reasonable answer to the lack of proof of hyper strong Emdrives, is that such devices only exist in Mr. Shawyer sayings.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: kaublezw on 08/09/2017 06:17 pm
For the launch vehicle...

Force = 1.54 * 8 = 12320 N
acceleration = 12320 / 701 kg = 17.57 m /2
distance traveled from rest in 1 second is .5 * 17.57 = 8.79 m
work = F * d = 12320 * 8.79 = 77862
power = 77862 / 1 second = 78 kw

12.32 kw in, 78 kw out???

Is that right??






Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 08/09/2017 06:23 pm
For the launch vehicle...

Force = 1.54 * 8 = 12320 N
acceleration = 12320 / 701 kg = 17.57 m /2
distance traveled from rest in 1 second is .5 * 17.57 = 8.79 m
work = F * d = 12320 * 8.79 = 77862
power = 77862 / 1 second = 78 kw

12.32 kw in, 78 kw out???

Is that right??

Probably. By Mach Theory, the excess energy is coming from the kinetic energy of orbital momentum, preserving CoE and preventing over-unity.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 08/09/2017 06:26 pm
It's not a matter of acceptability of the concept, but of scale and believability.

Anyone believing these space drives may exist buys into the scientific eccentricity that comes with them.

All thruster devices more efficient than a perfectly efficient photon rocket share this same characteristic: they shouldn't exist according to known physics.

Yet some apparently do. With experiments to prove it.

But the scale of things and the road there matters. It's different to say you can see a few micro/millinewtons on a tabletop experiment you can show at work, than saying you have thrusters ready to put a replica of the Enterprise in orbit by the next month, but without showing a path of development with gradually stronger devices to validate your sayings, with visible demonstrations that challenge or destroy our skepticism.

Mr. Shawyer has fallen into telling tales of enormously strong Emdrives existing, somewhere, but he isn't allowed to show them, the same as their owners.

That is absurd. A demonstration of such a device would make a very strong point for the companies and nations supposedly researching the topic, it would also make his critics shut up in awe and it would make him a potentially very rich man in his old age. Why hide it?

Not even for national security reasons. When the Soviets had a way to launch a satellite before the USA, they didn't hide it, but touted it far a wide to show the superiority of Communism. Or the dangerous game NK is playing, showing they can sting anyone wanting to mess with them.

The most reasonable answer to the lack of proof of hyper strong Emdrives, is that such devices only exist in Mr. Shawyer sayings.

I think 3rd generation is only a concept on the paper so far. Or that is what I understand from the articles at the moment. Yes we are all thinking about why there were not demonstrations yet.

Edit: On the other hand for example some experimental airplanes (like B2 Stealth bomber) were introduced to the public only after their first flights. It may be possible we will not see any demonstrations of the EmDrive until that very moment.

Link for B2 Bomber - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 08/09/2017 06:32 pm
For the launch vehicle...

Force = 1.54 * 8 = 12320 N
acceleration = 12320 / 701 kg = 17.57 m /2
distance traveled from rest in 1 second is .5 * 17.57 = 8.79 m
work = F * d = 12320 * 8.79 = 77862
power = 77862 / 1 second = 78 kw

12.32 kw in, 78 kw out???

Is that right??

Probably. By Mach Theory, the excess energy is coming from the kinetic energy of orbital momentum, preserving CoE and preventing over-unity.

I know this has already been discussed over and over and over… but still:

The Machian explanation prevents over-unity globally, at the universe scale. But not necessarily locally. If you're investing a few kWe with a small power source to let the immense flow of almost unlimited potential energy of the universe express in accelerating such a "gravinertial transistor", how can you say the final kinetic energy of the vehicle cannot be harnessed to generate more energy than what has been consumed by the little electrical power source?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 08/09/2017 06:34 pm
I know this has already been discussed over and over and over… but still:

The Machian explanation prevents over-unity globally, at the universe scale. But not necessarily locally. If you're investing a few kWe with a small power source to let the immense flow of almost unlimited potential energy of the universe express in accelerating such a "gravinertial transistor", how can you say the final kinetic energy of the vehicle cannot be harnessed to generate more energy than what has been consumed by the little electrical power source?

Barring an additional unknown mechanism, one probably can't actually say that it avoids local over-unity.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/09/2017 06:38 pm
For the launch vehicle...

Force = 1.54 * 8 = 12320 N
acceleration = 12320 / 701 kg = 17.57 m /2
distance traveled from rest in 1 second is .5 * 17.57 = 8.79 m
work = F * d = 12320 * 8.79 = 77862
power = 77862 / 1 second = 78 kw

12.32 kw in, 78 kw out???

Is that right??

Probably. By Mach Theory, the excess energy is coming from the kinetic energy of orbital momentum, preserving CoE and preventing over-unity.

Using the term 'orbital momentum' unnecessarily confuses things. It doesn't have anything to do with being in orbit. According to the slide I attach below, all the vehicle momentum and energy comes from elsewhere, the energy input into the MEGA device is solely to create the Mach effect. A very poor analogy, dig a deep hole then fall into it. You have to supply the energy to dig the hole but not the kinetic energy gained when you fall into it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 08/09/2017 06:39 pm
I know this has already been discussed over and over and over… but still:

The Machian explanation prevents over-unity globally, at the universe scale. But not necessarily locally. If you're investing a few kWe with a small power source to let the immense flow of almost unlimited potential energy of the universe express in accelerating such a "gravinertial transistor", how can you say the final kinetic energy of the vehicle cannot be harnessed to generate more energy than what has been consumed by the little electrical power source?

Barring an additional unknown mechanism, one probably can't actually say that it avoids local over-unity.

That's exactly my point. If the engine offers constant acceleration under constant power, it is an over-unity device. If not, local CoE may still apply. But I am half-convinced by Shawyer's explanation about Doppler shifts preventing large accelerations, which are more a technological constraint than a fundamental law.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 08/09/2017 06:42 pm
For the launch vehicle...

Force = 1.54 * 8 = 12320 N
acceleration = 12320 / 701 kg = 17.57 m /2
distance traveled from rest in 1 second is .5 * 17.57 = 8.79 m
work = F * d = 12320 * 8.79 = 77862
power = 77862 / 1 second = 78 kw

12.32 kw in, 78 kw out???

Is that right??

Probably. By Mach Theory, the excess energy is coming from the kinetic energy of orbital momentum, preserving CoE and preventing over-unity.

I know this has already been discussed over and over and over… but still:

The Machian explanation prevents over-unity globally, at the universe scale. But not necessarily locally. If you're investing a few kWe with a small power source to let the immense flow of almost unlimited potential energy of the universe express in accelerating such a "gravinertial transistor", how can you say the final kinetic energy of the vehicle cannot be harnessed to generate more energy than what has been consumed by the little electrical power source?

It all comes down as to how one defines energy extraction.  Under any definition however, one can use gravitation to extract momentum (as for example in a gravity assist). If per your definition you think that presently one can extract energy from gravitation (for example using a hydoelectric powerplant, due to the momentum of the falling water stored in the reservoir thanks to the thermal cycle coming from the Sun), then yes you would be extracting energy using such a scheme.  The  momentum and the "energy" coming from the extremely small movement of the other celestial masses (10^55 grams of mass in the Universe).  However, if one defines energy extraction thermodynamically as per a closed cycle, then the answer would be no.   

I don't understand what a "gravinertial transistor" means.  Gravity and inertia are tied together in General Relativity through the Equivalence Principle  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle  , so why write "gravinertial". Are you implying any circumstance under which inertial mass and gravitational mass are not equivalent?  I know of lots of experimental tests confirming the equivalence principle and no experimental test showing a difference between inertial and gravitational mass.

Also why "transistor" ?  What transistor ?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor 
Quote
A transistor is a semiconductor device used to amplify or switch electronic signals and electrical power. It is composed of semiconductor material usually with at least three terminals for connection to an external circuit.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/transistor
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/09/2017 06:47 pm
I know this has already been discussed over and over and over… but still:

The Machian explanation prevents over-unity globally, at the universe scale. But not necessarily locally. If you're investing a few kWe with a small power source to let the immense flow of almost unlimited potential energy of the universe express in accelerating such a "gravinertial transistor", how can you say the final kinetic energy of the vehicle cannot be harnessed to generate more energy than what has been consumed by the little electrical power source?

Barring an additional unknown mechanism, one probably can't actually say that it avoids local over-unity.

That's exactly my point. If the engine offers constant acceleration under constant power, it is an over-unity device. If not, local CoE may still apply. But I am half-convinced by Shawyer's explanation about Doppler shifts preventing large accelerations, which are more a technological constraint than a fundamental law.

As professor Woodward pointed out, any classical system that provides constant acceleration at a constant power does the same thing. Even conventional rockets. The reason we don't see such effects is because first, most of the energy is lost as reaction mass which is far more than the quadratic gain in the rocket and we explain it by saying the rocket 'borrows' kinetic energy from the reaction mass, and second, it simply runs out of mass first before it gets to that point.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/09/2017 07:01 pm
For the launch vehicle...

Force = 1.54 * 8 = 12320 N
acceleration = 12320 / 701 kg = 17.57 m /2
distance traveled from rest in 1 second is .5 * 17.57 = 8.79 m
work = F * d = 12320 * 8.79 = 77862
power = 77862 / 1 second = 78 kw

12.32 kw in, 78 kw out???

Is that right??

Probably. By Mach Theory, the excess energy is coming from the kinetic energy of orbital momentum, preserving CoE and preventing over-unity.

I know this has already been discussed over and over and over… but still:

The Machian explanation prevents over-unity globally, at the universe scale. But not necessarily locally. If you're investing a few kWe with a small power source to let the immense flow of almost unlimited potential energy of the universe express in accelerating such a "gravinertial transistor", how can you say the final kinetic energy of the vehicle cannot be harnessed to generate more energy than what has been consumed by the little electrical power source?

It all comes down as to how one defines energy extraction.  Under any definition however, one can use gravitation to extract momentum (as for example in a gravity assist). If per your definition you think that presently one can extract energy from gravitation (for example using a hydoelectric powerplant, due to the momentum of the falling water stored in the reservoir thanks to the thermal cycle coming from the Sun), then yes you would be extracting energy using such a scheme.  The  momentum and the "energy" coming from the extremely small movement of the other celestial masses (10^55 grams of mass in the Universe).  However, if one defines energy extraction thermodynamically as per a closed cycle, then the answer would be no.   

I don't understand what a "gravinertial transistor" means.  Gravity and inertia are tied together in General Relativity through the Equivalence Principle  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle  , so why write "gravinertial". Are you implying any circumstance under which inertial mass and gravitational mass are not equivalent?  I know of lots of experimental tests confirming the equivalence principle and no experimental test showing a difference between inertial and gravitational mass.

Also why "transistor" ?  What transistor ?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor 
Quote
A transistor is a semiconductor device used to amplify or switch electronic signals and electrical power. It is composed of semiconductor material usually with at least three terminals for connection to an external circuit.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/transistor

Perhaps transistor in the sense that there is a gain in what effect you get compared to what you put in not that it operates like a literal transistor.

p.s. Paul M. mentioned this concept in the Woodward effect thread.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/09/2017 07:22 pm
I know this has already been discussed over and over and over… but still:

The Machian explanation prevents over-unity globally, at the universe scale. But not necessarily locally. If you're investing a few kWe with a small power source to let the immense flow of almost unlimited potential energy of the universe express in accelerating such a "gravinertial transistor", how can you say the final kinetic energy of the vehicle cannot be harnessed to generate more energy than what has been consumed by the little electrical power source?

Barring an additional unknown mechanism, one probably can't actually say that it avoids local over-unity.

That's exactly my point. If the engine offers constant acceleration under constant power, it is an over-unity device. If not, local CoE may still apply. But I am half-convinced by Shawyer's explanation about Doppler shifts preventing large accelerations, which are more a technological constraint than a fundamental law.

As professor Woodward pointed out, any classical system that provides constant acceleration at a constant power does the same thing. Even conventional rockets. The reason we don't see such effects is because first, most of the energy is lost as reaction mass which is far more than the quadratic gain in the rocket and we explain it by saying the rocket 'borrows' kinetic energy from the reaction mass, and second, it simply runs out of mass first before it gets to that point.
Conventional rockets aren't constant force/power. If you look at them in a fixed reference frame (which you must for energy conservation to mean anything) the energy expelled in the exhaust varies, because the faster the rocket is going, the more the change in kinetic energy in the exhaust.

Also, it is probably better to look at the full energy balance, including energy expelled from the rocket in the mass of the exhaust (E=mc^2). This would show from any perspective that the instantaneous Force/Power is less than a photon rocket. Special relativity shows that there is no energy conservation problem at less than a photon rocket force/power ratio.

There therefore is no classical system that does the same thing.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 08/09/2017 07:58 pm
For the launch vehicle...

Force = 1.54 * 8 = 12320 N
acceleration = 12320 / 701 kg = 17.57 m /2
distance traveled from rest in 1 second is .5 * 17.57 = 8.79 m
work = F * d = 12320 * 8.79 = 77862
power = 77862 / 1 second = 78 kw

12.32 kw in, 78 kw out???

Is that right??

Probably. By Mach Theory, the excess energy is coming from the kinetic energy of orbital momentum, preserving CoE and preventing over-unity.

I know this has already been discussed over and over and over… but still:

The Machian explanation prevents over-unity globally, at the universe scale. But not necessarily locally. If you're investing a few kWe with a small power source to let the immense flow of almost unlimited potential energy of the universe express in accelerating such a "gravinertial transistor", how can you say the final kinetic energy of the vehicle cannot be harnessed to generate more energy than what has been consumed by the little electrical power source?

It all comes down as to how one defines energy extraction.  Under any definition however, one can use gravitation to extract momentum (as for example in a gravity assist). If per your definition you think that presently one can extract energy from gravitation (for example using a hydoelectric powerplant, due to the momentum of the falling water stored in the reservoir thanks to the thermal cycle coming from the Sun), then yes you would be extracting energy using such a scheme.  The  momentum and the "energy" coming from the extremely small movement of the other celestial masses (10^55 grams of mass in the Universe).  However, if one defines energy extraction thermodynamically as per a closed cycle, then the answer would be no. 

I agree :)

I don't understand what a "gravinertial transistor" means.  Gravity and inertia are tied together in General Relativity through the Equivalence Principle  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle  , so why write "gravinertial". Are you implying any circumstance under which inertial mass and gravitational mass are not equivalent?  I know of lots of experimental tests confirming the equivalence principle and no experimental test showing a difference between inertial and gravitational mass.

Also why "transistor" ?  What transistor ?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor 
Quote
A transistor is a semiconductor device used to amplify or switch electronic signals and electrical power. It is composed of semiconductor material usually with at least three terminals for connection to an external circuit.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/transistor

Sorry, I referred to another thread without noticing.
Please see this very recent post from Star-Drive (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1710835#msg1710835) in the Woodward effect thread, and my answer (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1710958#msg1710958).
The explanation for the name "transistor" (by opposition to a "transducer") is explained in theses posts.

"Gravinertial" is a somewhat kinky word made by combining the two terms "gravity" and "inertia" together, to convey the idea that the source of the inertia of all bodies, as well as the energy borrowed from the universe used to generate thrust in a hypothetical propellantless thruster, according to Mach's principle, comes from gravity (i.e. gravity origin of inertia) but not from gravitational waves themselves, as they are limited to c. Yet inertial reaction forces are instantaneous, hence the need for an "action-at-a-distance" instantaneous radiative field to convey the inertial interaction between a local mass and the distant matter in the rest of the universe, with the help, according to Sciama and Woodward, of the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory applied to gravitation (with its "retarded" and "advanced" waves).

"Inertial" alone would be misleading as it would not convey the idea of a gravitational interaction with a distant source.

"gravity" alone would also be misleading in this context, as one would certainly think of the gravitational interaction in Mach effects to be due the gravitational field, which is not the case: gravitational waves do not propagate instantaneously. There is an additional ingredient needed (absorber theory).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: chongma on 08/09/2017 08:28 pm
http://emdrives.com stopped working  :(
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 08/10/2017 12:37 am
...Yet inertial reaction forces are instantaneous, hence the need for an "action-at-a-distance" instantaneous radiative field to convey the inertial interaction between a local mass and the distant matter in the rest of the universe, with the help, according to Sciama and Woodward, of the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory applied to gravitation (with its "retarded" and "advanced" waves).


"Inertial" alone would be misleading as it would not convey the idea of a gravitational interaction with a distant source.

"gravity" alone would also be misleading in this context, as one would certainly think of the gravitational interaction in Mach effects to be due the gravitational field, which is not the case: gravitational waves do not propagate instantaneously. There is an additional ingredient needed (absorber theory).
Sciama did not write about action at a distance, or about retarded and advanced waves or about absorber theory applied to gravitation.

Sciama's PhD thesis was  a simple theory with a vector potential, as an analogy to electromagnetism, based on the Machian idea that inertia and gravitation are entirely determined by the distribution of matter. In the published version (1953 https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/113/1/34/2602000/On-the-Origin-of-Inertia), Sciama promised to develop a relativistic theory with a tensor potential (as in Einstein’s theory) in a second paper.

The second paper did not appear until 16 years later, in 1969, and it was very different from his original intention. Sciama Waylen and Gilman, instead gave an integral formulation of Einstein’s theory rather than developing an alternative Machian theory: https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.187.1762
Furthermore, Sciama et.al. confined their discussion to a normal neighborhood of the field point.  It was a later student of Sciama,(Derek Raine in 1975 http://bit.ly/2vGDGmV ), who showed how to handle this limit and investigated what types of manifold did not violate Mach's principle (essentially you must have isotropy).   Barbour took a completely different approach later on.  Neither Sciama, nor Raine, nor Barbour used absorber theory. 

It seems to me that you are confusing Sciama with Hoyle and Narlikar, who are the ones that developed a theory  of gravitation based on advanced and retarded waves in 1964  http://ayuba.fr/mach_effect/hoyle-narlikar1964.pdf, which is 5 years before Sciama wrote his second paper, in 1969, where Sciama gave an integral formulation of Einstein’s theory rather than developing an alternative Machian theory.  Notice that Raine does not even mention Hoyle and Narlikar in Raine's paper (even though their theory had been around for more than a decade at that time).


I still don't like the word "gravinertial":

*when we use language we use words that have a commonly accepted meaning and this word does not have a commonly accepted meaning

*all cosmological measurements performed so far strongly verify the Equivalence principle, that gravitational mass and gravitational inertia are identical.  Just gravitation should be enough.  :)

Einstein was influenced by Mach.  It seems to me that all we need is Einstein and Einstein is all we need, as far as gravitation and inertia are concerned.  :)   Gravity Probe B verified this.  Gravity Probe B did not find anything that was not adequately explained by Einstein's theory.  http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/may/gravity-probe-mission-050411.html
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThinkerX on 08/10/2017 12:40 am
Quote
One thought I've had to explain the SSC magnet and EMdrive examples has been a topological "knot" with planetary/solar/both magnetic fields that briefly couples to the resonance mode in the cavity - that's the "lurch".

The CoE is with a loss of angular momentum of the larger system.

The transient scale is with the flux density of the interaction cross section.

The transient duration determined by the combined system stability as a "momentum dump".

The end to end effect on momentum is to access gravity held momentum, as with a so called "sling shot" maneuver.

Suggestions on how the DIY types here could test for this?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 08/10/2017 03:20 am
http://emdrive.com/  (http://emdrive.com/)is worth a look today :-)

              Plans for 3G Demonstrator developing...
Thanks for the link. But let's wait until real details and data is provided before we fire up the barbie.
OK Bob,
can I propose a Big BBQ for all members of this forum to celebrate verifiable levitation when it actually is verified. I will be happy to attend your yard if that suits you. I'd be happy to attend this event just about anywhere... I'll even bring my own beer (as is the Aussie custom)  8)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 08/10/2017 04:59 am
http://emdrives.com stopped working  :(

You have wrong address.

It is http://emdrive.com/  and not with (s)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 08/10/2017 05:53 am
http://emdrive.com/  (http://emdrive.com/)is worth a look today :-)

              Plans for 3G Demonstrator developing...
Thanks for the link. But let's wait until real details and data is provided before we fire up the barbie.
OK Bob,
can I propose a Big BBQ for all members of this forum to celebrate verifiable levitation when it actually is verified. I will be happy to attend your yard if that suits you. I'd be happy to attend this event just about anywhere... I'll even bring my own beer (as is the Aussie custom)  8)
I would love to host a BBQ for the folks on this forum! I grew up mostly in Texas and make mesquite smoked ribs and meat. Since I moved to the Pacific Northwest I have also made Alder smoked salmon.  And as far as beer, Oregon isn't known as "Beervanna" for nothing!  :D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 08/10/2017 10:26 am
Sciama did not write about action at a distance, or about retarded and advanced waves or about absorber theory applied to gravitation.

Sciama's PhD thesis was  a simple theory with a vector potential, as an analogy to electromagnetism, based on the Machian idea that inertia and gravitation are entirely determined by the distribution of matter. In the published version (1953 https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/113/1/34/2602000/On-the-Origin-of-Inertia), Sciama promised to develop a relativistic theory with a tensor potential (as in Einstein’s theory) in a second paper.

I disagree. In his 1964 paper, which is a reformulation of his previous vector theory of gravity in a tensor formalism equivalent to general relativity:

• Sciama, D.W. (1964). "The Physical Structure of General Relativity" (http://ayuba.fr/mach_effect/sciama1964.pdf). Reviews of Modern Physics. 36 (1): 463–469.

he wrote a passage about Mach's principle and the need for an action at a distance field, possibly the same kind than the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory:
Quote from: Dennis Sciama
2. MACH'S PRINCIPLE

There are many ways of stating Mach's principle: we shall adopt the form "inertial forces are exerted by matter, not by absolute space." In this form the principle contains two ideas:

(i) Inertial forces have a dynamical rather than a kinematical origin, and so must be derived from a field theory, or possibly an action-at-a-distance theory in the sense of J.A. Wheeler and R.P. Feynman [Rev. Mod. Phys. 21, 425 (1949)]

(ii) The whole of the inertial field must be due to sources, so that in solving the inertial field equations the boundary conditions must be chosen appropriately.

We consider these two ideas in turn.

He was the first to call for such an instantaneous radiative field applied to gravity, long before Woodward, who correctly credits Sciama for this idea in his book MSAS (Springer 2013) (http://www.springer.com/fr/book/9781461456223).


It seems to me that you are confusing Sciama with Hoyle and Narlikar, who are the ones that developed a theory  of gravitation based on advanced and retarded waves in 1964  http://ayuba.fr/mach_effect/hoyle-narlikar1964.pdf, which is 5 years before Sciama wrote his second paper, in 1969, where Sciama gave an integral formulation of Einstein’s theory rather than developing an alternative Machian theory.  Notice that Raine does not even mention Hoyle and Narlikar in Raine's paper (even though their theory had been around for more than a decade at that time).

I'm not. I know that Dennis Sciama did not develop a Machian theory a gravity himself, but was the first to evoke the requirement for an instantaneous action at a distance field, Wheeler-Feynman absorber type, to develop such a Machian theory.

I know that Fred Hoyle and Jayant Narlikar developed their Machian theory of gravity, i.e. fully integrating Mach's principe, whereas Einstein's general relativity did not (Einstein was really influenced by Ernst Mach, up to be convinced that the "strong" version of Mach's principle is real, but he didn't find a way to blend it as a formalism in his theory of general relativity).

I also know that Hoyle and Narlikar were mainly motivated for modeling a steady state universe, with a continuous creation of matter out of "nothing" at the center of quasars, using creation fields (or C-field). But when this peculiar C-field is removed from the theory, thus when the Hoyle-Narlikar theory is no longer steady state, it can be developed as a Machian theory of relativity describing an accelerating expanding universe, like Heidi Fearn does with her Gravitational Absorber Theory (a term you even coined).

Fearn's Gravitational Absorber Theory, or Hoyle-Narlikar theory without C-field, reduces to Einstein's general relativity in the limit of a smooth fluid model of particle distribution and a transformation of coordinates into the rest frame of the fluid to simplify the field equations. It becomes equivalent to general relativity, with Mach's principle included.

I still don't like the word "gravinertial":

*when we use language we use words that have a commonly accepted meaning and this word does not have a commonly accepted meaning

*all cosmological measurements performed so far strongly verify the Equivalence principle, that gravitational mass and gravitational inertia are identical.  Just gravitation should be enough.  :)

Einstein was influenced by Mach.  It seems to me that all we need is Einstein and Einstein is all we need, as far as gravitation and inertia are concerned.  :)   Gravity Probe B verified this.  Gravity Probe B did not find anything that was not adequately explained by Einstein's theory.  http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/may/gravity-probe-mission-050411.html

Einstein was influenced by Mach and wanted to include Mach's principle within his theory of general relativity, but he eventually did not, especially because there is no instantaneous inertial mechanism involving a retarded/advanced radiative field in general relativity.

If Einstein's general relativity included Mach's principle, that's all we would need indeed. But it is not the case, and Einstein himself was affected by such a miss. As Abraham Pais, quoting Einstein, wrote in his book Subtle is the Lord: the Science and the Life of Albert Einstein (Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 287–288:
Quote
So strongly did Einstein believe at that time in the relativity of inertia that in 1918 he stated as being on an equal footing three principles on which a satisfactory theory of gravitation should rest:
1. The principle of relativity as expressed by general covariance.
2. The principle of equivalence.
3. Mach's principle (the first time this term entered the literature): … that the gµν are completely determined by the mass of bodies, more generally by Tµν.

In 1922, Einstein noted that others were satisfied to proceed without this [third] criterion and added, "This contentedness will appear incomprehensible to a later generation however."

As I said, gravitational waves have a limited propagation rate, the speed of light. That's why Heidi Fearn had to resort to an non-steady state version of H-N theory, which includes retarded and advanced waves that explain instantaneous inertial reaction forces, in order to build a theory including Mach's principle that allows Mach effects and its developments related to space flight applications.

Languages evolve. Maybe "gravinertial" is not the right term. But someday, if Fearn's theory proves to be correct and explains genuine Mach effects, we'll have to find a word summarizing the idea of an instantaneous radiative field with retarded and advanced waves, making all gravitational sources of the universe interact and explaining the inertia of bodies.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 08/10/2017 12:17 pm
Sciama did not write about action at a distance, or about retarded and advanced waves or about absorber theory applied to gravitation.

Sciama's PhD thesis was  a simple theory with a vector potential, as an analogy to electromagnetism, based on the Machian idea that inertia and gravitation are entirely determined by the distribution of matter. In the published version (1953 https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/113/1/34/2602000/On-the-Origin-of-Inertia), Sciama promised to develop a relativistic theory with a tensor potential (as in Einstein’s theory) in a second paper.

I disagree. In his 1964 paper, which is a reformulation of his previous vector theory of gravity in a tensor formalism equivalent to general relativity:

• Sciama, D.W. (1964). "The Physical Structure of General Relativity" (http://ayuba.fr/mach_effect/sciama1964.pdf). Reviews of Modern Physics. 36 (1): 463–469.

he wrote a passage about Mach's principle and the need for an action at a distance field, possibly the same kind than the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory:
Quote from: Dennis Sciama
2. MACH'S PRINCIPLE

There are many ways of stating Mach's principle: we shall adopt the form "inertial forces are exerted by matter, not by absolute space." In this form the principle contains two ideas:

(i) Inertial forces have a dynamical rather than a kinematical origin, and so must be derived from a field theory, or possibly an action-at-a-distance theory in the sense of J.A. Wheeler and R.P. Feynman [Rev. Mod. Phys. 21, 425 (1949)]

(ii) The whole of the inertial field must be due to sources, so that in solving the inertial field equations the boundary conditions must be chosen appropriately.

We consider these two ideas in turn.

He was the first to call for such an instantaneous radiative field applied to gravity, long before Woodward, who correctly credits Sciama for this idea in his book MSAS (Springer 2013) (http://www.springer.com/fr/book/9781461456223)....
In your frantic effort to try to make your point you are not accurately quoting Sciama, as the passage ["or possibly an action-at-a-distance theory in the sense of J.A. Wheeler and R.P. Feynman"] was only mentioned in a footnote in his 1964 paper ! 

I doubt that anyone else reading Sciama's 1964 paper would claim that Sciama was the first to use advanced-retarded waves and absorber theory when Sciama only mentions it in a footnote (and Sciama never developed a Gravitational absorber theory, as in the 1964 paper besides that single context  to "consider the analogous problem in electrodynamics" he does not develop a gravitational theory with advanced-retarded waves) while simultaneously, in the same university (Cambridge) Narlikar was pursuing his PhD thesis with Hoyle for years developing a full gravitational absorber theory that culminated in 4 full papers in the same year 1964.   And the fact that Sciama never mentioned advanced-retarded waves or absorber theory before this footnote or afterwards.

Mentioning in a footnote the possibility of creating a Gravitational Absorber Theory is not the same thing as actually doing it.  Hoyle and Narlikar were doing it for years at the same university (which may readily explain Sciama's footnote, as the work of Hoyle and Narlikar was not secret, as it is understandable that Sciama heard about their work: Sciama, Hoyle and Narlikar were all at Cambridge University).

As to Sciama's later views on this subject (besides the 1969 paper I previously quoted) watch the conversation in 1986 between Abdus Salam (1979 Nobel Prize for electroweak unification), Dennis Sciama, Edward Witten (35 years old at the time, known for string theory and quantum gravity work at the Institute of Advanced Studies in Princeton)and Paolo Budinich talking about physics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmUI2qf9uyo

Notice (towards the end of the conversation, starting at @44:00) in 1951 Sciama made a switch from Statistical Mechanics towards General Relativity, at a time that Cambridge had few people that taught General Relativity.At a time that Sciama said: none of the revolution of modern astrophysics had occurred at the time. Sciama came up with his Mach theory paper at a time when Sciama admits that practically nothing of what we know today about the cosmos (black holes, neutron stars, etc.) had been observed. When asked by Salam what was Sciama's Ph.D. thesis about, Sciama answers, rather reluctantly,"something to do with Mach's principle" "which Sciama says he had already worked out before Dirac was made his official thesis adviser, so Dirac did not have anything to do with it", he emphasizes that his "Mach principle" work had nothing to do with the torsion stuff that Salam knew Sciama for, either. Sciama refers to his graduate work as "before the modern era" of astrophysical observations. Sciama says that was after he had already formed his "Mach principle" graduate work that the revolution of observational astronomy, starting with radio astronomy in 1952,came about. Sciama remembers when neutron stars (not just black holes) at the time of his graduate work were considered to be "not respectable work."

We are in the year 2017.  By now all measurements show that inertial mass is identical to gravitational mass.
Gravity Probe B has verified Einstein's theory and there is no cosmological measurements that have revealed any Machian effect not already present in Einstein's theory. 

You state that advanced/retarded waves are necessary to explain inertia.  Sciama himself (besides the single footnote from 1964, where he only mentions it as a possibility) did not mention again the need for advanced/retarded waves to explain gravitation and inertia.

The Universe has a structure, due to gravity and inertia: planetary systems, galaxies, clusters, super-clusters, which is explained by Einstein's theory of gravitation.   The revolution in cosmological measurements, has fully confirmed Einstein's theory concerning the equivalence between gravitational mass and inertial mass: they are identical.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 08/10/2017 12:46 pm
Thank you for the video.

I wrote nothing but the same thing you said, but in a more compact manner. The quote about the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory is indeed located in Sciama's 1964 paper, as everyone can read since I directly pointed to the full PDF paper. I linked to that paper because you said in a previous post that he never mentioned anything like that in this paper or any other one, and I proved he did. The fact that he wrote that in a footnote does not change the situation. I don't feel that pulling a note up to the text body of a short quote in a web forum constitutes a misquote, especially as I provided the link to the paper, enough to get to the root, in a willingness of truth.

I didn't say neither that Sciama developed that kind of theory himself, I even precised in my previous message: "I know that Dennis Sciama did not develop such a Machian theory a gravity himself, but was the first to evoke the requirement for an instantaneous action at a distance field, Wheeler-Feynman absorber type, to develop such a Machian theory."

I don't understand your point about opposing the fact that Sciama simply evoked the need for an absorber theory applied to gravity as soon as 1964 in a paper, against the fact that he didn't develop a gravitational absorber theory himself, two different things that I think I clearly differentiated in my post.

If some things need to be made clearer, here is a short summarization of the two ideas I wrote:

- Has Sciama developed a theory of gravity implying a gravitational absorber radiative field after Wheeler & Feynman? No.

- Has Sciama evoked the fact that a working Machian theory of gravity could be modeled using such an instantaneous "action-at-a-distance" field similar to the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory in a footnote of his 1964 paper? Yes.

I don't think there is much more to say about this.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 08/10/2017 12:53 pm
Thank you for the video....I don't think there is much more to say about this.
Thank you for the conversation on this topic and for bringing up the 1964 paper by Sciama.  As you said, regarding historical attribution people can make their own minds. 

Regarding gravitation and inertia, and Machian effects, Gravity Probe B [http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/may/gravity-probe-mission-050411.html] shows that Einstein's General Relativity is all one needs.   

Also, all the measurements so far of gravitational waves fully confirm Einstein's theory of gravity during the plunging and coalescence of binary black holes. 

Is the book closed on the subject? There is some room for small deviations (Gravity Probe B measurements did not meet the precision initially sought). One of the foremost experts on the subject of experimental measurements of General Relativity, Clifford Will, wrote: "Even though it is popular lore that Einstein was right (I even wrote a book on the subject), no such book is ever completely closed in science. "  https://physics.aps.org/articles/v4/43

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 08/10/2017 03:22 pm
http://emdrives.com stopped working  :(

You have wrong address.

It is http://emdrive.com/  and not with (s)

Two different addresses:

http://emdrive.com/  is the address used by SPR (Shawyer)

http://emdrives.com  was an address that was created by someone at the time that interest in the EM Drive was at a peak (during threads 2 and 3, at the time following the 2014 initial disclosure that NASA Eagleworks was working on this, the time at which White was even talking to the press about Q drives and even interstellar travel based on the Alcubierre drive, and about tabletop experiments with interferometers   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White%E2%80%93Juday_warp-field_interferometer).  Then http://emdrives.com used to link automatically to these threads at NSF.

It is not clear to me what the purpose of http://emdrives.com ever was, but apparently this domain name expired on 8/3/2017 and is pending renewal or deletion.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 08/10/2017 03:42 pm
It is not clear to me what the purpose of http://emdrives.com ever was, but apparently this domain name expired on 8/3/2017 and is pending renewal or deletion.

If I remember correctly, http://emdrives.com was always pointing to the last page of the current NSF thread about the EmDrive. I didn't use it personally, but it was a convenient way to follow the (quickly expanding) debate here.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/10/2017 03:54 pm
This link will take you to the newest post on the current EmDrive thread:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.new;topicseen#new

Ditto for the current Woodward thread:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.new;topicseen#new
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/10/2017 05:56 pm
I know this has already been discussed over and over and over… but still:

The Machian explanation prevents over-unity globally, at the universe scale. But not necessarily locally. If you're investing a few kWe with a small power source to let the immense flow of almost unlimited potential energy of the universe express in accelerating such a "gravinertial transistor", how can you say the final kinetic energy of the vehicle cannot be harnessed to generate more energy than what has been consumed by the little electrical power source?

Barring an additional unknown mechanism, one probably can't actually say that it avoids local over-unity.

That's exactly my point. If the engine offers constant acceleration under constant power, it is an over-unity device. If not, local CoE may still apply. But I am half-convinced by Shawyer's explanation about Doppler shifts preventing large accelerations, which are more a technological constraint than a fundamental law.

As professor Woodward pointed out, any classical system that provides constant acceleration at a constant power does the same thing. Even conventional rockets. The reason we don't see such effects is because first, most of the energy is lost as reaction mass which is far more than the quadratic gain in the rocket and we explain it by saying the rocket 'borrows' kinetic energy from the reaction mass, and second, it simply runs out of mass first before it gets to that point.
Conventional rockets aren't constant force/power. If you look at them in a fixed reference frame (which you must for energy conservation to mean anything) the energy expelled in the exhaust varies, because the faster the rocket is going, the more the change in kinetic energy in the exhaust.

Also, it is probably better to look at the full energy balance, including energy expelled from the rocket in the mass of the exhaust (E=mc^2). This would show from any perspective that the instantaneous Force/Power is less than a photon rocket. Special relativity shows that there is no energy conservation problem at less than a photon rocket force/power ratio.

There therefore is no classical system that does the same thing.

Were not going to agree here so let's not go through infinite loops debating it. :)  But I hope you can agree that no matter the increased kinetic energy in the exhaust, the chemical energy released (rocket power) can be uniform from the perspective of the rocket. I'm suggesting that's what matters. Everything else is perspective dependent. We wouldn't say an accelerating EMDrive or MEGA drive has to use increased electrical power because it's going faster. We shouldn't say that for a rocket as well.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: bmcgaffey20 on 08/10/2017 07:02 pm
OKAY --- *blows whistle*

Let me ask the big couple of questions nobody else has asked yet.

When and where can I buy one, and how much will it cost?

No, seriously though there is a surprisingly low amount of skepticism right now for such ground breaking claims.  Is it now really happening?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 08/10/2017 07:11 pm
OKAY --- *blows whistle*

Let me ask the big couple of questions nobody else has asked yet.

When and where can I buy one, and how much will it cost?

No, seriously though there is a surprisingly low amount of skepticism right now for such ground breaking claims.  Is it now really happening?

The skepticism is definitely in place, it's just well worn territory by now after ten threads. The latest grandiose claims of thrust are mostly background noise against test data, the theoretical physics, and third party replication efforts.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Elrond Cupboard on 08/10/2017 07:35 pm
OKAY --- *blows whistle*

Let me ask the big couple of questions nobody else has asked yet.

When and where can I buy one, and how much will it cost?

No, seriously though there is a surprisingly low amount of skepticism right now for such ground breaking claims.  Is it now really happening?

The skepticism is definitely in place, it's just well worn territory by now after ten threads. The latest grandiose claims of thrust are mostly background noise against test data, the theoretical physics, and third party replication efforts.
I'd love to be proven wrong, but until I see some concrete demonstration of the latest claims I'm afraid I'm going to be of the opinion that R Shawyer is a raving fantasist.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star One on 08/10/2017 08:13 pm
OKAY --- *blows whistle*

Let me ask the big couple of questions nobody else has asked yet.

When and where can I buy one, and how much will it cost?

No, seriously though there is a surprisingly low amount of skepticism right now for such ground breaking claims.  Is it now really happening?

The skepticism is definitely in place, it's just well worn territory by now after ten threads. The latest grandiose claims of thrust are mostly background noise against test data, the theoretical physics, and third party replication efforts.
I'd love to be proven wrong, but until I see some concrete demonstration of the latest claims I'm afraid I'm going to be of the opinion that R Shawyer is a raving fantasist.

I wish people would stop repeating time and again the error of speaking as if Shawyer is the only show in town. There are a number of dedicated experimentalists and theorists working in this area, by repeatedly ignoring them you are doing them a disservice.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: kaublezw on 08/10/2017 08:34 pm
OKAY --- *blows whistle*

Let me ask the big couple of questions nobody else has asked yet.

When and where can I buy one, and how much will it cost?

No, seriously though there is a surprisingly low amount of skepticism right now for such ground breaking claims.  Is it now really happening?

I think the skepticism is more severe than ever..and rightly so. 

However, the optimist in me says that the reason we've not seen 2nd gen experimental results from Shawyer is that the work has been classified by the UK government.  This seems to be confirmed by Shawyer's quote in this recent article regarding the use of Emdrive in a fictional TV series titled "Salvation":

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/could-emdrive-save-planet-world-ending-asteroid-strike-1634279

"People in the space and aviation industry I know on the other side of the pond love it. It's a beautiful way of getting it out to the public without anyone being put in jail for releasing classified information. In the show's view, this is a very advanced technology that only American super brains can work out. It's wonderful, I love it actually!"

This is why the DIYers are so important.  My hope is that monomorphic or Shell can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the effect is real or not. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Jim Davis on 08/10/2017 09:04 pm
But I hope you can agree that no matter the increased kinetic energy in the exhaust, the chemical energy released (rocket power) can be uniform from the perspective of the rocket. I'm suggesting that's what matters. Everything else is perspective dependent. We wouldn't say an accelerating EMDrive or MEGA drive has to use increased electrical power because it's going faster. We shouldn't say that for a rocket as well.

Just to be clear, Bob, are you claiming:

a.) Both an accelerating rocket and an EM drive conserve momentum and energy in all frames of reference

or

b.) Neither an accelerating rocket nor an EM drive conserve momentum and energy in all frames of reference

or

c.) Something else entirely
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/10/2017 09:50 pm
Very nearly finished with printing and assembling all the parts. Last piece will be finished in 14 hours, which will bring the total print time for all parts to 192 hours (8 days). I was able to incorporate 20 custom printed clips to help keep all the pieces together. This made the adhesion process a breeze.  :D  All said and done, I will have used ~$70 worth of filament.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mark7777777 on 08/10/2017 09:51 pm
http://emdrives.com stopped working  :(

You have wrong address.

It is http://emdrive.com/  and not with (s)

Two different addresses:

http://emdrive.com/  is the address used by SPR (Shawyer)

http://emdrives.com  was an address that was created by someone at the time that interest in the EM Drive was at a peak (during threads 2 and 3, at the time following the 2014 initial disclosure that NASA Eagleworks was working on this, the time at which White was even talking to the press about Q drives and even interstellar travel based on the Alcubierre drive, and about tabletop experiments with interferometers   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White%E2%80%93Juday_warp-field_interferometer).  Then http://emdrives.com used to link automatically to these threads at NSF.

It is not clear to me what the purpose of http://emdrives.com ever was, but apparently this domain name expired on 8/3/2017 and is pending renewal or deletion.

Thanks. Yeah it's me... I used it to quickly get to the last post on the last page of this forum thread. I recently just noticed it had expired so if people give me a sec hopefully I can renew it now and get it back up.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 08/10/2017 10:11 pm
Very nearly finished with printing and assembling all the parts. Last piece will be finished in 14 hours, which will bring the total print time for all prices to 192 hours. I was able to incorporate 20 custom printed clips to help keep all the pieces together. This made the adhesion process a breeze.  :D  All said and done, I will have used ~$70 worth of filament.

How's the inner surface of the cavity looking?  :D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/10/2017 10:36 pm
How's the inner surface of the cavity looking?  :D

Nice tolerances. I have a hard time feeling most of the gaps between the pieces with my fingers, and this is before a light sanding.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mark7777777 on 08/10/2017 11:43 pm
http://emdrives.com stopped working  :(

You have wrong address.

It is http://emdrive.com/  and not with (s)

Two different addresses:

http://emdrive.com/  is the address used by SPR (Shawyer)

http://emdrives.com  was an address that was created by someone at the time that interest in the EM Drive was at a peak (during threads 2 and 3, at the time following the 2014 initial disclosure that NASA Eagleworks was working on this, the time at which White was even talking to the press about Q drives and even interstellar travel based on the Alcubierre drive, and about tabletop experiments with interferometers   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White%E2%80%93Juday_warp-field_interferometer).  Then http://emdrives.com used to link automatically to these threads at NSF.

It is not clear to me what the purpose of http://emdrives.com ever was, but apparently this domain name expired on 8/3/2017 and is pending renewal or deletion.

Thanks. Yeah it's me... I used it to quickly get to the last post on the last page of this forum thread. I recently just noticed it had expired so if people give me a sec hopefully I can renew it now and get it back up.

So emdrives.com is back up now, auto-redirecting to the last post on the last page of this forum thread.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThinkerX on 08/11/2017 01:21 am
Quote
Love to but too insufficient (yet) a hypothesis to test from this speculation.

Specifically:

A) How does any kind of "knot" interact with an/any external field(s)?
B) Why do the Lorenz force law allow a bootstrap field in a superconducting magnet and a trapezoidal/microwave solenoid resonant field such an interaction?
C) How can one track CoE in a micro interaction from a planetary/solar scale frame of reference?
D) Why does angular momentum transfer to such interactions (as it clearly does)?
E) Does the impulse scale with flux or class/kind of interaction?
F) What determines duration of transient, or is it just a Dirac delta (e.g. dimensionless)?
G) What gates isotropic impulses of such massively anisotropic potentials?

Answers in any experiment to any of these would restrict the/other hypothesis.

Wouldn't that reasoning work both ways.  We do have several competent, capable DIY people building these things.  Most (if I remember right) have reported substantial 'surges' in 'thrust.'  At least one, Shell, has apparently focused on this issue.  Hence, wouldn't more data on this from the EM Drive physical tests affect or point to answers for some of the other questions?



Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: mwvp on 08/11/2017 05:34 am
My biggest problem is the proposed 1.54kN/kW...
Really ?? kilo-Newtons ? :o 1540 Newtons per kiloWatt?
And all this while we have yet to see a solid milli-Newton scale result ??

Not that I do not want to believe it could work, but this sure doesn't make it sound "believable"..
It rather falls in the category of "wishful thinking" instead of "engineering optimism"...

I challenge one of the devout skeptics to use Shawyer's own design specs and equations, and an EM simulation of the cavity, to prove that, unless Shawyer also has a secret breakthrough in vacuum-arc suppression, any single bucket-cavity so far seen will be incapable or producing over around 10 N of thrust before breaking down.

The best accelerator superconducting cavities are limited to under a gigawatt by vacuum breakdown, which amounts to a few newtons of radiation pressure.

So even with a superconducting cavity of a Q of 300 billion and a kilonewton/kilowatt force generated, any single cavity couldn't be powered by over a watt or so RF input before it starts burning.

No hover cars, unless you have some real good insulation I haven't heard of.

But that isn't to say hundreds of buckets couldn't be assembled in space, or better yet, a large cavity operating at a lower frequency with a reduced power density/field intensity that would amount to a breakthrough in interplanetary transport.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 08/11/2017 05:52 am
OKAY --- *blows whistle*

Let me ask the big couple of questions nobody else has asked yet.

When and where can I buy one, and how much will it cost?

No, seriously though there is a surprisingly low amount of skepticism right now for such ground breaking claims.  Is it now really happening?

I think the skepticism is more severe than ever..and rightly so. 

However, the optimist in me says that the reason we've not seen 2nd gen experimental results from Shawyer is that the work has been classified by the UK government.  This seems to be confirmed by Shawyer's quote in this recent article regarding the use of Emdrive in a fictional TV series titled "Salvation":

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/could-emdrive-save-planet-world-ending-asteroid-strike-1634279

"People in the space and aviation industry I know on the other side of the pond love it. It's a beautiful way of getting it out to the public without anyone being put in jail for releasing classified information. In the show's view, this is a very advanced technology that only American super brains can work out. It's wonderful, I love it actually!"

This is why the DIYers are so important.  My hope is that monomorphic or Shell can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the effect is real or not.

What you say is quite true to what people in news industry told me. The reporters that spoke directly to the Shawyer can not tell / share everything he told them. I wrote about this here on NSF too. Any interview with the Shawyer needs to go trough the check with the military guys before it is released. Usually around 30% to 50% is changed.

Of course people rightly claim that we did not yet see anything yet. Well, except few videos of rotating device one of them in BBC documentary. We also never received an offical commentary for that "smoking gun" video from the Eagleworks lab. Until we see some proof relased to the public it will be called crackpot science, magic and who knows what else.

I guess I am one of very few here who does not find it strange that they (military) want to keep it under wraps for now. They done it with some famous techs in the past. Like that B-2 stealth bomber or more recently X-37B (I do not think they are testing EmDrive there yet).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/11/2017 06:42 am
What you say is quite true to what people in news industry told me. The reporters that spoke directly to the Shawyer can not tell / share everything he told them. I wrote about this here on NSF too. Any interview with the Shawyer needs to go trough the check with the military guys before it is released. Usually around 30% to 50% is changed.
...
I guess I am one of very few here who does not find it strange that they (military) want to keep it under wraps for now. They done it with some famous techs in the past. Like that B-2 stealth bomber or more recently X-37B (I do not think they are testing EmDrive there yet).
This isn't how it would work if what you are describing was real. Military wouldn't let someone (Shawyer) go say what they want to the media, and then the media report is filtered afterward. They would restrict what is said in the first place, and if it is serious enough, the only releases of any information to people in the media would be pre-screened before the media sees them.

Claims like the one you just made that don't fit with what would actually be the case if the military were involved increase the reasons people doubt any claim that the military is involved.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Elrond Cupboard on 08/11/2017 06:57 am
OKAY --- *blows whistle*

Let me ask the big couple of questions nobody else has asked yet.

When and where can I buy one, and how much will it cost?

No, seriously though there is a surprisingly low amount of skepticism right now for such ground breaking claims.  Is it now really happening?

The skepticism is definitely in place, it's just well worn territory by now after ten threads. The latest grandiose claims of thrust are mostly background noise against test data, the theoretical physics, and third party replication efforts.
I'd love to be proven wrong, but until I see some concrete demonstration of the latest claims I'm afraid I'm going to be of the opinion that R Shawyer is a raving fantasist.

I wish people would stop repeating time and again the error of speaking as if Shawyer is the only show in town. There are a number of dedicated experimentalists and theorists working in this area, by repeatedly ignoring them you are doing them a disservice.

I am referring solely and entirely to the claims made here http://www.emdrive.com/3GEmDrive.pdf, I am doing other experimentalists and theorists the very great service of not lumping them in with this stuff which appears quite unlikely given the results that others are getting. These are some of the most extraordinary claims I have ever seen, they require Sagan's extraordinary evidence.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 08/11/2017 07:53 am
What you say is quite true to what people in news industry told me. The reporters that spoke directly to the Shawyer can not tell / share everything he told them. I wrote about this here on NSF too. Any interview with the Shawyer needs to go trough the check with the military guys before it is released. Usually around 30% to 50% is changed.
...
I guess I am one of very few here who does not find it strange that they (military) want to keep it under wraps for now. They done it with some famous techs in the past. Like that B-2 stealth bomber or more recently X-37B (I do not think they are testing EmDrive there yet).
This isn't how it would work if what you are describing was real. Military wouldn't let someone (Shawyer) go say what they want to the media, and then the media report is filtered afterward. They would restrict what is said in the first place, and if it is serious enough, the only releases of any information to people in the media would be pre-screened before the media sees them.

Claims like the one you just made that don't fit with what would actually be the case if the military were involved increase the reasons people doubt any claim that the military is involved.

You can always write to the reporters that published the news to check that. That is if you can create enough trust with them.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star One on 08/11/2017 08:49 am
What you say is quite true to what people in news industry told me. The reporters that spoke directly to the Shawyer can not tell / share everything he told them. I wrote about this here on NSF too. Any interview with the Shawyer needs to go trough the check with the military guys before it is released. Usually around 30% to 50% is changed.
...
I guess I am one of very few here who does not find it strange that they (military) want to keep it under wraps for now. They done it with some famous techs in the past. Like that B-2 stealth bomber or more recently X-37B (I do not think they are testing EmDrive there yet).
This isn't how it would work if what you are describing was real. Military wouldn't let someone (Shawyer) go say what they want to the media, and then the media report is filtered afterward. They would restrict what is said in the first place, and if it is serious enough, the only releases of any information to people in the media would be pre-screened before the media sees them.

Claims like the one you just made that don't fit with what would actually be the case if the military were involved increase the reasons people doubt any claim that the military is involved.

I would thought in these cases the person in question would either be given a prepared script or not allowed to speak at all & just a press release put out.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Nerm999 on 08/11/2017 09:56 am
Very nearly finished with printing and assembling all the parts. Last piece will be finished in 14 hours, which will bring the total print time for all parts to 192 hours (8 days). I was able to incorporate 20 custom printed clips to help keep all the pieces together. This made the adhesion process a breeze.  :D  All said and done, I will have used ~$70 worth of filament.

@Monomorphic did you ever get any more than a couple of disparate runs from you previous frustrum and power setup? Eg multiple runs in all the different orientations and different power levels. I was looking forward to some more comprehensive results, that one could draw some conclusions from, but they haven't seen the light of day? Hoping that this new frustum can provide them.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/11/2017 11:56 am
@Monomorphic did you ever get any more than a couple of disparate runs from you previous frustrum and power setup? Eg multiple runs in all the different orientations and different power levels. I was looking forward to some more comprehensive results, that one could draw some conclusions from, but they haven't seen the light of day? Hoping that this new frustum can provide them.

I have two main goals to accomplish before I do a methodical series of test runs as described: spherical end-plates and an increase from 2W to 20W. Roger Shawyer emailed me about my initial results a few months ago and encouraged that I go with spherical end-plates to increase the thrust. The 2W amp and pre-amp is very inefficient. It takes 7A to get that 2W while the new amp will output 30W at 10A. 

I have a hard deadline of November 1 as I will be presenting most the data then. So expect a flurry of work between now and then, with October being VERY busy.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Blizzzard on 08/11/2017 12:39 pm
That sounds great! I for one just hope you're not too busy so that you can share regular updates with us! :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/11/2017 01:00 pm
What you say is quite true to what people in news industry told me. The reporters that spoke directly to the Shawyer can not tell / share everything he told them. I wrote about this here on NSF too. Any interview with the Shawyer needs to go trough the check with the military guys before it is released. Usually around 30% to 50% is changed.
...
I guess I am one of very few here who does not find it strange that they (military) want to keep it under wraps for now. They done it with some famous techs in the past. Like that B-2 stealth bomber or more recently X-37B (I do not think they are testing EmDrive there yet).
This isn't how it would work if what you are describing was real. Military wouldn't let someone (Shawyer) go say what they want to the media, and then the media report is filtered afterward. They would restrict what is said in the first place, and if it is serious enough, the only releases of any information to people in the media would be pre-screened before the media sees them.

Claims like the one you just made that don't fit with what would actually be the case if the military were involved increase the reasons people doubt any claim that the military is involved.

I would thought in these cases the person in question would either be given a prepared script or not allowed to speak at all & just a press release put out.
Yes,  as I said that would be a typical situation, Chrochne describing something completely different is plenty of evidence that what he described never actually happened.

Giving Chrochne the benefit of the doubt that he is not making stuff up, one possibility is that Shawyer reviewed and revised the news story before release. The military involvement could then either be a lie Shawyer told the media, or a misunderstanding or miscommunication that that happened further down the line.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/11/2017 04:25 pm
My biggest problem is the proposed 1.54kN/kW...
Really ?? kilo-Newtons ? :o 1540 Newtons per kiloWatt?
And all this while we have yet to see a solid milli-Newton scale result ??

Not that I do not want to believe it could work, but this sure doesn't make it sound "believable"..
It rather falls in the category of "wishful thinking" instead of "engineering optimism"...

I challenge one of the devout skeptics to use Shawyer's own design specs and equations, and an EM simulation of the cavity, to prove that, unless Shawyer also has a secret breakthrough in vacuum-arc suppression, any single bucket-cavity so far seen will be incapable or producing over around 10 N of thrust before breaking down.

The best accelerator superconducting cavities are limited to under a gigawatt by vacuum breakdown, which amounts to a few newtons of radiation pressure.

So even with a superconducting cavity of a Q of 300 billion and a kilonewton/kilowatt force generated, any single cavity couldn't be powered by over a watt or so RF input before it starts burning.

No hover cars, unless you have some real good insulation I haven't heard of.

But that isn't to say hundreds of buckets couldn't be assembled in space, or better yet, a large cavity operating at a lower frequency with a reduced power density/field intensity that would amount to a breakthrough in interplanetary transport.

Hi mwvp,

Accelerator cavities, basically a big donut for the H field with a hole through the middle for the accelerative E field, have no reflecting end plates.

They are very different beasts than EmDrive cavities that increase end plate radiation pressure via multiple reflections.

Interesting video about a BAE photonic thruster that shows how multiple reflections do increase radiation pressure:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QICCrlmBjvY

Question to think about:

Why does end plate radiation pressure, in a constant diameter circular waveguide, decrease as diameter decreases? Photon velocity is always c and photon momentum p = E / c. Yes E does drop, so very slightly after each inelastic end plate absord then emit event and yes photon wavelength does very slightly increase, due to lower E at the end plate emit event. However this is not what causes end plate radiation pressure to drop as waveguige diameter drops.

A few breadcrumbs are attached.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/11/2017 05:38 pm
But I hope you can agree that no matter the increased kinetic energy in the exhaust, the chemical energy released (rocket power) can be uniform from the perspective of the rocket. I'm suggesting that's what matters. Everything else is perspective dependent. We wouldn't say an accelerating EMDrive or MEGA drive has to use increased electrical power because it's going faster. We shouldn't say that for a rocket as well.

Just to be clear, Bob, are you claiming:

a.) Both an accelerating rocket and an EM drive conserve momentum and energy in all frames of reference

or

b.) Neither an accelerating rocket nor an EM drive conserve momentum and energy in all frames of reference

or

c.) Something else entirely

(C) but I agree with (a). I am saying within the small change regime, a chemical rocket can double  it's velocity without having to quadruple its fuel burn. It's about double. That kind of looks like a constant input power to constant acceleration relationship. Or use a laser beam to power a sail. In the low velocity regime, shine the beam for a certain time and get a delta v. To get twice the delta v, shine it for twice as long, not four times as long.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 08/11/2017 06:32 pm
What you say is quite true to what people in news industry told me. The reporters that spoke directly to the Shawyer can not tell / share everything he told them. I wrote about this here on NSF too. Any interview with the Shawyer needs to go trough the check with the military guys before it is released. Usually around 30% to 50% is changed.
...
I guess I am one of very few here who does not find it strange that they (military) want to keep it under wraps for now. They done it with some famous techs in the past. Like that B-2 stealth bomber or more recently X-37B (I do not think they are testing EmDrive there yet).
This isn't how it would work if what you are describing was real. Military wouldn't let someone (Shawyer) go say what they want to the media, and then the media report is filtered afterward. They would restrict what is said in the first place, and if it is serious enough, the only releases of any information to people in the media would be pre-screened before the media sees them.

Claims like the one you just made that don't fit with what would actually be the case if the military were involved increase the reasons people doubt any claim that the military is involved.

I would thought in these cases the person in question would either be given a prepared script or not allowed to speak at all & just a press release put out.
Yes,  as I said that would be a typical situation, Chrochne describing something completely different is plenty of evidence that what he described never actually happened.

Giving Chrochne the benefit of the doubt that he is not making stuff up, one possibility is that Shawyer reviewed and revised the news story before release. The military involvement could then either be a lie Shawyer told the media, or a misunderstanding or miscommunication that that happened further down the line.

You may check what I wrote. Or is it too difficult for you to do that? It is much more easier to say I lie. 😀
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/11/2017 08:21 pm
What you say is quite true to what people in news industry told me. The reporters that spoke directly to the Shawyer can not tell / share everything he told them. I wrote about this here on NSF too. Any interview with the Shawyer needs to go trough the check with the military guys before it is released. Usually around 30% to 50% is changed.
...
I guess I am one of very few here who does not find it strange that they (military) want to keep it under wraps for now. They done it with some famous techs in the past. Like that B-2 stealth bomber or more recently X-37B (I do not think they are testing EmDrive there yet).
This isn't how it would work if what you are describing was real. Military wouldn't let someone (Shawyer) go say what they want to the media, and then the media report is filtered afterward. They would restrict what is said in the first place, and if it is serious enough, the only releases of any information to people in the media would be pre-screened before the media sees them.

Claims like the one you just made that don't fit with what would actually be the case if the military were involved increase the reasons people doubt any claim that the military is involved.

I would thought in these cases the person in question would either be given a prepared script or not allowed to speak at all & just a press release put out.
Yes,  as I said that would be a typical situation, Chrochne describing something completely different is plenty of evidence that what he described never actually happened.

Giving Chrochne the benefit of the doubt that he is not making stuff up, one possibility is that Shawyer reviewed and revised the news story before release. The military involvement could then either be a lie Shawyer told the media, or a misunderstanding or miscommunication that that happened further down the line.

You may check what I wrote. Or is it too difficult for you to do that? It is much more easier to say I lie. 😀
I quite explicitly gave you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you need to re-read my post.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Req on 08/11/2017 09:08 pm
What you say is quite true to what people in news industry told me. The reporters that spoke directly to the Shawyer can not tell / share everything he told them. I wrote about this here on NSF too. Any interview with the Shawyer needs to go trough the check with the military guys before it is released. Usually around 30% to 50% is changed.
...
I guess I am one of very few here who does not find it strange that they (military) want to keep it under wraps for now. They done it with some famous techs in the past. Like that B-2 stealth bomber or more recently X-37B (I do not think they are testing EmDrive there yet).
This isn't how it would work if what you are describing was real. Military wouldn't let someone (Shawyer) go say what they want to the media, and then the media report is filtered afterward. They would restrict what is said in the first place, and if it is serious enough, the only releases of any information to people in the media would be pre-screened before the media sees them.

Claims like the one you just made that don't fit with what would actually be the case if the military were involved increase the reasons people doubt any claim that the military is involved.

I would thought in these cases the person in question would either be given a prepared script or not allowed to speak at all & just a press release put out.
Yes,  as I said that would be a typical situation, Chrochne describing something completely different is plenty of evidence that what he described never actually happened.

Giving Chrochne the benefit of the doubt that he is not making stuff up, one possibility is that Shawyer reviewed and revised the news story before release. The military involvement could then either be a lie Shawyer told the media, or a misunderstanding or miscommunication that that happened further down the line.

You may check what I wrote. Or is it too difficult for you to do that? It is much more easier to say I lie. 😀
I quite explicitly gave you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you need to re-read my post.
Speaking of expected/constructive dialogue, citations or first-hand information are what you would expect as a response from a credible interlocutor here, not a trite and adversarial/defensive "go look it up."
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 08/11/2017 09:43 pm
What you say is quite true to what people in news industry told me. The reporters that spoke directly to the Shawyer can not tell / share everything he told them. I wrote about this here on NSF too. Any interview with the Shawyer needs to go trough the check with the military guys before it is released. Usually around 30% to 50% is changed.
...
I guess I am one of very few here who does not find it strange that they (military) want to keep it under wraps for now. They done it with some famous techs in the past. Like that B-2 stealth bomber or more recently X-37B (I do not think they are testing EmDrive there yet).
This isn't how it would work if what you are describing was real. Military wouldn't let someone (Shawyer) go say what they want to the media, and then the media report is filtered afterward. They would restrict what is said in the first place, and if it is serious enough, the only releases of any information to people in the media would be pre-screened before the media sees them.

Claims like the one you just made that don't fit with what would actually be the case if the military were involved increase the reasons people doubt any claim that the military is involved.

I would thought in these cases the person in question would either be given a prepared script or not allowed to speak at all & just a press release put out.
Yes,  as I said that would be a typical situation, Chrochne describing something completely different is plenty of evidence that what he described never actually happened.

Giving Chrochne the benefit of the doubt that he is not making stuff up, one possibility is that Shawyer reviewed and revised the news story before release. The military involvement could then either be a lie Shawyer told the media, or a misunderstanding or miscommunication that that happened further down the line.

You may check what I wrote. Or is it too difficult for you to do that? It is much more easier to say I lie. 😀
I quite explicitly gave you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you need to re-read my post.

I sent you personal message so we can work it out there. I do not want to get on the nerves of the kind moderators here.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 08/12/2017 03:27 am
I've been studying this silly copper can for years now and I think it's honest to God anti gravity. Gravitational induction. Everything else doesn't fit. I need help converting from my intuitive mind to something people can understand.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Nerm999 on 08/12/2017 03:38 am
@Monomorphic did you ever get any more than a couple of disparate runs from you previous frustrum and power setup? Eg multiple runs in all the different orientations and different power levels. I was looking forward to some more comprehensive results, that one could draw some conclusions from, but they haven't seen the light of day? Hoping that this new frustum can provide them.

I have two main goals to accomplish before I do a methodical series of test runs as described: spherical end-plates and an increase from 2W to 20W. Roger Shawyer emailed me about my initial results a few months ago and encouraged that I go with spherical end-plates to increase the thrust. The 2W amp and pre-amp is very inefficient. It takes 7A to get that 2W while the new amp will output 30W at 10A. 

I have a hard deadline of November 1 as I will be presenting most the data then. So expect a flurry of work between now and then, with October being VERY busy.

Awesome, thanks, can't wait for the results!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 08/12/2017 05:42 am

I sent you personal message so we can work it out there. I do not want to get on the nerves of the kind moderators here.
Good idea. Here's what Chris Bergin did to a guy last week.... ;)

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30lGrarz3MQ)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30lGrarz3MQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30lGrarz3MQ)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Flyby on 08/12/2017 10:20 am
He'd better hire a designer for his PAV too. Why not just put the tanks (as well as three couples of EmDrives) at the vertices of an equilateral triangle:
(http://www.shinryu.fr/img/years/2012/articles/culture/grendizer/ovt01.gif)

Then you just have to modulate the power applied at each vertex to pitch and roll, thus accelerate and move forward, turn, slow down and stand still of even move backward, like a helicopter. But a totally silent one with no rotating airfoil!

*Sigh* This is still just plain science fiction.

Been pondering a bit about the design (as you suggested  ;D ), especially about the layout of the "engines".
I think there will be both a stability and safety issue with Shawyer's  current design.

Let me elaborate :
There is no real advantage to be gained from having 3 or 4 arms. 3 points are need to obtain a minimum stability ( if you keep the center of mass in the middle).
However, you then have zero backup or safety margin. one engine goes down and your vehicle spins out of control. Also, the slightest variation in one of the engines will cause an imbalance.

An extra 4rth arm gives you a needed engine redundancy, but not the extra stability, because the CoM lays at the edge of the "remaining working engine" triangle. Resulting in a highly unstable situation for the vehicle.
Both 3 or 4 arm solution will turn out to be uncontrollable in real weather conditions, if the engine(s) on one arm fail, so...

I'd suggest a hex or octo arm configuration, so that if 1 engine fails the remaining engines will have no problem keeping the stability of the vehicle.

(http://www.your-flying-camera-drone.com/images/s1000_02-960x480.jpg)

It is not for nothing that professional camera drones are almost all octo-arm based : they provide superior stability and reliability..

but all this starts on the premise that we have a working EMdrive... which we have yet to see confirmed...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 08/12/2017 11:28 am
I've been studying this silly copper can for years now and I think it's honest to God anti gravity. Gravitational induction. Everything else doesn't fit. I need help converting from my intuitive mind to something people can understand.

A good start would be mentioning the gravitational potential U and talking about the topology of spacetime throughout the cavity.

Another old abandoned train of thought was the generation of negative energy fields in the upper cavity (or even throughout the wall). With this in mind, anti-Gravity only makes sense in the context of a warp bubble or gradient. Personally, I believe gravity alone is too weak to accelerate the cavity to Shawyer-levels, unless it is both counteracting the gravitational potential of our planet and sun and providing a minor accelerative force. Where the gravity discussion has gotten more exotic in the past years is applying QV energy density minimums to the EMDrive with reference to Dr. White. My early theories involved time-based relaxation and stickiness of the QV. Like a stirring pot the QV near the moving field modal peaks and the eddies would remain excited and additionally have areas where there is destructive interference and negative or flat values. The memory of the QV allows for using solitonized waves for QVP excitation which complements the B field in TE designs but nullifies or weakens the central focal point E field. Though it is unclear where this system would develop, pulsing it should allow for a decaying set of gravity  (depends on whether it is a multipolar resonant mode) gradients which solves CoE issues by relying on the QV to provide the energy which maintains such a temporary gravitational gradient. The resulting gradient and related crossover between "anti-gravity" and QV theories has been discussed in earlier threads. I am curious to see new opinions and more views on the ideal topology inside the cavity if assuming gravitational gradients are what cause or enable thrust.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=41732.0;attach=1402267
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 08/12/2017 11:41 am
I've been studying this silly copper can for years now and I think it's honest to God anti gravity. Gravitational induction. Everything else doesn't fit. I need help converting from my intuitive mind to something people can understand.

A good start would be mentioning the gravitational potential U and talking about the topology of spacetime throughout the cavity.

Another old abandoned train of thought was the generation of negative energy fields in the upper cavity (or even throughout the wall). With this in mind, anti-Gravity only makes sense in the context of a warp bubble or gradient. {snip}

@Mulletron & LowerAtmosphere: Are you talking about something along the lines of Minotti's model? Not the scalar-tensor theory itself, but the consequence of any similar theory upon the gravitational potential within and around the vicinity of the cavity, as I presented in two former posts here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1636165#msg1636165) and there (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1636291#msg1636291) (EmDrive NSF Thread #9, January 2017).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 08/12/2017 03:45 pm
I've been studying this silly copper can for years now and I think it's honest to God anti gravity. Gravitational induction. Everything else doesn't fit. I need help converting from my intuitive mind to something people can understand.

A good start would be mentioning the gravitational potential U and talking about the topology of spacetime throughout the cavity.

Another old abandoned train of thought was the generation of negative energy fields in the upper cavity (or even throughout the wall). With this in mind, anti-Gravity only makes sense in the context of a warp bubble or gradient. {snip}

@Mulletron & LowerAtmosphere: Are you talking about something along the lines of Minotti's model? Not the scalar-tensor theory itself, but the consequence of any similar theory upon the gravitational potential within and around the vicinity of the cavity, as I presented in two former posts here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1636165#msg1636165) and there (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1636291#msg1636291) (EmDrive NSF Thread #9, January 2017).

A back of the envelope numerical calculation shows the practical difficulty of warping spacetime with the energy present in the EM Drive.  Spacetime is just too stiff for such puny energy. See:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/life-unbounded/just-how-resilient-is-spacetime/

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vT_zkTu6wZk

<< it takes a HUGE amount of stress on space-time to produce an appreciable amount of warp or curvature ('G'). In fact it takes objects like the Earth (all 6 trillion trillion kilograms of it) to warp space-time to a level that we're intimately familiar with.>>
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 08/12/2017 04:04 pm
I've been studying this silly copper can for years now and I think it's honest to God anti gravity. Gravitational induction. Everything else doesn't fit. I need help converting from my intuitive mind to something people can understand.

A good start would be mentioning the gravitational potential U and talking about the topology of spacetime throughout the cavity.

Another old abandoned train of thought was the generation of negative energy fields in the upper cavity (or even throughout the wall). With this in mind, anti-Gravity only makes sense in the context of a warp bubble or gradient. {snip}

@Mulletron & LowerAtmosphere: Are you talking about something along the lines of Minotti's model? Not the scalar-tensor theory itself, but the consequence of any similar theory upon the gravitational potential within and around the vicinity of the cavity, as I presented in two former posts here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1636165#msg1636165) and there (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1636291#msg1636291) (EmDrive NSF Thread #9, January 2017).

A back of the envelope numerical calculation shows the practical difficulty of warping spacetime with the energy present in the EM Drive.  Spacetime is just too stiff for such puny energy. See:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/life-unbounded/just-how-resilient-is-spacetime/

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vT_zkTu6wZk

<< it takes a HUGE amount of stress on space-time to produce an appreciable amount of warp or curvature ('G'). In fact it takes objects like the Earth (all 6 trillion trillion kilograms of it) to warp space-time to a level that we're intimately familiar with.>>
Or in a clearer way...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSKzgpt4HBU
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 08/12/2017 04:59 pm
I didn't notice I gave a wrong link in a previous post (due to a typo in the use of brackets for URL tags). Below, the correct link to Lobo & Visser's 2004 paper.   

My conclusion about an effective negative energy source due to the coupling scalar field for engineering an Alcubierre metric with a low velocity warp drive comes from Visser after cross-reading several papers, one from Minotti then two (three actually) from Visser, links below. First, it was Minotti who triggered my interest in:

Minotti, F. O. (July 2013). "Scalar-tensor theories and asymmetric resonant cavities". Gravitation and Cosmology. 19 (3): 201–208. arXiv:1302.5690 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.5690). doi:10.1134/S0202289313030080.

where he wrote in the introduction:
Quote from: Fernando Minotti
It appears that General Relativity might allow for such kind of reactionless propulsion, as exemplified and noted for the first time in [3], where the low velocity limit of some warp drive spacetimes was analyzed. As indicated there, negative energy densities are required to accomplish that and, notably, some scalar fields present this possibility.[4]


REFERENCES
[3] Lobo, F.S.N.; Visser, M. (25 November 2004). "Fundamental limitations on 'warp drive' spacetimes". Classical and Quantum Gravity. 21 (24): 5871. arXiv:gr-qc/0406083 (https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0406083). doi:10.1088/0264-9381/21/24/011.

[4] Barceló, C.; Visser, M. (21 September 2000). "Scalar fields, energy conditions, and traversable wormholes". Classical and Quantum Gravity. 17 (18): 3843-3864. arXiv:gr-qc/0003025 (https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0003025). doi:10.1088/0264-9381/17/18/318.


So it appears that Visser (working with Barceló and Lobo):
1) analyzed the possibility of low-velocity (v ≪ c) reactionless warp drives.
2) indicated negative energy was involved, although in lower quantity than for a relativistic warp drive, but still required.
3) told that some scalar fields would present this feature.

I source these three points in direct quotes below in Lobo & Visser's 2004 paper:

Quote from: Francisco S. N. Lobo and Matt Visser
Since we take the warp-bubble velocity to be non-relativistic, v ≪ c, we are not primarily interested in the "superluminal" features of the warp drive. Instead we focus on a secondary feature of the warp drive that has not previously been remarked upon — the warp drive (if it could be built) would be an example of a "reaction-less drive"
[…]
Additionally, certain classical systems (such as non-minimally coupled scalar fields) have been found that violate the null and the weak energy conditions [16, 17].
[…]
[equation (16)] is manifestly negative, and so the NEC [null energy condition] is violated for all v.


REFERENCES
[16] Barceló, C.; Visser, M. (21 September 2000). "Scalar fields, energy conditions, and traversable wormholes". Classical and Quantum Gravity. 17 (18): 3843-3864. arXiv:gr-qc/0003025 (https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0003025). doi:10.1088/0264-9381/17/18/318.

[17] C. Barceló, C.; Visser, M. (1999). "Traversable wormholes from massless conformally coupled scalar fields". Physics Letters B.466: 127. arXiv:gr-qc/9908029 (https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9908029). doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(99)01117-X.


In Barceló & Visser's 2000 paper, various theories using scalar fields and violating the NEC are listed, including the Brans–Dicke theory in refs [10, 11] of that paper. In their previous 1999 paper, even more Brans–Dicke links: refs [17, 18, 19, 20]. You can read them, but I'll stop expanding there otherwise it will become an endless citation story and the more papers are cited, the more the subject of warp drive becomes diluted. But there are obvious bridges linking all these works.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 08/12/2017 05:37 pm
...
In Barceló & Visser's 2000 paper, various theories using scalar fields and violating the NEC are listed, including the Brans–Dicke theory in refs [10, 11] of that paper. In their previous 1999 paper, even more Brans–Dicke links: refs [17, 18, 19, 20]. You can read them, but I'll stop expanding there otherwise it will become an endless citation story and the more papers are cited, the more the subject of warp drive becomes diluted. But there are obvious bridges linking all these works.
Did you mean to type WEC instead NEC? (Weak Energy Condition). 

Possible violation of the weak energy condition is not a unique characteristic of scalar-tensor theories.  Einstein's theory admits solutions with properties that most physicists regard as unphysical, including violation of the weak energy condition.  The weak energy condition was postulated on purpose, precisely because gravitational theories admit such solutions.  Similarly other conditions are postulated to prevent other violations, like Hawking's condition to prevent time travel to the past.

Einstein's theory,for example (as shown by Goedel) even admits a solution where there are closed time loops.

The fact that all these gravitational theories admit such solutions does not mean that they are possible, and even if they were possible in theory, that they may be feasible in practice.  And most of all, that these solutions would be possible with the really tiny energy in the EM Drive.  Remember that E=Mc2, therefore the equivalent mass of the electromagnetic energy in the EM Drive, M=E/c2 is really tiny.

Scalar-tensor theories with parameters set in agreement with Cosmological measurements show a spacetime that is way too stiff to allow the EM Drive's energy to significantly warp spacetime.  The type of scalar-tensor theory used by Minotti is a modification of a theory that is not uniformly accepted by mainstream scientists.  The theory was shown by Minotti himself to be defective in that it showed anomalous incompatible coupling with the Earth's magnetic field.  Other scientists wrote of other defects of the theory, and to my knowledge has not been accepted.

Minotti had to modify the theory to eliminate this incompatibility with the Earth's magnetic field and gravitational measurements.  It remains now for Minotti to show that his theory is compatible with all cosmological measurements.  For example, what does Minotti's modified scalar-tensor theory show for a Magnetar?

(https://futurism.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/N_sctn-1024x409-1.jpg)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 08/12/2017 06:11 pm
...
In Barceló & Visser's 2000 paper, various theories using scalar fields and violating the NEC are listed, including the Brans–Dicke theory in refs [10, 11] of that paper. In their previous 1999 paper, even more Brans–Dicke links: refs [17, 18, 19, 20]. You can read them, but I'll stop expanding there otherwise it will become an endless citation story and the more papers are cited, the more the subject of warp drive becomes diluted. But there are obvious bridges linking all these works.
Did you mean to type WEC instead NEC? (Weak Energy Condition). 

Possible violation of the weak energy condition is not a unique characteristic of scalar-tensor theories.  Einstein's theory admits solutions with properties that most physicists regard as unphysical, including violation of the weak energy condition.  The weak energy condition was postulated on purpose, precisely because gravitational theories admit such solutions.  Similarly other conditions are postulated to prevent other violations, like Hawking's condition to prevent time travel to the past.

Einstein's theory,for example (as shown by Goedel) even admits a solution where there are closed time loops.

The fact that all these gravitational theories admit such solutions does not mean that they are possible, and even if they were possible in theory, that they may be feasible in practice.  And most of all that they would be possible with the really tiny energy in the EM Drive.  Remember that E=Mc2, therefore the equivalent mass of the electromagnetic energy in the EM Drive, M=E/c2 is really tiny.

Scalar-tensor theories with parameters set in agreement with Cosmological measurements show a spacetime that is way too stiff to allow the EM Drive's energy to significantly warp spacetime.  The type of scalar-tensor theory used by Minotti is a modification of a theory that is not uniformly accepted by mainstream scientists.  The theory was shown by Minotti himself to be defective in that it showed anomalous incompatible coupling with the Earth's magnetic field.  Other scientists wrote of other defects of the theory, and to my knowledge has not been accepted.

Minotti had to modify the theory to eliminate this incompatibility with the Earth's magnetic field and gravitational measurements.  It remains now for Minotti to show that his theory is compatible with all cosmological measurements.  For example, what does Minotti's modified scalar-tensor theory show for a Magnetar?

NEC. I'd better quote directly the passage from Barceló and Visser in their 2000 paper (https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0003025.pdf):

Quote from: Carlos Barceló and Matt Visser
There exist other classical systems that exhibit NEC violations, such as Brans–Dicke theory [17, 18, 19, 20], higher derivative gravity [21] or Gauss–Bonnet theory [22], but they are all based on modifications of general relativity at high energies. It is the simplicity of the scalar field theory that particularly attracted our attention.


[17] A. Agnese, M. La Camera (1995). "Wormholes in the Brans-Dicke theory of gravitation". Phys. Rev. D 51 (4): 2011. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.51.2011.
[18] K.K. Nandi, A. Islam, J. Evans (1997). "Brans wormholes". Phys. Rev. D 55: 2497. arXiv:0906.0436 (https://arxiv.org/abs/0906.0436).
[19] L.A. Anchordoqui, S. Perez Bergliaffa, D.F. Torres (1997). "Brans-Dicke wormholes in nonvacuum spacetime" Phys. Rev. D 55 (8): 5226. arXiv:gr-qc/9610070 (https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9610070).
[20] M. Visser, D. Hochberg (1997). "Generic wormhole throats" in: The Internal Structure of Black Holes and Spacetime Singularities. Institute of Physics Press, Bristol). arXiv:gr-qc/9710001 (https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9710001).
[21] D. Hochberg (1990). "Lorentzian wormholes in higher order gravity theories". Phys. Lett. B 251: 349. doi:10.1016/0370-2693(90)90718-L.
[22] B. Bhawal and S. Kar (1992). "Lorentzian wormholes in Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet theory" Phys. Rev. D 46 (6): 2464. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.46.2464.

For what you said about scalar-tensor theories in general and Minotti's work about Lachièze-Rey & Mbelek's theory in particular: I know. But thanks to point this out for the audience.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 08/12/2017 06:46 pm
...
NEC. I'd better quote directly the passage from Barceló and Visser in their 2000 paper (https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0003025.pdf):

...
In general, violation of the null energy condition (the weakest of the energy conditions) leads to the breakdown of causality in general relativity and the violation of the second law of thermodynamics( https://arxiv.org/abs/0704.1814 ) . That is a severe pathology ! (To accept that the tiny energy going into the EM Drive could be breaking down causality and the 2nd law of thermodynamics).  To break down the NEC you first have to violate all the other energy conditions.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/EnergyConditions.svg/300px-EnergyConditions.svg.png)

(http://images.slideplayer.com/35/10408169/slides/slide_17.jpg)

EM Drive violating the NEC means contemplating the EM Drive now as a time machine

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/TeamTimeCar.com-BTTF_DeLorean_Time_Machine-OtoGodfrey.com-JMortonPhoto.com-07.jpg/1200px-TeamTimeCar.com-BTTF_DeLorean_Time_Machine-OtoGodfrey.com-JMortonPhoto.com-07.jpg)

That's too much (to me at least) to contemplate ;)  (although we have not heard back from some early EM Drive experimenters for quite a while  ??? )
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: demofsky on 08/13/2017 02:05 am
....
And most of all that they would be possible with the really tiny energy in the EM Drive.  Remember that E=Mc2, therefore the equivalent mass of the electromagnetic energy in the EM Drive, M=E/c2 is really tiny.
....
Thanks for this!  This really crystallized something for me. 

Going back to first principles, even allowing for some order of magnitude increases due to Compton scattering, etc. there is no way you can get anywhere near newton levels of thrust just by the energy introduced into the fustrum.

Therefore, if there is anything to this, thrust must be a second order effect of something caused by the asymmetry intruduced by the fustrum.  (And sincere apologies if this has been obvious to everyone except me!)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 08/13/2017 01:23 pm
....
And most of all that they would be possible with the really tiny energy in the EM Drive.  Remember that E=Mc2, therefore the equivalent mass of the electromagnetic energy in the EM Drive, M=E/c2 is really tiny.
....
Thanks for this!  This really crystallized something for me. 

Going back to first principles, even allowing for some order of magnitude increases due to Compton scattering, etc. there is no way you can get anywhere near newton levels of thrust just by the energy introduced into the fustrum.

Therefore, if there is anything to this, thrust must be a second order effect of something caused by the asymmetry intruduced by the fustrum.  (And sincere apologies if this has been obvious to everyone except me!)

A fan with only  8.95 Watts input power can produce 204 milliNewtons (0.204 Newtons) of force


https://www.wired.com/2012/09/modeling-the-force-from-a-fan/

this is due to the force from air convection

(https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/2012/09/i_photo.jpg)

204 milliNewtons/0.00895 kW = 22,793 mN/kW

for comparison Shawyer claimed 100 times less: up to 243 mN/kW for the Demonstrator,  this is the reason why it is conceivable that convection forces may play a role in the claimed results, and why it is important to run the experiments in a vacuum chamber (like NASA and TU Dresden) to eliminate thermal convection effects.  You also have Lorentz forces and thermal expansion forces (shift of center of mass in the pendulum setup) still present in a vacuum.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: moreno7798 on 08/13/2017 03:00 pm
I've been studying this silly copper can for years now and I think it's honest to God anti gravity. Gravitational induction. Everything else doesn't fit. I need help converting from my intuitive mind to something people can understand.

A good start would be mentioning the gravitational potential U and talking about the topology of spacetime throughout the cavity.

Another old abandoned train of thought was the generation of negative energy fields in the upper cavity (or even throughout the wall). With this in mind, anti-Gravity only makes sense in the context of a warp bubble or gradient. {snip}

@Mulletron & LowerAtmosphere: Are you talking about something along the lines of Minotti's model? Not the scalar-tensor theory itself, but the consequence of any similar theory upon the gravitational potential within and around the vicinity of the cavity, as I presented in two former posts here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1636165#msg1636165) and there (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1636291#msg1636291) (EmDrive NSF Thread #9, January 2017).

A back of the envelope numerical calculation shows the practical difficulty of warping spacetime with the energy present in the EM Drive.  Spacetime is just too stiff for such puny energy. See:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/life-unbounded/just-how-resilient-is-spacetime/

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vT_zkTu6wZk

<< it takes a HUGE amount of stress on space-time to produce an appreciable amount of warp or curvature ('G'). In fact it takes objects like the Earth (all 6 trillion trillion kilograms of it) to warp space-time to a level that we're intimately familiar with.>>
Or in a clearer way...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSKzgpt4HBU

...and a possible way to do it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wokn7crjBbA&t=2063s
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 08/13/2017 08:27 pm
What I'm envisioning is the superposition of two counterpropagating, non-identical (in this case amplitude but in another model you can create beats using two different frequencies...like with a red and green laser in a common medium....but the guys using magnetrons are putting wide band noise into their cavities of multiple frequencies too) electromagnetic waves, the result is a partial standing wave. The partial standing wave is what's important. If I understand things correctly, of course one photon is massless, but a system of two nonparallel photons has a real mass. I envision that this partial standing wave is in fact massive, and it's the jerking motion of this massive wave that is responsible for gravitational induction (AC gravity...changing gravity...changing acceleration) and these disturbances in the gravitational field are propagating away, carrying away energy and momentum from the cavity (maximum theoretical Q? Instead of trying to directly measure gravitational radiation which is extremely difficult right now, maybe find the missing Q instead) asymmetrically (because of the octupole shape of the cavity). It isn't good enough to just accelerate a mass and achieve gravitational radiation because gravitational dipole radiation cannot exist. You have to have a changing acceleration. It seems to me that you don't need a planet sized mass or energy equivalent, you just need to interfere waves and switch things really quickly (we want the gravitomagnetic flux to be changing quickly) to be able to induce alternating gravitational fields. This isn't "warp drive" in my view. I don't believe that gravitoelectromagnetism is pseudoscience anymore since Gravity Probe B was able to measure the Earth's gravitational magnetic component, and also with the confirmation of gravitational waves, the gravitational equivalent of electrodynamics must be more a true reality than just equations on paper. Just imagine the impact to the world, and the potential gains, that would come from mastering gravitodynamics, as we have with electrodynamics.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/13/2017 10:04 pm
There was a huge safety problem with the test stand on the work bench. The center of gravity was so high that the entire experiment almost tipped over once, spilling the antifreeze dampening fluid all over the floor and shattering the glass reservoir. I was also quickly running out of usable bench top space. So I built a robust, dedicated, and maneuverable test stand. The center of gravity was greatly reduced, leading to a much more stable base structure for experiments. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Dagger on 08/13/2017 11:35 pm
Anyone seen the new TV show Salvation? They are actually planning on using an EmDrive to save earth from an asteroid impact  ;D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sanman on 08/14/2017 05:41 am
Anyone seen the new TV show Salvation? They are actually planning on using an EmDrive to save earth from an asteroid impact  ;D

Hehe, yeah I know - there's a thread on that show (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43345.0) in the Spaceflight Entertainment and Hobbies forum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dcnw3WWENzQ

You'll notice that the EMdrive on the TV show doesn't look like the real-life EMdrive, and instead looks more like a sci-fi notion of a hi-tech rocket engine. They take a lot of liberties with science of course - like showing video from a Jupiter probe arriving in realtime without any signal delay.  :P
Lots of suspense and plot twists in this show though, which makes it very entertaining.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKg9yNVvjqE

Just remember - "whoever controls the EMdrive controls the fate of the planet"  8)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 08/14/2017 01:13 pm
What I'm envisioning is the superposition of two counterpropagating, non-identical (in this case amplitude but in another model you can create beats using two different frequencies...like with a red and green laser in a common medium....but the guys using magnetrons are putting wide band noise into their cavities of multiple frequencies too) electromagnetic waves, the result is a partial standing wave. The partial standing wave is what's important. If I understand things correctly, of course one photon is massless, but a system of two nonparallel photons has a real mass. I envision that this partial standing wave is in fact massive, and it's the jerking motion of this massive wave that is responsible for gravitational induction (AC gravity...changing gravity...changing acceleration) and these disturbances in the gravitational field are propagating away, carrying away energy and momentum from the cavity (maximum theoretical Q? Instead of trying to directly measure gravitational radiation which is extremely difficult right now, maybe find the missing Q instead) asymmetrically (because of the octupole shape of the cavity). It isn't good enough to just accelerate a mass and achieve gravitational radiation because gravitational dipole radiation cannot exist. You have to have a changing acceleration. It seems to me that you don't need a planet sized mass or energy equivalent, you just need to interfere waves and switch things really quickly (we want the gravitomagnetic flux to be changing quickly) to be able to induce alternating gravitational fields. This isn't "warp drive" in my view. I don't believe that gravitoelectromagnetism is pseudoscience anymore since Gravity Probe B was able to measure the Earth's gravitational magnetic component, and also with the confirmation of gravitational waves, the gravitational equivalent of electrodynamics must be more a true reality than just equations on paper. Just imagine the impact to the world, and the potential gains, that would come from mastering gravitodynamics, as we have with electrodynamics.

I had made a suggestion a while about about submersing the EM drive in water and powering it while monitoring the increase in temperature of the water and the energy put in, in order to observe some missing energy.  Such energy may be being carried off by something else that was escaping the cavity. 

On the other hand, WarpTech suggesting some imbalance in heat dissipation inducing some propulsion effect, leaves me unsure it would detect missing thermal energy in that case or not. 

If there was missing energy then the idea was to accumulate a fair amount of energy and some missing energy accumulated over time should be measurable.  However this depends on our measuring instruments and the amount of missing energy. 

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 08/14/2017 01:15 pm
Anyone seen the new TV show Salvation? They are actually planning on using an EmDrive to save earth from an asteroid impact  ;D

Hehe, yeah I know - there's a thread on that show (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43345.0) in the Spaceflight Entertainment and Hobbies forum.



You'll notice that the EMdrive on the TV show doesn't look like the real-life EMdrive, and instead looks more like a sci-fi notion of a hi-tech rocket engine. They take a lot of liberties with science of course - like showing video from a Jupiter probe arriving in realtime without any signal delay.  :P
Lots of suspense and plot twists in this show though, which makes it very entertaining.



Just remember - "whoever controls the EMdrive controls the fate of the planet"  8)
This show is freely available on Amazon Prime.

The depiction of student life at MIT is unrealistic, the interior of the buildings, the lecture halls, the pubs, the ambience and the student life does not bear much resemblance to the real MIT. 

It is interesting how Hollywood's idea of scientists/engineers has morphed from the "evil scientist" of the 1930's-1950's movies
(https://cdn.instructables.com/FBF/8WUB/GUR6ILMT/FBF8WUBGUR6ILMT.LARGE.jpg)

to this new  Hollywood "tech person" that seems to be based around Hollywood's idea of Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook and other social-media ventures.

(https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1484w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2017/07/10/Style/Images/110247__0221b.jpg?t=20170517)

After watching the beginning of the first episode I asked myself: do I really want to sit through all the predictable plot twists and human relationships just to get to the good part?  My answer: no  :)

The predictable plot and human relationship twists have been done so many times before (and often much better) that giving up an hour of our time to lose it forever seems too much.  The MIT student falls in love in 24 hours, and this gives him even more the reason to save the planet. The dialog, the script, are clunky.  I just did not find it interesting.

(https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5829c10a1500002600b0cc49.jpeg?cache=xnk35m5twq&ops=scalefit_720_noupscale)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 08/14/2017 01:18 pm
....
And most of all that they would be possible with the really tiny energy in the EM Drive.  Remember that E=Mc2, therefore the equivalent mass of the electromagnetic energy in the EM Drive, M=E/c2 is really tiny.
....
Thanks for this!  This really crystallized something for me. 

Going back to first principles, even allowing for some order of magnitude increases due to Compton scattering, etc. there is no way you can get anywhere near newton levels of thrust just by the energy introduced into the fustrum.

Therefore, if there is anything to this, thrust must be a second order effect of something caused by the asymmetry intruduced by the fustrum.  (And sincere apologies if this has been obvious to everyone except me!)

A fan with only  8.95 Watts input power can produce 204 milliNewtons (0.204 Newtons) of force


https://www.wired.com/2012/09/modeling-the-force-from-a-fan/

this is due to the force from air convection

(https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/2012/09/i_photo.jpg)

204 milliNewtons/0.00895 kW = 22,793 mN/kW

for comparison Shawyer claimed 100 times less: up to 243 mN/kW for the Demonstrator,  this is the reason why it is conceivable that convection forces may play a role in the claimed results, and why it is important to run the experiments in a vacuum chamber (like NASA and TU Dresden) to eliminate thermal convection effects.  You also have Lorentz forces and thermal expansion forces (shift of center of mass in the pendulum setup) still present in a vacuum.

One of the reasons I was suggesting a resonant osculating pendulum test was to help eliminate those air convection problems.  Thermal air convection should be reduced some what if the rate of change in thermal energy doesn't match the frequency of the pendulum or rather has its change in amplitude reduced.  (i.e. thermal equilibrium should reduce the effects some what).  Keeping the cavity at a constant thermal temperature was the idea while still applying periodic resonant thrust pulses to the underdamped pendulum.  Massive cavities might be the better bet here, less rapid change in thermal amplitude over time.

Another idea was to enclose the cavity in an insulated box that moved with it.  Any momentum conveyed to the air in the box remains with the cavity, unable to escape and convey unwanted momentum to the cavity.  Unless what escapes is escaping from the box. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/14/2017 01:51 pm
EmDrive thruster efficiency presentation.
Soon to be on the emdrive.com web site
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Flyby on 08/14/2017 02:16 pm
Quote
Typical 3G thruster efficiencies are between 20% and 70%, in order to optimise the flight envelope for each application

Typical?
what typical? Where typical?
we have yet to see anything that works, let alone give it a study on "typical efficiency"...

Perhaps when if you speak of the "typical efficiency" of an internal combustion engine, I'll be more inclined to follow the reasoning, since it exists since 1876. Lot's of prototypes and production models to evaluate there...

But there really is everything BUT a "typical efficiency" about the EMdrive...
The topic of  "highly controversial" should have a higher priority maybe?

Unless the numbers relate to real world experiments and results, calculating efficiencies based upon thought-experiments doesn't have a substantial purpose or meaning...

iow, let us first see a working device and then we can start talking about efficiencies...

This really is as the saying goes :
(http://www.phrases.org.uk/images/cart-before-the-horse.jpg)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 08/14/2017 02:33 pm
Anyone seen the new TV show Salvation? They are actually planning on using an EmDrive to save earth from an asteroid impact  ;D

Hehe, yeah I know - there's a thread on that show (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43345.0) in the Spaceflight Entertainment and Hobbies forum.



You'll notice that the EMdrive on the TV show doesn't look like the real-life EMdrive, and instead looks more like a sci-fi notion of a hi-tech rocket engine. They take a lot of liberties with science of course - like showing video from a Jupiter probe arriving in realtime without any signal delay.  :P
Lots of suspense and plot twists in this show though, which makes it very entertaining.



Just remember - "whoever controls the EMdrive controls the fate of the planet"  8)
This show is freely available on Amazon Prime.

The depiction of student life at MIT is unrealistic, the interior of the buildings, the lecture halls, the pubs, the ambience and the student life does not bear much resemblance to the real MIT. 

It is interesting how Hollywood's idea of scientists/engineers has morphed from the "evil scientist" of the 1930's-1950's movies
(https://cdn.instructables.com/FBF/8WUB/GUR6ILMT/FBF8WUBGUR6ILMT.LARGE.jpg)

to this new  Hollywood "tech person" that seems to be based around Hollywood's idea of Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook and other social-media ventures.

(https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1484w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2017/07/10/Style/Images/110247__0221b.jpg?t=20170517)

After watching the beginning of the first episode I asked myself: do I really want to sit through all the predictable plot twists and human relationships just to get to the good part?  My answer: no  :)

The predictable plot and human relationship twists have been done so many times before (and often much better) that giving up an hour of our time to lose it forever seems too much.  The MIT student falls in love in 24 hours, and this gives him even more the reason to save the planet. The dialog, the script, are clunky.  I just did not find it interesting.
Dr. Rodal,

Just when did Hollywood hype mirror the real world?  ::) For me this is a great tool to raise the general awareness to advancing real world research even if it's through the rose colored glasses of a bad studio production.

Had a friend tell my I needed more lights to look at when i showed him my test bed. Really?
(https://media.giphy.com/media/i8WHreXpmkpWM/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 08/14/2017 02:39 pm
...
Dr. Rodal,

Just when did Hollywood hype mirror the real world?  ::) For me this is a great tool to raise the general awareness to advancing real world research even if it's through the rose colored glasses of a bad studio production.

Had a friend tell my I needed more lights to look at when i showed him my test bed. Really?

I did not expect this series to be like a great movie, with interesting plot and script, as say, Ex Machina or the classic Blade Runner, that really holds your interest. 

But even the low budget, comic, Iron Sky could hold my interest through the end.

Yes, I know, this is a TV show, but again, the production values, characters, plot and script does not even come close to say, for example TV shows like Fargo (particularly seasons I and II), where you are often surprised, and are always looking forward to the next show, instead of asking yourself: why I am sitting here watching this instead of ...  :)

And I know that Fargo is not a science-fiction show (but it had flying saucers  ;) ), but I recall when the original Twilight Zone (late 50's early 60's) amazed me and still like watching  Twilight Zone reruns during the SyFy channel Marathons... Some of the best episodes were less than half an hour long...

Concerning a better, more interesting (of course never perfect, as reality is often boring   ;) ) description of MIT, I would mention the movie 21 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_(2008_film)),  the movie A Beautiful Mind (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Beautiful_Mind_(film)) and the movie Good Will Hunting ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Will_Hunting), yes the writers took many liberties to depict those stories, but still, they made a much greater effort than in Salvation...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 08/14/2017 03:09 pm
...
Dr. Rodal,

Just when did Hollywood hype mirror the real world?  ::) For me this is a great tool to raise the general awareness to advancing real world research even if it's through the rose colored glasses of a bad studio production.

Had a friend tell my I needed more lights to look at when i showed him my test bed. Really?

I did not expect this series to be like a great movie, with interesting plot and script, as say, Ex Machina or the classic Blade Runner, that really holds your interest. 

But even the low budget Iron Sky could hold my interest through the end.

Yes, I know, this is a TV show, but again, the production values, characters, plot and script does not even come close to say, for example shows like Fargo (particularly seasons I and II), where you are often surprised, and are always looking forward to the next show, instead of asking yourself: why I am sitting here watching this instead of ...  :)

And I know that Fargo is not a science-fiction show, but I recall when the original Twilight Zone (late 50's early 60's) amazed me and still like watching  Twilight Zone reruns during the SyFy channel Marathons... Some of the best episodes were less than half an hour long...
Very true, It's not Stanley Kubrick's 2001, which set the standard for not only visual effects and plot interpretation, but it also set the bar for the designs of ships and interest in space travel. 

I even used the 2001's Moon Bus modified to present the idea of exploration on a planetary surface without disturbing the surface like our current set of planetary rovers. Instead of using the newer potential set of engines like the MEGA and EMDrive or others for huge rocket ships or interstellar probes I wanted to show a more mundane application.

That said, I think I'll Que up watching 2001 a Space Odyssey again and get cold chills from Johann Strauss's Blue Danube.

My Very Best,
Shell

PS: I'm still here and still working on the "new" project.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/14/2017 03:32 pm
Roger's email:

Hi Phil

As a follow up to my last email, I have attached a short presentation on how we calculate thruster efficiency.

I will get this put on our web site, so feel free to share it. Hopefully it will settle the over-unity arguments that still seem to persist in the forums.

Best regards

Roger
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Jim Davis on 08/14/2017 03:44 pm
From the FAQ on emdrive.com:

"Q. Does the theory of the EmDrive contravene the accepted laws of physics or electromagnetic theory?
A. The EmDrive does not violate any known law of physics."

How can this be?

Suppose you have a 1000 kg vehicle propelled by an EmDrive.

In one frame of reference the vehicle accelerates from 0 m/s to 1 m/s. An observer in this frame of reference concludes that the EmDrive must have consumed a minimum of ((1000)*(1)^2)/2 - ((1000)*(1)^2)/2 = 500 J.

In another frame of reference the vehicle accelerates from 10 m/s to 11 m/s. An observer in this frame of reference concludes that the EmDrive must have consumed a minimum of ((1000)*(11)^2)/2 - ((1000)*(10)^2)/2 = 10,500 J.

Energy is not being conserved.

I know this is the 10th thread and this has probably been covered previously but it seems that there are only two positions a reasonable person can take:

1.) The EmDrive does not work; the observed effects are all within experimental error.

2.) The EmDrive works; all errors have been accounted for; energy and momentum are not conserved.

Does anyone hold the position:

3.) The EmDrive works; all errors have been accounted for; energy and momentum are conserved.

If so, can you explain how?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/14/2017 04:47 pm
From the FAQ on emdrive.com:

"Q. Does the theory of the EmDrive contravene the accepted laws of physics or electromagnetic theory?
A. The EmDrive does not violate any known law of physics."

How can this be?

Suppose you have a 1000 kg vehicle propelled by an EmDrive.

In one frame of reference the vehicle accelerates from 0 m/s to 1 m/s. An observer in this frame of reference concludes that the EmDrive must have consumed a minimum of ((1000)*(1)^2)/2 - ((1000)*(1)^2)/2 = 500 J.

In another frame of reference the vehicle accelerates from 10 m/s to 11 m/s. An observer in this frame of reference concludes that the EmDrive must have consumed a minimum of ((1000)*(11)^2)/2 - ((1000)*(10)^2)/2 = 10,500 J.

Energy is not being conserved.

I know this is the 10th thread and this has probably been covered previously but it seems that there are only two positions a reasonable person can take:

1.) The EmDrive does not work; the observed effects are all within experimental error.

2.) The EmDrive works; all errors have been accounted for; energy and momentum are not conserved.

Does anyone hold the position:

3.) The EmDrive works; all errors have been accounted for; energy and momentum are conserved.

If so, can you explain how?

Why stop there? What about:

100 m/s to 101 m/s? or
1,000 m/s to 1,001? m/s or
10,000 m/s to 10,001 m/s? or
100,000 m/s to 100,001 m/s, etc?

Then explain how mass in space knows it's relative velocity to another frame so it knows now much work is needed to be done on it to move it's mass some other frame relative distance?

What is known is a = f/m works in the frame of the accelerating EmDrive.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Jim Davis on 08/14/2017 05:33 pm
Why stop there?

Because I thought the point was adequately made.

Quote
Then explain how mass in space knows it's relative velocity to another frame so it knows now much work is needed to be done on it to move it's mass some other frame relative distance?

If energy and momentum are conserved, the mass doesn't have to know; the work needed will be the same in all frames of reference. This is the case with all means of propulsion hitherto, but not the EmDrive apparently.

But just to be clear:

Am I correct in concluding that you're in the

2.) The EmDrive works; all errors have been accounted for; energy and momentum are not conserved.

cohort?



Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/14/2017 05:43 pm
...
Dr. Rodal,

Just when did Hollywood hype mirror the real world?  ::) For me this is a great tool to raise the general awareness to advancing real world research even if it's through the rose colored glasses of a bad studio production.

Had a friend tell my I needed more lights to look at when i showed him my test bed. Really?

I did not expect this series to be like a great movie, with interesting plot and script, as say, Ex Machina or the classic Blade Runner, that really holds your interest. 

But even the low budget Iron Sky could hold my interest through the end.

Yes, I know, this is a TV show, but again, the production values, characters, plot and script does not even come close to say, for example shows like Fargo (particularly seasons I and II), where you are often surprised, and are always looking forward to the next show, instead of asking yourself: why I am sitting here watching this instead of ...  :)

And I know that Fargo is not a science-fiction show, but I recall when the original Twilight Zone (late 50's early 60's) amazed me and still like watching  Twilight Zone reruns during the SyFy channel Marathons... Some of the best episodes were less than half an hour long...
Very true, It's not Stanley Kubrick's 2001, which set the standard for not only visual effects and plot interpretation, but it also set the bar for the designs of ships and interest in space travel. 

I even used the 2001's Moon Bus modified to present the idea of exploration on a planetary surface without disturbing the surface like our current set of planetary rovers. Instead of using the newer potential set of engines like the MEGA and EMDrive or others for huge rocket ships or interstellar probes I wanted to show a more mundane application.

That said, I think I'll Que up watching 2001 a Space Odyssey again and get cold chills from Johann Strauss's Blue Danube.

My Very Best,
Shell

PS: I'm still here and still working on the "new" project.

And Kubrick have us more than a millisecond to enjoy such scenes too!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/14/2017 06:14 pm
From the FAQ on emdrive.com:

"Q. Does the theory of the EmDrive contravene the accepted laws of physics or electromagnetic theory?
A. The EmDrive does not violate any known law of physics."

How can this be?

Suppose you have a 1000 kg vehicle propelled by an EmDrive.

In one frame of reference the vehicle accelerates from 0 m/s to 1 m/s. An observer in this frame of reference concludes that the EmDrive must have consumed a minimum of ((1000)*(1)^2)/2 - ((1000)*(1)^2)/2 = 500 J.

In another frame of reference the vehicle accelerates from 10 m/s to 11 m/s. An observer in this frame of reference concludes that the EmDrive must have consumed a minimum of ((1000)*(11)^2)/2 - ((1000)*(10)^2)/2 = 10,500 J.

Energy is not being conserved.

I know this is the 10th thread and this has probably been covered previously but it seems that there are only two positions a reasonable person can take:

1.) The EmDrive does not work; the observed effects are all within experimental error.

2.) The EmDrive works; all errors have been accounted for; energy and momentum are not conserved.

Does anyone hold the position:

3.) The EmDrive works; all errors have been accounted for; energy and momentum are conserved.

If so, can you explain how?

I think it's way too soon to have absolutely firm opinions. The EMDrive seems to work. I don't think it's fair to say #1 or #2 or #3.  People don't have to have a complete understanding of how momentum and energy are conserved in this system to proceed with experiments based on the preliminary data that purportedly shows such effects in EmDrive systems. I would say it this way;

The EMDrive seems to work, at least some data is suggestive enough to keep testing it. Thus people here and elsewhere are doing so. There is plenty of ongoing debate over the issues of the conservation laws as there should be.

As for the MEGA drive, there is data suggesting that works too. Enough for serious study. There is good reason to think of the force on the MEGA drive as an external force due to Mach effects. If we think of it as an external force, we don't have to agonize over local momentum conservation. And the kinetic energy is ultimately caused by the agent of the external force.

Some people think that the EMDrive may also actually be using the Mach effect in an as yet not understood way. There are other ideas as well. Alternativly, the forces on the EMDrive  may also be argued to be external caused by an external agent thus mitigating the concerns over conservation laws.


p.s. The different observers in your example would see the same difference with a rocket doing a burn. Kinetic energy of a rocket alone is not a conserved quantity. In that case if we include the kinetic energy change of the exhaust, we discover the net change in energy is the same for both observers. If we assume local momentum is conserved in the EMDrive, we can also assume there is an as yet unknown mechanism functioning like the exhaust, carrying the momentum away and balancing the energy. If the energy comes from an external agent, it is accounted for that way and momentum is not conserved locally. Either way, if it works, I'll take it!  :D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/14/2017 06:51 pm
In the presentation Roger is using EmDrive relative velocity change, which can be calculated for that frame by measuring acceleration vs time and calculating the resultant velocity change.

Doing that Roger shows CofE is conserved.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 08/14/2017 06:53 pm
Why stop there?

Because I thought the point was adequately made.

Quote
Then explain how mass in space knows it's relative velocity to another frame so it knows now much work is needed to be done on it to move it's mass some other frame relative distance?

If energy and momentum are conserved, the mass doesn't have to know; the work needed will be the same in all frames of reference. This is the case with all means of propulsion hitherto, but not the EmDrive apparently.

But just to be clear:

Am I correct in concluding that you're in the

2.) The EmDrive works; all errors have been accounted for; energy and momentum are not conserved.

cohort?

Welcome to the forum. I am in the 1) cohort. I am one of a few that are paranoid enough not to leave the forum. Without us, you will not know that there are other opinions other than those held by the 2) or 3) cohort.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/14/2017 07:28 pm
Why stop there?

Because I thought the point was adequately made.

Quote
Then explain how mass in space knows it's relative velocity to another frame so it knows now much work is needed to be done on it to move it's mass some other frame relative distance?

If energy and momentum are conserved, the mass doesn't have to know; the work needed will be the same in all frames of reference. This is the case with all means of propulsion hitherto, but not the EmDrive apparently.

But just to be clear:

Am I correct in concluding that you're in the

2.) The EmDrive works; all errors have been accounted for; energy and momentum are not conserved.

cohort?

Welcome to the forum. I am in the 1) cohort. I am one of a few that are paranoid enough not to leave the forum. Without us, you will not know that there are other opinions other than those held by the 2) or 3) cohort.

Hi PN,

Roger clearly shows now, using EmDrive reference frame velocity changes, CofE is conserved.
So no OU.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 08/14/2017 07:51 pm

Hi PN,

Roger clearly shows now, using EmDrive reference frame velocity changes, CofE is conserved.
So no OU.

TT, I do not have time and incentive to read his new equations at this time. I will read when enough skeptical people say they are correct. Thanks.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/14/2017 08:15 pm

Hi PN,

Roger clearly shows now, using EmDrive reference frame velocity changes, CofE is conserved.
So no OU.

TT, I do not have time and incentive to read his new equations at this time. I will read when enough skeptical people say they are correct. Thanks.

Hi PN,

The equations are very simple.
Just click here:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1712726#msg1712726
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/14/2017 08:34 pm

Hi PN,

Roger clearly shows now, using EmDrive reference frame velocity changes, CofE is conserved.
So no OU.

TT, I do not have time and incentive to read his new equations at this time. I will read when enough skeptical people say they are correct. Thanks.

Hi PN,

The equations are very simple.
Just click here:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1712726#msg1712726

If you mean "simply wrong" then you would be correct.

The equation for Energy in is simply P*t, not what Shawyer wrote. What he wrote for Ein is just another way of writing the same formula as Eout, making the rest of which a fancy way of saying 1=1. (The final equation has 2 variables, Fd, and Fs that both refer to the same quantity.)

The equation at the end of the first slide you posted is a correct expression for Eout = 0.5*P*Ts*t*Vt.
Divide this by the actual input energy, P*t, and you get 0.5*Ts*Vt. This clearly shows there is a velocity for which any given value of Ts results in over unity. For the values of Ts Shawyer has claimed recently, the Vt that results in over unity is small.

(Relativistic analysis agrees with this conclusion as well, and it is easy to see how relativity allows photon thrusters, because you can never accelerate past c, so a sufficiently small Ts is acceptable.)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 08/14/2017 08:49 pm

Hi PN,

Roger clearly shows now, using EmDrive reference frame velocity changes, CofE is conserved.
So no OU.

TT, I do not have time and incentive to read his new equations at this time. I will read when enough skeptical people say they are correct. Thanks.

Hi PN,

The equations are very simple.
Just click here:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1712726#msg1712726

TT, I took a look and I basically agree with meberbs' post below yours.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: moreno7798 on 08/14/2017 08:57 pm

Hi PN,

Roger clearly shows now, using EmDrive reference frame velocity changes, CofE is conserved.
So no OU.

TT, I do not have time and incentive to read his new equations at this time. I will read when enough skeptical people say they are correct. Thanks.

I question your motives.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: moreno7798 on 08/14/2017 09:06 pm

Hi PN,

Roger clearly shows now, using EmDrive reference frame velocity changes, CofE is conserved.
So no OU.

TT, I do not have time and incentive to read his new equations at this time. I will read when enough skeptical people say they are correct. Thanks.

Hi PN,

The equations are very simple.
Just click here:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1712726#msg1712726

If you mean "simply wrong" then you would be correct.

The equation for Energy in is simply P*t, not what Shawyer wrote. What he wrote for Ein is just another way of writing the same formula as Eout, making the rest of which a fancy way of saying 1=1. (The final equation has 2 variables, Fd, and Fs that both refer to the same quantity.)

The equation at the end of the first slide you posted is a correct expression for Eout = 0.5*P*Ts*t*Vt.
Divide this by the actual input energy, P*t, and you get 0.5*Ts*Vt. This clearly shows there is a velocity for which any given value of Ts results in over unity. For the values of Ts Shawyer has claimed recently, the Vt that results in over unity is small.

(Relativistic analysis agrees with this conclusion as well, and it is easy to see how relativity allows photon thrusters, because you can never accelerate past c, so a sufficiently small Ts is acceptable.)

If EMDrive is verified to work exactly as Roger explains it, then you will have to explain your "Simply wrong" conclusion. Are you prepared for that scenario?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 08/14/2017 09:10 pm
Shawyer has been proven wrong DOZENS of times throughout these threads. Especially regarding his hilarious lack of sidewall pressure. Newcomers: read the discussion or search through the old threads for keywords please!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: moreno7798 on 08/14/2017 09:35 pm
Shawyer has been proven wrong DOZENS of times throughout these threads. Especially regarding his hilarious lack of sidewall pressure. Newcomers: read the discussion or search through the old threads for keywords please!

Proven what wrong? His equations? The EMDrive? . . . I'd suggest that you get your own paper disproving his equations peer reviewed and published. Talk is cheap. Get something tangible out there or just watch and learn. You know, in case you missed it, it is his invention (even if the math is flawed) he had the insight to conceive of it and bring it to ALL OF US  - particularly here on this forum where we are trying to replicate HIS idea.

Again, get something out there or have a little respect for the man who conceived the machine you're trying to emulate.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/14/2017 09:42 pm
If EMDrive is verified to work exactly as Roger explains it, then you will have to explain your "Simply wrong" conclusion. Are you prepared for that scenario?
The definition of input energy is input power times time. No experiment can change this, because it is the definition. What Shawyer wrote on those slides is wrong, and will always be wrong.

As LowerAtmosphere points out, Shawyer making wrong statements about high school physics is not new. One telling example is how he keeps flipping signs in simple force diagrams, you should go look that up to, I won't repeat the discussion here.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: moreno7798 on 08/14/2017 10:05 pm
If EMDrive is verified to work exactly as Roger explains it, then you will have to explain your "Simply wrong" conclusion. Are you prepared for that scenario?
The definition of input energy is input power times time. No experiment can change this, because it is the definition. What Shawyer wrote on those slides is wrong, and will always be wrong.

As LowerAtmosphere points out, Shawyer making wrong statements about high school physics is not new. One telling example is how he keeps flipping signs in simple force diagrams, you should go look that up to, I won't repeat the discussion here.

Look, I am not going to waste my time arguing. I want to learn. That is why I am here. Disparaging other people gets the science nowhere soon. This forum should be about building and testing the hell out of EMDrive. That should be the focus. It's fine to disagree but the proof is in the pudding. If you feel so strongly about the math, then it should follow that EMDrive should not work. But if it does turn out to work, then you have to be prepared to explain your mathematical assertions.

Do you really believe that if EMDrive actually does work, it was conceived out of pure, one in a billionth, chance idea?

Let's wait and see.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 08/14/2017 10:48 pm
If EMDrive is verified to work exactly as Roger explains it, then you will have to explain your "Simply wrong" conclusion. Are you prepared for that scenario?
The definition of input energy is input power times time. No experiment can change this, because it is the definition. What Shawyer wrote on those slides is wrong, and will always be wrong.

As LowerAtmosphere points out, Shawyer making wrong statements about high school physics is not new. One telling example is how he keeps flipping signs in simple force diagrams, you should go look that up to, I won't repeat the discussion here.

Look, I am not going to waste my time arguing. I want to learn. That is why I am here. Disparaging other people gets the science nowhere soon. This forum should be about building and testing the hell out of EMDrive. That should be the focus. It's fine to disagree but the proof is in the pudding. If you feel so strongly about the math, then it should follow that EMDrive should not work. But if it does turn out to work, then you have to be prepared to explain your mathematical assertions.

Do you really believe that if EMDrive actually does work, it was conceived out of pure, one in a billionth, chance idea?

Let's wait and see.

1) So, if tomorrow Shawyer posts a report stating that 1+1=5, would you think that it would be "disparaging other people" to point out that 1+1=2 and to state that 1+1=5 is simply wrong? I don't think that pointing out that what Shawyer posted is wrong, and stating the reasons why it is wrong is "disparaging other people".  One has to make a difference between attacking an argument and attacking a person.  One reaches the truth by constantly examining all assumptions.  Feynman said that the easiest person to fool is oneself. 

2) " If you feel so strongly about the math, then it should follow that EMDrive should not work. " 

I think that is a non-sequitur.  Whether something works or not is up to Mother Nature and not to the discoverer.  The Discoverer may have no idea as to why what he discovered works.   The first humans had no idea as to what was responsible for rain, many thought that it was the Gods pouring water on them, and they danced in order to enhance the chances of rain.  Some people even had human sacrifices in order to please the Gods. 
Countless things have been discovered by accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevlar for example.

3) " This forum should be about building and testing the hell out of EMDrive".  Well, what is the purpose of posting Shawyer's slides on efficiency then?  Why doesn't someone post a video of Shawyer's EM Drive Gen 3 self-levitating instead?  Why doesn't someone show Shawyer building and testing Gen 3 EM drives instead of posting Shawer's latest slides on efficiency?  I think that it is fine to have the forum also discuss issues like efficiency and overunity arguments.  Disagreeing about them does not necessarily mean that one is disparaging the person.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 08/15/2017 04:05 am
From the FAQ on emdrive.com:

"Q. Does the theory of the EmDrive contravene the accepted laws of physics or electromagnetic theory?
A. The EmDrive does not violate any known law of physics."

How can this be?

Suppose you have a 1000 kg vehicle propelled by an EmDrive.

In one frame of reference the vehicle accelerates from 0 m/s to 1 m/s. An observer in this frame of reference concludes that the EmDrive must have consumed a minimum of ((1000)*(1)^2)/2 - ((1000)*(1)^2)/2 = 500 J.

In another frame of reference the vehicle accelerates from 10 m/s to 11 m/s. An observer in this frame of reference concludes that the EmDrive must have consumed a minimum of ((1000)*(11)^2)/2 - ((1000)*(10)^2)/2 = 10,500 J.

Energy is not being conserved.

I know this is the 10th thread and this has probably been covered previously but it seems that there are only two positions a reasonable person can take:

1.) The EmDrive does not work; the observed effects are all within experimental error.

2.) The EmDrive works; all errors have been accounted for; energy and momentum are not conserved.

Does anyone hold the position:

3.) The EmDrive works; all errors have been accounted for; energy and momentum are conserved.

If so, can you explain how?

Yes when calculating a change in velocity of a boost of 1m/s then 1/2*m*v^2 for 1/2*m*(0+1)^2 is much smaller than 1/2*m*v^2 for 1/2*m*(10+1)^2. 

To truly get down to the mystery of why a constant boost can give such a difference in energy you have to consider the potential energy. 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kepler.html

To simplify matters you can consider a ship in an elliptical orbit around the sun.  At the aphelion of its orbit it has some decreased velocity due to its increased potential energy.  If a burn is initiated here the burn will be less efficient.  The reason being is because the fuel has a lot of wasted potential energy.  As it is released from the ship it has a long ways to fall. 

Rather if you let the ship fall into the gravity well the ship speed will increase and the fuel when released will be at a much lower potential energy. 

There is another subtle matter here hidden in the physics.  For the maximum efficiency you want to release your fuel at exactly the speed the ship is flying at.  Why?  So that the fuel gains no potential energy. 

Letting the ship fall into a gravity well is two fold.  It decreases the potential energy of the fuel and increases the velocity of the ship.  Increasing the velocity of the ship increases the efficiency of fuel exhausted at high velocity (you must fire the fuel off at a higher specific velocity for it to come to a stop relative to the gravitational potential well). The larger the gravitational potential one falls into the better. 

What about where there are no gravitational wells.  How then does the ship change velocity with out accelerating its own fuel.  Every bit of energy used to accelerate the fuel/ship increases the speed.  The larger the speed the faster the fuel needs to be kicked out for the fuel to come to a rest.  A rest you ask?  With respect to what frame?  Probably the same reason a photon rockets efficiency increases as the ship reaches c the photons kicked out increase in efficiency.  Or the photons caught and reflected come to a complete stop or completely red-shifting. 

Quote from: http://www.deepspace.ucsb.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Kulkarni_etal_2016_SPIE_RelativisticSolutionsToDirectedEnergy.pdf
Relativistic solutions to directed energy
Neeraj Kulkarnia, Philip M. Lubina, and Qicheng Zhanga
aDepartment of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA
...
Thus, a photon striking the sail of a spacecraft moving arbitrarily close to c transfers all its energy to the kinetic energy to the
spacecaft. The situation seems to indicate the efficiency approaches 1 as v → c...

By the way there are 2 types of gravitational assists.  One is falling into a gravitational well and then using your thrusters (increasing their efficiency).  The other is depending on how you approach a gravitational body and how you leave it you can swap kinetic energy between the two bodies i think. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/15/2017 11:37 am
Turned Roger's presentation into a spreadsheet as attached.

Example also attached using
326mN/kW (measured Flight Thruster data)
10kW Rf
3,000kg mass
2.5km/s dV
26.63 day burn time

Spreadsheet updated to version 2 to fix an incorrect input error message.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Jim Davis on 08/15/2017 01:08 pm
Turned Roger's presentation into a spreadsheet as attached.

I noticed that when the initial velocity is around 1420 m/s the efficiency becomes "OU" (over unity?).

So the EmDrive is a free energy machine?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tdperk on 08/15/2017 01:31 pm
Turned Roger's presentation into a spreadsheet as attached.

I noticed that when the initial velocity is around 1420 m/s the efficiency becomes "OU" (over unity?).

So the EmDrive is a free energy machine?

Only if you think the EM Drive can be built and operated for free and you don't think the OU energy is coming from somewhere else to be used locally.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 08/15/2017 01:43 pm
Turned Roger's presentation into a spreadsheet as attached.

I noticed that when the initial velocity is around 1420 m/s the efficiency becomes "OU" (over unity?).

So the EmDrive is a free energy machine?

Only if you think the EM Drive can be built and operated for free and you don't think the OU energy is coming from somewhere else to be used locally.

If you can gain the energy as described, there are always ways to use it locally. I remembered the suggestion of an ultimate "weapon" made of EmDrive ( if it works). Accelerate weapon with EmDrive for 10 years into the space. Another 10 years to decelerate. Move back towards the Earth. Accelerate for 10+ years to impact the earth.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/15/2017 02:10 pm
Version 2.

Now shows "Input Error" which is what the condition is and not "OU" which is not a real result.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/15/2017 02:12 pm
Turned Roger's presentation into a spreadsheet as attached.

I noticed that when the initial velocity is around 1420 m/s the efficiency becomes "OU" (over unity?).

So the EmDrive is a free energy machine?

The message should say "Input Error", which it now does.

Thanks for the heads up.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/15/2017 03:05 pm
Turned Roger's presentation into a spreadsheet as attached.

I noticed that when the initial velocity is around 1420 m/s the efficiency becomes "OU" (over unity?).

So the EmDrive is a free energy machine?

The message should say "Input Error", which it now does.

Thanks for the heads up.
Try it by just changing the final velocity to 6200 m/s. So what magic causes the emDrive to suddenly stop working when it reaches 6200 m/s? In what way is that an input error?

Didn't Shawyer claim an emDrive could get to orbit, and with a higher specific force that results in overunity even sooner?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Notsosureofit on 08/15/2017 04:32 pm
FYI:

http://www.laserfocusworld.com/articles/print/volume-53/issue-07/features/absolute-position-measurement-multiwavelength-interferometry-based-sensor-redefines-precision-position-metrology.html?cmpid=enl_lfw_newsletter_2017-08-15&[email protected]&eid=394536432&bid=1838365
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Jim Davis on 08/15/2017 05:22 pm
I noticed that when the initial velocity is around 1420 m/s the efficiency becomes "OU" (over unity?).

So the EmDrive is a free energy machine?

The message should say "Input Error", which it now does.

Thanks for the heads up.

?????????????????

How can an initial velocity be an "input error"?

There will always be a frame of reference where the initial velocity is anything you wish.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/15/2017 05:45 pm

Hi PN,

Roger clearly shows now, using EmDrive reference frame velocity changes, CofE is conserved.
So no OU.

TT, I do not have time and incentive to read his new equations at this time. I will read when enough skeptical people say they are correct. Thanks.

Hi PN,

The equations are very simple.
Just click here:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1712726#msg1712726

If you mean "simply wrong" then you would be correct.

The equation for Energy in is simply P*t, not what Shawyer wrote. What he wrote for Ein is just another way of writing the same formula as Eout, making the rest of which a fancy way of saying 1=1. (The final equation has 2 variables, Fd, and Fs that both refer to the same quantity.)

The equation at the end of the first slide you posted is a correct expression for Eout = 0.5*P*Ts*t*Vt.
Divide this by the actual input energy, P*t, and you get 0.5*Ts*Vt. This clearly shows there is a velocity for which any given value of Ts results in over unity. For the values of Ts Shawyer has claimed recently, the Vt that results in over unity is small.

(Relativistic analysis agrees with this conclusion as well, and it is easy to see how relativity allows photon thrusters, because you can never accelerate past c, so a sufficiently small Ts is acceptable.)

I thought the same thing before my position changed, that the only input energy that matters is electrical power integrated over time. In fact I even wrote to Shawyer trying to explain it to him that he had made a rather humiliating blunder! :o But if one accepts that a fixed electrical input power can actually create a fixed static thrust at all, then Shaywer's relevant input energy equation is just the work done by such a thrust. Yes, of course it can be way more that P*t and in fact his interstellar probe design violates P*t by a factor of 20 million! It seems to me that his position is somewhat like Prof. Woodward's position until recently which I may poorly elucidate but essentially says that as long as one inputs enough energy to boost the speed by a certain amount, equivalent to a certain acceleration, from an instantaneous rest frame, all is well. Thus Shawyer simply computes the efficiency of such a thrust under accelerations in which the given input power cannot support.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/15/2017 06:39 pm
But if one accepts that a fixed electrical input power can actually create a fixed static thrust at all,
The only valid conclusion after this point is an over unity device (as long as Force/power is grater than 1/c).

It makes no sense to call the final kinetic energy the "input" because where did this energy come from?

For a simple analogy of the energy balance, you start with 2 buckets, one has 1 liter of water in it, and the other is empty. The one that starts with water in it represent electric potential energy and the other represents kinetic energy. Now pour the one water from the first bucket to the second. If the second bucket now has 2 liters of water in it you broke conservation, because an extra liter of water appeared out of nowhere.

Some theories like the Mach effect are supposed to resolve this by saying that the energy somehow gets pulled in from the rest of the universe, meaning that there is a third bucket that the extra liter of water comes from. I think this brings up other problems, but those aren't important right now. At least they don't ignore the issue, and therefore accept the quite useful application of there device (if it works as advertised) as an energy generator.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/15/2017 07:47 pm
But if one accepts that a fixed electrical input power can actually create a fixed static thrust at all,
The only valid conclusion after this point is an over unity device (as long as Force/power is grater than 1/c).

It makes no sense to call the final kinetic energy the "input" because where did this energy come from?

For a simple analogy of the energy balance, you start with 2 buckets, one has 1 liter of water in it, and the other is empty. The one that starts with water in it represent electric potential energy and the other represents kinetic energy. Now pour the one water from the first bucket to the second. If the second bucket now has 2 liters of water in it you broke conservation, because an extra liter of water appeared out of nowhere.

Some theories like the Mach effect are supposed to resolve this by saying that the energy somehow gets pulled in from the rest of the universe, meaning that there is a third bucket that the extra liter of water comes from. I think this brings up other problems, but those aren't important right now. At least they don't ignore the issue, and therefore accept the quite useful application of there device (if it works as advertised) as an energy generator.



I resisted the concept that such a device could be used as an energy generator for a long time but now accept that as inevitable if the device really works.

Also, it seems to me that Shawyer is concerned with the efficiency of his cavity as regards to what force it can sustain during acceleration compared to what force it can support statically. Clearly his slide on energy flow has a gaping hole in it that he is not directly addressing. I don't know what he's really thinking about overall energy balance. Maybe he just assumes as long as he generates a force, that creates the kinetic energy of the vehicle and doesn't see the need to explain it further? It's a mystery. :-\
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/15/2017 08:14 pm
With a minor redesign of the small end-plate, a simple system for aligning the end-plates can be created.  This idea is based on Shawyer's recent patent, where he uses piezoelecric elements to compensate for Doppler shifts during acceleration. In this case, the purpose is for very precise alignment of the end-plates. I'm not sure if this step will be necessary, since the 3D printed parts align very well, but it could be yet another way to tune the cavity. This design provides for 5mm of movement.   
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 08/15/2017 08:57 pm
Wattage is always dependent on time, so any exotic theories involving the warping of spacetime and the QV require the correct frame of reference when considering over unity discussions. Energy input into the EM Drive does not necessarily imply energy input into the reaction system. You have a choice of operational theory between the internal fields; internal fields and walls; and the internal fields, walls and external fields, not to mention theories relying on electron pressure which does not follow the simple logic of efficiency being related to electrical energy input vs mechanical energy output.

I apologize for my brevity, but it is important to consider any gain through the various mediums and additional energy from charge imbalance and coherency in the walls. There is much more than simply pumping in microwaves and electrons.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 08/16/2017 02:40 am
(...)
Einstein was influenced by Mach and wanted to include Mach's principle within his theory of general relativity, but he eventually did not, especially because there is no instantaneous inertial mechanism involving a retarded/advanced radiative field in general relativity.

If Einstein's general relativity included Mach's principle, that's all we would need indeed. But it is not the case, and Einstein himself was affected by such a miss. As Abraham Pais, quoting Einstein, wrote in his book Subtle is the Lord: the Science and the Life of Albert Einstein (Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 287–288:
Quote
So strongly did Einstein believe at that time in the relativity of inertia that in 1918 he stated as being on an equal footing three principles on which a satisfactory theory of gravitation should rest:
1. The principle of relativity as expressed by general covariance.
2. The principle of equivalence.
3. Mach's principle (the first time this term entered the literature): … that the gµν are completely determined by the mass of bodies, more generally by Tµν.

In 1922, Einstein noted that others were satisfied to proceed without this [third] criterion and added, "This contentedness will appear incomprehensible to a later generation however."

As I said, gravitational waves have a limited propagation rate, the speed of light. That's why Heidi Fearn had to resort to an non-steady state version of H-N theory, which includes retarded and advanced waves that explain instantaneous inertial reaction forces, in order to build a theory including Mach's principle that allows Mach effects and its developments related to space flight applications.

Languages evolve. Maybe "gravinertial" is not the right term. But someday, if Fearn's theory proves to be correct and explains genuine Mach effects, we'll have to find a word summarizing the idea of an instantaneous radiative field with retarded and advanced waves, making all gravitational sources of the universe interact and explaining the inertia of bodies.

In my opinion, the inertial reaction to acceleration of mass acts across instants of complex time, those instants of time within which the infinity of the speed of light makes coincidence between remote locations obvious. The transfer of energy due to acceleration of charge (radiation) is that inertial reaction and it occurs within that instant. In this way the charges involved in asymetrical currents within the end plates of an emdrive frustum can exchange momentum with charges across the universe. We can then replace our broken energy calculations with a proper account.

Nothing exceeds the speed of light from a point perspective but the covariant perspective allows instantaneous interaction between charges separated by ict. Thus it is the only description of time which does not rely on paradoxical descriptors for the transfer of energy. No retarded waves are required, no photons are required, but comprehension of complex time only comes with acceptance of the possibility of coincidence of location over all separations ict.

The Gravity Probe B may not have found anything contradicting Einstein's theory, but emdrive thrust does contradict it (because the frustum is a Faraday cage) and so does QM (because interactions occur faster than light). A simple and paradox free explanation is required for the action of the emdrive, just as much as reproducible thrust measurements are. Tensor equations will not help us without a logical notion of the structure of time. Complex time describes a Machian universe by its structure alone and also allows conservation of energy for emdrive thrust. Real time by itself does not even have a place in which photons can achieve integrity. Who here is prepared to go out on a limb and consider complex time as a potential solution?

The equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass is proof that the structure of matter depends upon its rate of passage through the real component of time. That rate varies in strict accord with proximity to a mass of charges by the inverse square of that distance. It is my opinion that the radiation of energy without loss between a system of charges, which are conserved and whose resultant energy is conserved despite the variability of that rate, is tangible proof of the complex nature of time. Please consider.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 08/16/2017 01:37 pm
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/18/2/023009/meta

Quote
Utilizing linearized gravity, in [1] by Tolman et al it was established that the gravitational field of a cylindrical pulse of unpolarized light, of finite lifetime, for which diffraction can be neglected does not affect a parallel test beam if the test beam is co-propagating, but bends it, if counter-propagating. Stated differently, a freely propagating light pulse would not be affected by its own gravitational field, which is in sharp contrast to a beam of massive particles.

In a series of subsequent investigations, the gravitational field of light has been determined within the framework of the full set of the nonlinear Einstein equations in which light is represented as a null-fluid of massless particles [2], from the Lorentz-boosted Schwarzschild-metric of a point mass in the limit $v\to c$, $m\to 0$ [3], and even some exact plane wave solutions of the coupled Maxwell–Einstein theory [4]. It is now well established that the gravitational field of light is twice that of a material source of the same energy-mass density, that a pulse of light on an infinite straight path is accompanied by a co-propagating plane fronted gravitational wave, and that two such pulses would never interact if propagating on parallel tracks in the same direction1 . In [6] by Scully, it was shown that the interaction between pulses running slower than the speed of light—e.g. in a wave guide—is non-zero, however.

Quote
We recovered the result of [1] that a massless test particle is not effected by the pulse if it is co-propagating with the pulse while a counter-propagating massless test particle experiences an acceleration four times stronger than that experienced by a particle at rest.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 08/16/2017 09:43 pm
On the other hand, this spin-gravity experiment turned up a null result: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.023001

Quote from: Test of the Universality of Free Fall with Atoms in Different Spin Orientations
We report a test of the universality of free fall by comparing the gravity acceleration of the Rb87 atoms in mF=+1 versus those in mF=−1, of which the corresponding spin orientations are opposite. A Mach-Zehnder-type atom interferometer is exploited to alternately measure the free fall acceleration of the atoms in these two magnetic sublevels, and the resultant Eötvös ratio is ηS=(0.2±1.2)×10^−7. This also gives an upper limit of 5.4×10^−6  m^−2 for a possible gradient field of the spacetime torsion. The interferometer using atoms in mF=±1 is highly sensitive to the magnetic field inhomogeneity. A double differential measurement method is developed to alleviate the inhomogeneity influence, of which the effectiveness is validated by a magnetic field modulating experiment.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/17/2017 10:20 am
After a few emails with Roger, here is my latest version of the EmDrive mission calculator.

Needed to factor in cavity Q and thrust drop as some cavity energy is converted to kinetic.

Also attached are 2 Mars missions, calculated to midway flip & burn point, using the 326mN/kW Flight Thruster and a 5N/kW  thruster with 10kW of Rf and a 3,000kg spacecraft.

No OU in sight.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 08/17/2017 11:13 am
TT, all it takes is a video of an EMdrive moving or hovering or doing something useful, to set the world on fire. Ask Roger for something like this.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star One on 08/17/2017 12:33 pm
TT, all it takes is a video of an EMdrive moving or hovering or doing something useful, to set the world on fire. Ask Roger for something like this.

It's been asked before & it isn't going to happen. I am sure TT can explain why.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/17/2017 01:44 pm
No OU in sight.
Are you blind?
The only energy present before the journey starts is the energy in the battery/power supply. Your "total energy in"  has nothing to do with the original energy available at all. Compare the real input energy "RF Energy in" to any of the other energies you calculated.

Also, the changes you made are nonsensical. Fd clearly does not equal M*a. This stems from a string of meaningless calculations that start with the fact that your "Total energy in" equation doesn't even end up with units of Energy.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 08/17/2017 02:29 pm
Meberbs, would you agree that stimulated emissions from a laser or spaser exceed the activation energy? Would you agree that the hamiltonian for a system is unrelated to the specific charge imbalance/stress tensors or rather the magnetic dipoles which occur in a metal can cause the electrons to break the non-crossing condition if the refractive index is different (among other reasons such as the entire Octupole/Quadrupole discussion)? Do you recognize that anisotropic effects throughout a cold plasma and or resonant phonons can transmit force without equivalent input energy? Then you will see that OU is nonsense in the context of intra-cavity reactions. CoE and CoM is a dead end I have said it before and I will say it again. I will gladly take the time to collect papers proving this point if the library project (remember some of us promised to collect and share all relevant literature in some sort of public database?) others talked about does not finally happen.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/17/2017 03:20 pm
Meberbs, would you agree that stimulated emissions from a laser or spaser exceed the activation energy?
The output power of a laser is clearly no more than the input electrical power. Illusions created by ignoring that the input power is largely used to keep the gain medium excited are just that.

Would you agree that the hamiltonian for a system is unrelated to the specific charge imbalance/stress tensors or rather the magnetic dipoles which occur in a metal can cause the electrons to break the non-crossing condition if the refractive index is different (among other reasons such as the entire Octupole/Quadrupole discussion)?
Your question is about the generic "a system," but then you get very specific. Grammatically, I am not sure what you are trying to say (I get confused by the "or" and what follows). I also don't know what you mean by "non-crossing condition"

Do you recognize that anisotropic effects throughout a cold plasma and or resonant phonons can transmit force without equivalent input energy?
Where does this come from? I have not studied anisotropic effects in cold plasma, but it sounds like you are probably poorly defining the concept of input energy.

Then you will see that OU is nonsense in the context of intra-cavity reactions.
Are you denying that an emDrive that works as described generates more kinetic energy than the input power?

CoE and CoM is a dead end I have said it before and I will say it again.
They are among the most central portions of physics. See Noether's theorem to learn what it would take to violate them.

Also, look at the specific nonsense that Shawyer/TT are saying. They are proposing something that clearly violates energy conservation, while claiming that energy conservation holds. Even in the unlikely case that the emDrive works, denying its use as an energy generator is completely counterproductive.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Flyby on 08/17/2017 04:51 pm
TT, all it takes is a video of an EMdrive moving or hovering or doing something useful, to set the world on fire. Ask Roger for something like this.

It's been asked before & it isn't going to happen. I am sure TT can explain why.
If it really were about NDA restriction, I would understand that perfectly...

In the past, I had several cases where I had to sign NDA's because I was handling/visualizing prototypes.
The rules of an NDA are pretty much like the "rules of the fighters club"
(you know, first rule is not to talk about it, so is the second and 3rd.. :) )
In general you don't even talk about the fact you had to sign an NDA for this or that design or company. You just keep your mouth shut, till the product hits the streets...

What doesn't add up here with Shawyer is that he keeps "publishing" documents that clearly contain interesting information (like the new patent designs and VTOL/drone designs) while at the same time he tempts to hide behind a smokescreen of confidentiality when it comes down to actually show a working EMdrive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57q3_aRiUXs
The video , published in 2007 of a rotating rig was a good start, yet some concerns can be formulated about it, concerns that have never been addressed publicly. After that, there is nothing....

So to put it very bluntly and deprived of any tactful appreciation (my sincere apologies to mr Shawyer for that) : Either he shuts up and hides behind his NDA, or he goes public with some real, new (video)material that supports his 1540N/kW claims...

Anything in between is simply a huge PR disaster because it will not convince anybody and gives opponents of the EMdrive idea only more fuel to discredit his work.

So pretty please...stop it right there, stop the fancy words, the hockus-pockus spreadsheets and hollow powerpoint presentations and show us a working EMdrive.
TT, if you have a working result of 5N/kW as you claimed... show it... you can even put it in a hermetically sealed cardboard box, as not to reveal your "secrets"... :)

Again, it is not that the majority of forum participants don't want to believe it works, but we need proof that transcends the cheapo words and physics-formula juggling.

This is about Science, not Faith...
Science needs proof or at least a credible path that leads somewhere...
Only faith relies on unconditional believing...

The EMdrive is above all a science enigma, not a religious one. So "believing it works" is simply not an option. Period.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/17/2017 05:24 pm
After a few emails with Roger, here is my latest version of the EmDrive mission calculator.

Needed to factor in cavity Q and thrust drop as some cavity energy is converted to kinetic.

Also attached are 2 Mars missions, calculated to midway flip & burn point, using the 326mN/kW Flight Thruster and a 5N/kW  thruster with 10kW of Rf and a 3,000kg spacecraft.

No OU in sight.

The parameters for the second Mars mission of 5N/kW suggest a nice energy generation device whereby the input Rf is multiplied by 75X on average. Chain some together for big power output. :D By that definition it certainly is 'OU' but to me that doesn't mean it can't work, it just means the energy comes from somewhere else rather than the input Rf as it does with the Mach effect as I understand it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/17/2017 05:46 pm
Meberbs, would you agree that stimulated emissions from a laser or spaser exceed the activation energy?
The output power of a laser is clearly no more than the input electrical power. Illusions created by ignoring that the input power is largely used to keep the gain medium excited are just that.

Would you agree that the hamiltonian for a system is unrelated to the specific charge imbalance/stress tensors or rather the magnetic dipoles which occur in a metal can cause the electrons to break the non-crossing condition if the refractive index is different (among other reasons such as the entire Octupole/Quadrupole discussion)?
Your question is about the generic "a system," but then you get very specific. Grammatically, I am not sure what you are trying to say (I get confused by the "or" and what follows). I also don't know what you mean by "non-crossing condition"

Do you recognize that anisotropic effects throughout a cold plasma and or resonant phonons can transmit force without equivalent input energy?
Where does this come from? I have not studied anisotropic effects in cold plasma, but it sounds like you are probably poorly defining the concept of input energy.

Then you will see that OU is nonsense in the context of intra-cavity reactions.
Are you denying that an emDrive that works as described generates more kinetic energy than the input power?

CoE and CoM is a dead end I have said it before and I will say it again.
They are among the most central portions of physics. See Noether's theorem to learn what it would take to violate them.

Also, look at the specific nonsense that Shawyer/TT are saying. They are proposing something that clearly violates energy conservation, while claiming that energy conservation holds. Even in the unlikely case that the emDrive works, denying its use as an energy generator is completely counterproductive.

Although the rate kinetic energy is created wrt the instantaneous rest frame of the drive can always be less that the Rf input power even as the kinetic energy dramatically rises wrt the starting frame. In that sense, the device is seemingly conserving energy locally. I believe this was prof. Woodward's previous position.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/17/2017 06:16 pm
Roger is happy with version 8 of the calculator, so now it is fairly simple to input a few parameters and obtain expected Vt, distance and burn time from a few m/s dV for docking to full on interstellar missions that can either whiz by the target star at a significant % of c or do a mid way flip & burn to orbit planets in a near by star system.

I fully expect the Shawyer EmDrive Thruster Efficiency Equations to become as famous as the Tsiolkovsky Rocket Equation, in which there are no references to initial or final velocity but just the desired dV from the burn.

Additional information on the static force input energy can be obtained from Roger's peer reviewed paper as attached plus screenshot with equation 11.

Phil
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 08/17/2017 06:27 pm
Apologies for the confusion, I do not have time or access to my regular PC at the moment so I will have to back my points up the proper way later this month. My main point is that there are many effects which produce more mechanical force than the input energy*, but this is not over unity because part of the energy is being 'borrowed' from the molecules throughout the cavity through a variety of coinciding effects. It is not creating energy just slowly converting the existing electrical energy inside the entire apparatus (walls and particles within the cavity) into kinetic energy. It does so at less than 100% efficiency as some is lost to heat and it cannot do so indefinitely: anybody who says so is clearly an OU charlatan. To have continuous work the EM Drive needs more and more input power to have sufficiently strong waveguide containment fields. Constant acceleration under constant power is OU. I agree with you there, that's why we need to pulse it.

The gain medium can self-excite if confined! Think about time crystals or non-linear optical properties or even the compression of waves at surface boundaries discovered earlier this year! There is no need for continuous energy output for a system to retain energy for an arbitrary period of time. It helps to see it as a matter of time lag or a feedback loop**. A traffic jam of high energy builds up over time (time here is crucial! if there is a significant spacetime gradient or even something comparable to this then your input will take longer to leave the system than new input aka a runaway effect!) and it must eventually escape, but not at the same rate as more input. So to the outside observer it appears that you get more power than you input when really you get more force/outside clock time! As a wise man once said, time is relative and therefore so is power.

Regarding non-crossing I am referring to the level crossing condition, violation of which is likely in an em drive. We discussed this earlier when I made a small error in my thought regarding how quantized the wall really is and whether wavelengths can be predicted in the sidewall quasi-ions. Hyperplanck and I talked about this in May. Old but still relevant: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6928708/

This is why the EM Drive cannot operate at full power and full acceleration indefinitely. It will overheat and deform (melt and buckle) as the resistance to the current, the radiation pressure, and tension in the walls exceeds the strength of the bonds in the metallic lattice. Not to mention that Q will fall as the energy density leads to a hot particle soup forming in the atmosphere in the center (and QV depending on your preferred theory). Also the relativistic effects of frame dragging and doppler shift limits the top speed as you and others discovered. I cannot even begin to wrap my head around how gravitational waves play into this picture but I assume they will radiate away energy as well. The over unity aspect must be balanced by energy loss from edit: 'to' not 'from' the environment, it is that simple. The question is what is the environment? Do we borrow inertia from the Mach effect? Do we borrow electrons via a charge imbalance in the walls? Do we simply borrow momentum from the local gravitational fields or the gravitational/energetic fluctuations of the QV? Do we borrow energy from the wavelengths and decay/decohere the resonant microwaves/walls? I do not have a clear answer since it all depends on choice of theory, which is a subjective choice clearly. Personally, I believe that there is a reactionless transfer of energy from the areas of high energy density to the areas with low energy density via magnetic reconnection. This is just from what I can remember so I am sure I have fudged the details somewhere and will need to correct it and reference back to old discussions and well known papers to refresh all our memories - feel free to help me do so.

Hope this doesnt come across as lecturing, just trying to clarify why I believe coe is a dead end for disproving the em drive. I do not object to you correcting TT and Shawyer just that you do not offer a solid rebuttal to their claims based on a reasonable alternative. It is the job of a skeptic to not only contradict falsehoods but also inform what more likely constitutes the truth. CoE will never be a counterargument since it is a given.

*Let's define it as watt since that is what the magnetron needs to operate. We could also choose resonant microwaves*Q or more abstractly, define it as the increase in electron density in the peak field layer per unit of outside observer time. I should have said input power, you are right.

**Nod here to the many years of plasmon/evanescent wave based theories which may still prove useful in explaining energy storage at the boundary
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/17/2017 06:31 pm
Roger is happy with version 8 of the calculator, so now it is fairly simple to input a few parameters and obtain expected Vt, distance and burn time from a few m/s dV for docking to full on interstellar missions that can either whiz by the target star at a significant % of c or do a mid way flip & burn to orbit planets in a near by star system.

I fully expect the Shawyer EmDrive Thruster Efficiency Equations to become as famous as the Tsiolkovsky Rocket Equation, in which there are no references to initial or final velocity but just the desired dV from the burn.

Additional information on the static force input energy can be obtained from Roger's peer reviewed paper as attached plus screenshot with equation 11.

Phil

Instead of quibbling over definitions, let me simply ask how does Mr. Shawyer deal with the fact that the total input Rf energy is far less than the final kinetic energy by a factor of some 20 million for the interstellar flyby mission? Surely he recognizes that math. How does he rationalize it?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 08/17/2017 07:08 pm
https://youtu.be/57q3_aRiUXs

The problem with this (besides the others mentioned in previous threads) is that riding on the rig is a bunch of equipment with exhaust fans on it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/17/2017 07:09 pm
I have an idea I want to explore related to Lorentz forces on these devices. Can anyone recommend a free simulator that one can play with that allows dynamic EM simulations? Thanks.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/17/2017 10:04 pm
I've been working on blocking out a USC/ARC style thrust balance that can handle something as massive as an emdrive plus electronics and battery. This design can accommodate my current 2.4GHz TE013 frustum, which is fairly large as emdrives go. No need to worry about galistan contacts as the on-board 12V Lipo battery is good for ~40 minutes of testing.  As I have a lot of aluminum lying around already, the only custom pieces I need are the telescoping tubes for the center of the balance arms.

As for the base foundation. Jim Woodward and Heidi Fearn used thick acrylic, while others have recommended a solid aluminum optical breadboard. Acrylic is about half the cost of the optical breadboard. I expect with a prototype thrust balance, it may be a challenge to get the custom parts to align with the optical breadboard's pre-drilled holes, but it is very easy to drill holes through acrylic.  So i'm trying to decide between the two. Any thoughts?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 08/17/2017 10:53 pm
I've been working on blocking out a USC/ARC style thrust balance that can handle something as massive as an emdrive plus electronics and battery. This design can accommodate my current 2.4GHz TE013 frustum, which is fairly large as emdrives go. No need to worry about galistan contacts as the on-board 12V Lipo battery is good for ~40 minutes of testing.  As I have a lot of aluminum lying around already, the only custom pieces I need are the telescoping tubes for the center of the balance arms.

As for the base foundation. Jim Woodward and Heidi Fearn used thick acrylic, while others have recommended a solid aluminum optical breadboard. Acrylic is about half the cost of the optical breadboard. I expect with a prototype thrust balance, it may be a challenge to get the custom parts to align with the optical breadboard's pre-drilled holes, but it is very easy to drill holes through acrylic.  So i'm trying to decide between the two. Any thoughts?

Better replace the magnetic damper with something non-magnetic. DC loops in the circuit will interfere with the magnetic field.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Req on 08/18/2017 12:36 am
As for the base foundation. Jim Woodward and Heidi Fearn used thick acrylic, while others have recommended a solid aluminum optical breadboard. Acrylic is about half the cost of the optical breadboard. I expect with a prototype thrust balance, it may be a challenge to get the custom parts to align with the optical breadboard's pre-drilled holes, but it is very easy to drill holes through acrylic.  So i'm trying to decide between the two. Any thoughts?

If it's the same cell-cast acrylic used in high-end aquariums and museum displays, I would not use it even at 1" thick.  I haven't done anything like what you're planning on doing with it, but I have done a fair amount of custom work on my own rather large tanks and sumps, and while it's fine for that, I certainly wouldn't trust it to hold it's absolute shape short or long term for any task that has micron or even mm tolerances, especially when it's not well-braced almost everywhere as in a tank configuration.

Edit - And I don't know how much the alternatives cost, but high-quality cell-cast acrylic isn't cheap either.  Figure about $1500-2000 each for 1" 8'x4' sheets.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/18/2017 09:14 am
Please consider:

Why does the Rocket Equation not need an initial velocity value and functions very well using only dV? Could it be that the initial velocity and it's inferred KE is not a factor needed to make the Rocket Equation work?

As to the initial velocity, are we talking
LEO velocity or
Sun orbit velocity or
Galaxy hub orbit velocity or
Local group orbit velocity or
Great attractor orbit velocity?

So nice that we can dispense with an infinite number of initial velocities & KEs and just focus on dV.

Which suggests that as initial velocity and it's KE are not a factor in the next burn,, then at the start of each & every burn we can ignore any previous velocity change and KE change from the last burn.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RonM on 08/18/2017 10:14 am
Enough abuse of science and broken promises. Show data from recent experiments.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 08/18/2017 11:57 am
As for the base foundation. Jim Woodward and Heidi Fearn used thick acrylic, while others have recommended a solid aluminum optical breadboard. Acrylic is about half the cost of the optical breadboard. I expect with a prototype thrust balance, it may be a challenge to get the custom parts to align with the optical breadboard's pre-drilled holes, but it is very easy to drill holes through acrylic.  So i'm trying to decide between the two. Any thoughts?

If it's the same cell-cast acrylic used in high-end aquariums and museum displays, I would not use it even at 1" thick.  I haven't done anything like what you're planning on doing with it, but I have done a fair amount of custom work on my own rather large tanks and sumps, and while it's fine for that, I certainly wouldn't trust it to hold it's absolute shape short or long term for any task that has micron or even mm tolerances, especially when it's not well-braced almost everywhere as in a tank configuration.

Edit - And I don't know how much the alternatives cost, but high-quality cell-cast acrylic isn't cheap either.  Figure about $1500-2000 each for 1" 8'x4' sheets.

I'd think you'd be better off with furniture grade plywood.  Dimensionaly stable (given controlled humidity) non-conductive (wood is static dissipative) and WAY cheaper.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 08/18/2017 01:28 pm
Please consider:

Why does the Rocket Equation not need an initial velocity value and functions very well using only dV? Could it be that the initial velocity and it's inferred KE is not a factor needed to make the Rocket Equation work?

As to the initial velocity, are we talking
LEO velocity or
Sun orbit velocity or
Galaxy hub orbit velocity or
Local group orbit velocity or
Great attractor orbit velocity?

So nice that we can dispense with an infinite number of initial velocities & KEs and just focus on dV.

Which suggests that as initial velocity and it's KE are not a factor in the next burn,, then at the start of each & every burn we can ignore any previous velocity change and KE change from the last burn.

TT, this is because chemical rockets have exhausts, and momentum and energy are conserved in every inertial frame for them. EmDrive needs to conserve momentum and energy in every inertial frame in order for it to comprise to  CoE and CoM.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/18/2017 04:56 pm
Please consider:

Why does the Rocket Equation not need an initial velocity value and functions very well using only dV? Could it be that the initial velocity and it's inferred KE is not a factor needed to make the Rocket Equation work?

As to the initial velocity, are we talking
LEO velocity or
Sun orbit velocity or
Galaxy hub orbit velocity or
Local group orbit velocity or
Great attractor orbit velocity?

So nice that we can dispense with an infinite number of initial velocities & KEs and just focus on dV.

Which suggests that as initial velocity and it's KE are not a factor in the next burn,, then at the start of each & every burn we can ignore any previous velocity change and KE change from the last burn.

TT, this is because chemical rockets have exhausts, and momentum and energy are conserved in every inertial frame for them. EmDrive needs to conserve momentum and energy in every inertial frame in order for it to comprise to  CoE and CoM.

The initial velocity and KE are not a factor in the next burn. But that's not because it's a chemical rocket. Note that the chemical energy released for each burn can be the same and give the same thrust regardless of the initial velocity. That would work the same for any propulsive means including an EM drive or MEGA drive if either works in space but figuring COM and COE would be less obvious.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/18/2017 04:57 pm
Pluto orbit mission profile, with mid way flip and burn at 2,300mkm & Pluto orbit.
Using non cryo 2009 SPR Flight Thruster, 20kW Rf and 3,000kg spacecraft.
Other configurationscare doable.

Max KE J < Rf input J, so no OU.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 08/18/2017 05:02 pm
Pluto orbit mission with mid way flip and burn at 2,300mkm.
Using non cryo 2009 SPR Flight Thruster, 20kW Rf and 3,000kg spacecraft.
Other configurationscare doable.

Max KE J < Rf input J, so no OU.

These charts aren't doing any favors to anyone without proof of the cited thrust figures. As of this posting, there's still no proof of a device that produces an anomalous force in the double digit millinewtons per kilowatt. Why shouldn't we dismiss the enormous figures as rambling claptrap?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/18/2017 05:06 pm
Pluto orbit mission profile, with mid way flip and burn at 2,300mkm & Pluto orbit.
Using non cryo 2009 SPR Flight Thruster, 20kW Rf and 3,000kg spacecraft.
Other configurationscare doable.

Max KE J < Rf input J, so no OU.

Fine, but I'm sure you're not now saying the Mars Missions you posted yesterday are not possible. If it works for this one it works for the others. But the other have higher KE in the starting frame than total input Rf. That's OU according to the simple, straightforward definition discussed here. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible but I just want to know how you rationalize that? And what does Mr. Shawyer say? Please don't just ignore this question. Thanks.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/18/2017 05:11 pm
Pluto orbit mission with mid way flip and burn at 2,300mkm.
Using non cryo 2009 SPR Flight Thruster, 20kW Rf and 3,000kg spacecraft.
Other configurationscare doable.

Max KE J < Rf input J, so no OU.

These charts aren't doing any favors to anyone without proof of the cited thrust figures. As of this posting, there's still no proof of a device that produces an anomalous force in the double digit millinewtons per kilowatt. Why shouldn't we dismiss the enormous figures as rambling claptrap?

While you are free to dismiss such numbers or that they've been adequately proven, it's not that such numbers haven't been amply reported as they have been. So, we should be able to discuss them here.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 08/18/2017 05:14 pm
While you are free to dismiss such numbers or that they've been adequately proven, it's not that such numbers haven't been amply reported as they have been. So, we should be able to discuss them here.

Of these figures, the Dresden and Eagleworks figures are the only ones that leave very little window for dispute, but they're unfortunately also the lowest thrust demonstrations of all.  :-\
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/18/2017 05:18 pm
While you are free to dismiss such numbers or that they've been adequately proven, it's not that such numbers haven't been amply reported as they have been. So, we should be able to discuss them here.

Of these figures, the Dresden and Eagleworks figures are the only ones that leave very little window for dispute, but they're unfortunately also the lowest thrust demonstrations of all.  :-\

That's a matter if judgement so we should be able to discuss the implications of this phenomenon at these levels. Besides, all these issues remain at the lowest thrust levels if you just run it longer.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/18/2017 05:23 pm
Pluto orbit mission profile, with mid way flip and burn at 2,300mkm & Pluto orbit.
Using non cryo 2009 SPR Flight Thruster, 20kW Rf and 3,000kg spacecraft.
Other configurationscare doable.

Max KE J < Rf input J, so no OU.

Fine, but I'm sure you're not now saying the Mars Missions you posted yesterday are not possible. If it works for this one it works for the others. But the other have higher KE in the starting frame than total input Rf. That's OU according to the simple, straightforward definition discussed here. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible but I just want to know how you rationalize that? And what does Mr. Shawyer say? Please don't just ignore this question. Thanks.

Bob,

Build a model with 0.99 sec of acceleration and 0.01 sec of no acceleration,  with no carry forward of the last 0.99 sec burn's V and KE gain.

Ie accelerate for 1,000 x 0.99 sec burns, isolated by 0.01 sec of no acceleration. KE Joule gain at the end of each 0.99 sec burn is less than the Rf input Joules during the burn.

BTW both Roger and myself use pulsed Rf input.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/18/2017 05:36 pm
Pluto orbit mission profile, with mid way flip and burn at 2,300mkm & Pluto orbit.
Using non cryo 2009 SPR Flight Thruster, 20kW Rf and 3,000kg spacecraft.
Other configurationscare doable.

Max KE J < Rf input J, so no OU.

Fine, but I'm sure you're not now saying the Mars Missions you posted yesterday are not possible. If it works for this one it works for the others. But the other have higher KE in the starting frame than total input Rf. That's OU according to the simple, straightforward definition discussed here. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible but I just want to know how you rationalize that? And what does Mr. Shawyer say? Please don't just ignore this question. Thanks.

Bob,

Build a model with 0.99 sec of acceleration and 0.01 sec of no acceleration,  with no carry forward of the last 0.99 sec burn's V and KE gain.

Ie accelerate for 1,000 x 0.99 sec burns, isolated by 0.01 sec of no acceleration. KE Joule gain at the end of each 0.99 sec burn is less than the Rf input Joules during the burn.

BTW both Roger and myself use pulsed Rf input.

I understand that and I agree you conserve energy wrt to the instantaneous rest frame during each cycle. As I said yesterday, that was prof. Woodward's previous position and it makes sense but you are still not addressing the question at hand which remains, you put in far less total Rf, no matter how you do it, than you get KE out wrt the starting frame, which is what I call the naive view of energy conservation. How do you answer that? It's ok to say its a red herring or that it doesn't matter but please, say something about it. Thanks.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 08/18/2017 06:00 pm
While you are free to dismiss such numbers or that they've been adequately proven, it's not that such numbers haven't been amply reported as they have been. So, we should be able to discuss them here.

Of these figures, the Dresden and Eagleworks figures are the only ones that leave very little window for dispute, but they're unfortunately also the lowest thrust demonstrations of all.  :-\

Eagleworks 2014 has exactly the problem shown in the picture of this post:, http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1713766#msg1713766
which is the interaction of magnetic field (look a the magnetic damp)  and DC current in the circuits.

Dresden had a similar problem. Read their report and you will find that theydid not know that there was DC in the magnetron circuit, let alone its interaction with the Earth magnetic field.


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/18/2017 06:02 pm
Pluto orbit mission profile, with mid way flip and burn at 2,300mkm & Pluto orbit.
Using non cryo 2009 SPR Flight Thruster, 20kW Rf and 3,000kg spacecraft.
Other configurationscare doable.

Max KE J < Rf input J, so no OU.

Fine, but I'm sure you're not now saying the Mars Missions you posted yesterday are not possible. If it works for this one it works for the others. But the other have higher KE in the starting frame than total input Rf. That's OU according to the simple, straightforward definition discussed here. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible but I just want to know how you rationalize that? And what does Mr. Shawyer say? Please don't just ignore this question. Thanks.

Bob,

Build a model with 0.99 sec of acceleration and 0.01 sec of no acceleration,  with no carry forward of the last 0.99 sec burn's V and KE gain.

Ie accelerate for 1,000 x 0.99 sec burns, isolated by 0.01 sec of no acceleration. KE Joule gain at the end of each 0.99 sec burn is less than the Rf input Joules during the burn.

BTW both Roger and myself use pulsed Rf input.

I understand that and I agree you conserve energy wrt to the instantaneous rest frame during each cycle. As I said yesterday, that was prof. Woodward's previous position and it makes sense but you are still not addressing the question at hand which remains, you put in far less total Rf, no matter how you do it, than you get KE out wrt the starting frame, which is what I call the naive view of energy conservation. How do you answer that? It's ok to say its a red herring or that it doesn't matter but please, say something about it. Thanks.

Hi Bob,

The EmDrive obeys a = f / m.

Constant acceleration causes a constant V increase and constant internal Doppler shift, which drives force generation. Until EmDrive V gets to be a significant fraction of c, the force generated is constant. Once EmDrive V becomes a significant % of c, internal Doppler shift reduces and thrust reduces. All covered in Roger's 2014 peer reviewed paper.

So yes EmDrive V increase can cause a reduction in thrust, but not because of assumed KE gain.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/18/2017 06:17 pm
Pluto orbit mission profile, with mid way flip and burn at 2,300mkm & Pluto orbit.
Using non cryo 2009 SPR Flight Thruster, 20kW Rf and 3,000kg spacecraft.
Other configurationscare doable.

Max KE J < Rf input J, so no OU.

Fine, but I'm sure you're not now saying the Mars Missions you posted yesterday are not possible. If it works for this one it works for the others. But the other have higher KE in the starting frame than total input Rf. That's OU according to the simple, straightforward definition discussed here. Again, I'm not saying it's impossible but I just want to know how you rationalize that? And what does Mr. Shawyer say? Please don't just ignore this question. Thanks.

Bob,

Build a model with 0.99 sec of acceleration and 0.01 sec of no acceleration,  with no carry forward of the last 0.99 sec burn's V and KE gain.

Ie accelerate for 1,000 x 0.99 sec burns, isolated by 0.01 sec of no acceleration. KE Joule gain at the end of each 0.99 sec burn is less than the Rf input Joules during the burn.

BTW both Roger and myself use pulsed Rf input.

I understand that and I agree you conserve energy wrt to the instantaneous rest frame during each cycle. As I said yesterday, that was prof. Woodward's previous position and it makes sense but you are still not addressing the question at hand which remains, you put in far less total Rf, no matter how you do it, than you get KE out wrt the starting frame, which is what I call the naive view of energy conservation. How do you answer that? It's ok to say its a red herring or that it doesn't matter but please, say something about it. Thanks.

Hi Bob,

The EmDrive obeys a = f / m.

Constant acceleration causes a constant V increase and constant internal Doppler shift, which drives force generation. Until EmDrive V gets to be a significant fraction of c, the force generated is constant. Once EmDrive V becomes a significant % of c, internal Doppler shift reduces and thrust reduces. All covered in Roger's 2014 peer reviewed paper.

So yes EmDrive V increase can cause a reduction in thrust, but not because of assumed KE gain.

My question was not covered in the 2014 paper. I really don't mean to be rude but it's so simple yet you either fail to grasp it (which I doubt) or just don't want to address it.  :-[

Also, I'm not convinced by the Doppler arguments. It doesn't mater how fast the drive is going in reference to some other frame. In its own frame there wouldn't be any significant shift of light going from one end to the other or you would have an absolute reference frame. Relativistically, a constant acceleration in the ships instantaneous rest frame is reduced by gamma cubed in the starting frame at relative velocity v.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/18/2017 06:51 pm
My question was not covered in the 2014 paper. It's so simple yet you either fail to grasp it or just don't want to address it.  :-[

Hi Bob,

The EmDrive's starting frame relative V and KE has no effect on thrust in the frame of the EmDrive.
Any V and KE calc is just that a calc based on the V reference frame at acceleration start.

The attachment, from Roger's peer reviewed paoer, should make it clear that V & KE increase have no effect on constant acceleration, constant velocity increase relative to starting velocity frame and related increasing KE, also in reference to the starting velocity frame.

This will upset a few folks, so I created a Pluto orbit mission profile that shows starting velocity reference frame to max mission velocity can be done without the need to apparently go OU and ignore KE gain relative to the starting V frame.

So roll it either way.
Do mission profiles that show KE < Rf energy input or
Do more aggressive mission profiles that don't care about KE gain relative to the starting V frame.

Either way no one can ever again claim the EmDrive breaks CofE as mission profiles can be constructed where it does not break CofE.

In regard to the acceleration,  constant velocity change, internal to the cavity Doppler shifts, Roger explained this in his 2013 IAC paper as attached.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/18/2017 06:58 pm
My question was not covered in the 2014 paper. It's so simple yet you either fail to grasp it or just don't want to address it.  :-[

Hi Bob,

The EmDrive's starting frame relative V and KE has no effect on thrust in the frame of the EmDrive.
Any V and KE calc is just that a calc based on the V reference frame at acceleration start.

The attachment, from Roger's peer reviewed paoer, should make it clear that V & KE increase have no effect on constant acceleration, constant velocity increase relative to starting velocity frame and related increasing KE, also in reference to the starting velocity frame.

This will upset a few folks, so I created a Pluto orbit mission profile that shows starting velocity reference frame to max mission velocity can be done without the need to apparently go OU and ignore KE gain relative to the starting V frame.

So roll it either way.
Do mission profiles that show KE < Rf energy input or
Do more aggressive mission profiles that don't care about KE gain relative to the starting V frame.

Either way no one can ever again claim the EmDrive breaks CofE as mission profiles can be constructed where it does not break CofE.

Ok, I'm going to assume your position is that it's a red herring and that the apparent OU doesn't really need a explanation as long as input Rf is greater than the rate of kinetic energy gain in the immediate, local instantaneous rest frame of the device. I can accept that position well enough but I just wish it would be clearly acknowledged by those that hold it. Thanks.

p.s. The peer reviewers should have made Mr. Shawyer address that point in the paper in my opinion.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/18/2017 07:09 pm
p.s. The peer reviewers should have made Mr. Shawyer address that point in the paper in my opinion.

Hi Bob,

From memory, the peer review process took around 18 months. I would assume Roger did address the KE issue with the reviewers.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/18/2017 07:29 pm
Ok, I'm going to assume your position is that it's a red herring and that the apparent OU doesn't really need a explanation as long as input Rf is greater than the rate of kinetic energy gain in the immediate, local instantaneous rest frame of the device. I can accept that position well enough but I just wish it would be clearly acknowledged by those that hold it. Thanks.
That position doesn't really make sense, because it is a known fact that accelerating reference frames can't have conservation of energy directly applied to them. (There are way to do it, but aren't worth the effort.)

It does not matter anyway, because no matter what happens in the device frame, it does not change the fact that it is trivial to turn such a device into a power generator by having it accelerate and then extracting the kinetic energy.

There are ways to explain this from the device taking energy from somewhere or something else, or even that energy conservation simply does not hold.  Before considering the implications of any of these, the fact of using the device to generated energy must be accepted. Talking about energy conservation in the instantaneous rest frame is simply a way to ignore the issue.

I will not bother responding to TT directly, since TT has not addressed the simple fact that his last spreadsheet he shared did not even have the proper units in the energy calculation. The Pluto spreadsheet he has since shared a screenshoot of seems to have been further changed presumably to remove any remaining resemblance to the laws of physics.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/18/2017 08:14 pm
Ok, I'm going to assume your position is that it's a red herring and that the apparent OU doesn't really need a explanation as long as input Rf is greater than the rate of kinetic energy gain in the immediate, local instantaneous rest frame of the device. I can accept that position well enough but I just wish it would be clearly acknowledged by those that hold it. Thanks.
That position doesn't really make sense, because it is a known fact that accelerating reference frames can't have conservation of energy directly applied to them. (There are way to do it, but aren't worth the effort.)

It does not matter anyway, because no matter what happens in the device frame, it does not change the fact that it is trivial to turn such a device into a power generator by having it accelerate and then extracting the kinetic energy.

There are ways to explain this from the device taking energy from somewhere or something else, or even that energy conservation simply does not hold.  Before considering the implications of any of these, the fact of using the device to generated energy must be accepted. Talking about energy conservation in the instantaneous rest frame is simply a way to ignore the issue.

I will not bother responding to TT directly, since TT has not addressed the simple fact that his last spreadsheet he shared did not even have the proper units in the energy calculation. The Pluto spreadsheet he has since shared a screenshoot of seems to have been further changed presumably to remove any remaining resemblance to the laws of physics.

Hi Meberbs,

Pluto mission graphic and spreadsheet ver 9 attached.

From what I see the max V midway flip point KE Js are less than the total Rf input Js, based on the starting point zero velocity reference frame. So no OU here.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/18/2017 08:48 pm
Hi Meberbs,

Pluto mission graphic and spreadsheet ver 9 attached.
The issue is that you have misrepresented the data. There is only one force applied to the cavity. All of your calculations are based on the Fd value and the Fs is not used for anything. The real Ts value is therefore 0.92/20 = 0.046 N/kW. This specific thrust value reaches over unity at slightly more than 40000 m/s, just beyond what you have in your spreadsheet.

You may be tricking yourself by the way your spreadsheet is setup so that this real Ts value decreases as you pick larger final velocities. This is clearly nonsensical, because the emDrive would have to know in advance how long it will run for before determining the force that will be output.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/18/2017 09:22 pm
Hi Meberbs,

Pluto mission graphic and spreadsheet ver 9 attached.
The issue is that you have misrepresented the data. There is only one force applied to the cavity. All of your calculations are based on the Fd value and the Fs is not used for anything. The real Ts value is therefore 0.92/20 = 0.046 N/kW. This specific thrust value reaches over unity at slightly more than 40000 m/s, just beyond what you have in your spreadsheet.

You may be tricking yourself by the way your spreadsheet is setup so that this real Ts value decreases as you pick larger final velocities. This is clearly nonsensical, because the emDrive would have to know in advance how long it will run for before determining the force that will be output.

Hi Meberbs,

Modified the work equation to use the derated Fd. Now work = KE as it should.

If you modify Green dV to 40,000 m/s, you must use goal seek on Green seconds to get calculated Yellow dV to match Green dV. Doing that increases seconds and increases Rf input energy.

Just did it that and the results are 2.724x10^12 Rf J in and 2.4x10^12 KE J out. However mid point is then 2.724x10^9km and we want it to be 2.317x10^9km. So a dV of 40,000 m/s is too large but still not OU.

The Fs value is the Static Thrust, ie doing no work thrust, or 0.326N/kW * 20 kW = 6.52N which implies no cavity energy is lost being converted into work and KE.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/18/2017 09:32 pm
I'm pretty happy with how the small end-plate turned out after applying the EMI shielding copper adhesive foil. This piece has more curvature per unit of distance compared to the big end-plate.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/18/2017 09:34 pm
Hi Meberbs,

Pluto mission graphic and spreadsheet ver 9 attached.
The issue is that you have misrepresented the data. There is only one force applied to the cavity. All of your calculations are based on the Fd value and the Fs is not used for anything. The real Ts value is therefore 0.92/20 = 0.046 N/kW. This specific thrust value reaches over unity at slightly more than 40000 m/s, just beyond what you have in your spreadsheet.

You may be tricking yourself by the way your spreadsheet is setup so that this real Ts value decreases as you pick larger final velocities. This is clearly nonsensical, because the emDrive would have to know in advance how long it will run for before determining the force that will be output.

Hi Meberbs,

Modified the work equation to use the derated Fd. Now work = KE as it should.

If you modify Green dV to 40,000 m/s, you must use goal seek on Green seconds to get calculated Yellow dV to match Green dV. Doing that increases seconds and increases Rf input energy.

Just did it that and the results are 2.724x10^12 Rf J in and 2.4x10^12 KE J out. However mid point is then 2.724x10^9km and we want it to be 2.317x10^9km. So a dV of 40,000 m/s is too large but still not OU.
My response is unchanged. You did not address a single thing I said.

the closest you came to addressing a point is where you said you used the "derated Fd," but you didn't change Ts to match. 40000 m/s, I said that it is slightly more than that. If you go back to my other posts, you would find the relevant formula for the actual answer, but remember you have to use the actual physical force, not the meaningless "Fs" for calculating Ts.

Edit: got the meaningless subscripts backwards.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/18/2017 09:44 pm
Hi Meberbs,

Pluto mission graphic and spreadsheet ver 9 attached.
The issue is that you have misrepresented the data. There is only one force applied to the cavity. All of your calculations are based on the Fd value and the Fs is not used for anything. The real Ts value is therefore 0.92/20 = 0.046 N/kW. This specific thrust value reaches over unity at slightly more than 40000 m/s, just beyond what you have in your spreadsheet.

You may be tricking yourself by the way your spreadsheet is setup so that this real Ts value decreases as you pick larger final velocities. This is clearly nonsensical, because the emDrive would have to know in advance how long it will run for before determining the force that will be output.

Hi Meberbs,

Modified the work equation to use the derated Fd. Now work = KE as it should.

If you modify Green dV to 40,000 m/s, you must use goal seek on Green seconds to get calculated Yellow dV to match Green dV. Doing that increases seconds and increases Rf input energy.

Just did it that and the results are 2.724x10^12 Rf J in and 2.4x10^12 KE J out. However mid point is then 2.724x10^9km and we want it to be 2.317x10^9km. So a dV of 40,000 m/s is too large but still not OU.
My response is unchanged. You did not address a single thing I said.

the closest you came to addressing a point is where you said you used the "derated Fd," but you didn't change Ts to match. 40000 m/s, I said that it is slightly more than that. If you go back to my other posts, you would find the relevant formula for the actual answer, but remember you have to use the actual physical force, not the meaningless "Fs" for calculating Ts.

Edit: got the meaningless subscripts backwards.

Fs is not used.
The derated and smaller Fd is what does the work, accelerates the mass and increases KE.

Acceleration is Fd (c13) / m (c6).
Please check the equation in c16 to confirm.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/18/2017 10:05 pm
Fs is not used.
Of course it is not used, that was my point. Fs has no meaning. You need to adjust your Ts to reflect the actual force, which is what you call Fd.

Then you can go back and check what velocity overunity will be reached in the initial rest frame.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/18/2017 10:23 pm
Fs is not used.
Of course it is not used, that was my point. Fs has no meaning. You need to adjust your Ts to reflect the actual force, which is what you call Fd.

Then you can go back and check what velocity overunity will be reached in the initial rest frame.

Fs has a meaning. It is the no load or no work being done thrust value and Fd is the loaded or work being done thrust value. As cavity energy is drawn off and used to do work, increase V and  KE, the cavity Q drops and thus force drops.

Just like a battery that drops voltage as current is drawn. No one would calc watts as no load voltage * loaded current. Instead watts is loaded voltage * loaded current.

So acceleration is Fd / m and not Fs / m as Fs / m would generate a higher than reality acceleration.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Flyby on 08/18/2017 10:41 pm
These charts aren't doing any favors to anyone without proof of the cited thrust figures. As of this posting, there's still no proof of a device that produces an anomalous force in the double digit millinewtons per kilowatt. Why shouldn't we dismiss the enormous figures as rambling claptrap?

While you are free to dismiss such numbers or that they've been adequately proven, it's not that such numbers haven't been amply reported as they have been. So, we should be able to discuss them here.

In all honesty Bob, even I as layman can tell that graph is worthless :
1/ Not enough sampling
2/comparing different configurations and setups really is "comparing apples and oranges"

What has been done there in that graph , is basically comparing diesel engines, with petrol engines, jet engines and rocket boosters while researching the best fuel..
The first rule to make a comparative listing is that only vary 1 parameter in design:

fe if you want to compare different fuels, you try the same rocket engine setup up with ethanol+O2, methanol+O2, kerosene+O2, etc and then see what produces the most thrust...

So, if any meaningful graph needs to be produced for the EMdrive, you have to use the SAME design and gradually ramp up the power and measure the reaction forces (if any).

The listing Shawyer has provided us is purely for marketing purposes in an attempt to get an opinion or believe across to the audience but can not be considered "proof".
It is in a way, dishonest to pretend it is a factual data sheet, where in fact it is nothing more pile of random info...
Hardly anything can be learned from that, because it is obscured by a zillion changing parameters...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/18/2017 10:50 pm
These charts aren't doing any favors to anyone without proof of the cited thrust figures. As of this posting, there's still no proof of a device that produces an anomalous force in the double digit millinewtons per kilowatt. Why shouldn't we dismiss the enormous figures as rambling claptrap?

While you are free to dismiss such numbers or that they've been adequately proven, it's not that such numbers haven't been amply reported as they have been. So, we should be able to discuss them here.

In all honesty Bob, even I as layman can tell that graph is worthless :
1/ Not enough sampling
2/comparing different configurations and setups really is "comparing apples and oranges"

What has been done there in that graph , is basically comparing diesel engines, with petrol engines, jet engines and rocket boosters while researching the best fuel..
The first rule to make a comparative listing is that only vary 1 parameter in design:

fe if you want to compere different fuels, you try the same engine setup up with ethanol+O2, methanol+O2, kerosene+O2, etc and then see what produces the most thrust...

So, if any meaningful graph needs to be produced for the EMdrive, you have to use the SAME design and gradually ramp up the power and measure the reaction forces (if any).

The listing Shawyer has provided us is purely for marketing purposes in an attempt to get an opinion or believe across to the audience but can not be considered "proof".
It is in a way, dishonest to pretend it is a factual data sheet, where in fact it is nothing more pile of random info...
Hardly anything can be learned from that, because it is obscured by a zillion changing parameters...

Hi Flyby,

Maybe review the Flight Thruster test data?
http://www.emdrive.com/flightprogramme.html
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/18/2017 11:16 pm
Fs has a meaning. It is the no load or no work being done thrust value and Fd is the loaded or work being done thrust value.
It is entirely possible for a device to produce different forces in different situations, however, the only force that matters is the force it is actually producing in the situation it is in. The only reasonable definition of Ts uses the actual force Fd.

Now, go back and do the calculations again using a velocity based on the last formula in this post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1712765#msg1712765) such that the last expression is greater than 1. Don't forget to make sure the actual Ts value of Fd/P is fixed. It doesn't make sense for this value to depend on at what point in the future the drive is turned off.

Edit, typo'd the subscript again.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 08/18/2017 11:22 pm
... It doesn't make sense for this value to depend on at what point in the future the drive is turned off.
and if somebody assumes for the present value to depend on future (yet unknown) states, it is essentially assuming knowledge of the future state: requiring superluminal communication, as with tachyons conveying future information and breaking causality...

(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-P_4sHPtonsA/WGGDIVsBQWI/AAAAAAAAIvo/PSWqYEwMEEsH4L1XW8JvAAz9jDvMTdb-QCLcB/s400/Watchmen_Dr%2BManhattan1.jpg)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Flyby on 08/18/2017 11:30 pm
TT,
that is indeed more as it should be presented as, at least in this case, I do not get the feeling I'm being fooled or toyed with.

But do you really think that 10 up/ 9 down samples is enough to extrapolate data to 6 magnitudes bigger (we're now at 1540N/kW, right ?)
It is like using a 1m ruler to aim at a target 1000km further away...

Considering the small sampling range, I still find such an huge and far extrapolation rather unbelievable...

As it is, the data gives us an indication of what is happening between 150W and 450W.
It basically show the relation between power and resulting forces. There are a lot of other possibilities that can produce such relation power/force.

In all honesty, it would be way more convincing if the relation between forces and Q could be demonstrated, as that would most likely eliminate any thermal effect (that would remain constant, for a given fixed power input)
If only the relation between Q and resulting forces could be demonstrated with an almost identical system...that would go a good way to remove some of the doubts...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: otlski on 08/19/2017 01:04 am
I've been working on blocking out a USC/ARC style thrust balance that can handle something as massive as an emdrive plus electronics and battery. This design can accommodate my current 2.4GHz TE013 frustum, which is fairly large as emdrives go. No need to worry about galistan contacts as the on-board 12V Lipo battery is good for ~40 minutes of testing.  As I have a lot of aluminum lying around already, the only custom pieces I need are the telescoping tubes for the center of the balance arms.

As for the base foundation. Jim Woodward and Heidi Fearn used thick acrylic, while others have recommended a solid aluminum optical breadboard. Acrylic is about half the cost of the optical breadboard. I expect with a prototype thrust balance, it may be a challenge to get the custom parts to align with the optical breadboard's pre-drilled holes, but it is very easy to drill holes through acrylic.  So i'm trying to decide between the two. Any thoughts?

I would use aluminum for the entire mechanism sans the draft shield.  The flexures you would like to use really want to be coaxial to 0.005" in tilt and translation.  We typically try for half that using precision ground Thompson rod to achieve alignment.  What this means is that you really want to bore the flexure mounts to exact size and perpendicularity so aluminum and steel are your best bets.  Given that aluminum is easier to machine (also less parasitic mass) it would be my choice.  After that, I would want to CTE match as much of the remaining mechanism as possible; meaning all aluminium for the rest too. 

Once again, the levels of force, whether EM or artifacts, demand that nothing be taken for granted in the instrument, and that CTE matching gives you one less thing to concern yourself with.  Obviously CTE matching only helps with differential expansion due to material types.  It does not help with differential expansion due to thermal-mass vs. time, or with the fact that the components will still grow/shrink overall.

Attached is a Sartorius monoblock mechanism machined from one piece of aluminum.  These force restoration transducers have over 1,000,000:1 dynamic range for a COTS electro-mechanical device.  This is a twenty fold improvement over say circa 1985 Sartorius devices which had a mix of steel, aluminium, brass, and other metals pieced together to provide the same function the monoblock does.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 08/19/2017 07:37 am
But if one accepts that a fixed electrical input power can actually create a fixed static thrust at all,
The only valid conclusion after this point is an over unity device (as long as Force/power is grater than 1/c).

It makes no sense to call the final kinetic energy the "input" because where did this energy come from?

For a simple analogy of the energy balance, you start with 2 buckets, one has 1 liter of water in it, and the other is empty. The one that starts with water in it represent electric potential energy and the other represents kinetic energy. Now pour the one water from the first bucket to the second. If the second bucket now has 2 liters of water in it you broke conservation, because an extra liter of water appeared out of nowhere.

Some theories like the Mach effect are supposed to resolve this by saying that the energy somehow gets pulled in from the rest of the universe, meaning that there is a third bucket that the extra liter of water comes from. I think this brings up other problems, but those aren't important right now. At least they don't ignore the issue, and therefore accept the quite useful application of there device (if it works as advertised) as an energy generator.

I am probably a bit too tired to go into this but I wanted to note something of interest.  the force/power>=1/c.  This happens when c is reduced.  If we consider momentum conservation, then if light has an effective mass and that effective mass is increased the velocity should decrease increasing the specific impulse per photon.  Slowing light does seem to increase its impulse as some experiments have suggested. 

The mentions of this in connection with the Mach effect made me think.  Also non-locally light can appear to slow down in more dense space in a gravitational well where the plank length is reduced while locally no change in the velocity is apparent. 

Light is inherently connected with the electric fields of charges but it has also been shown the polarized vacuum appears to mask the true charge (as a dielectric) which suggests both an electric field and a polarized vacuum that can appear to change in mass depending on its polarization.  I get the impression the density of this dielectric polarized vacuum is more dense in more gravitational effected areas or fast moving objects.  I think they call them virtual particles or electron-positron pairs that can not exist but for a short time. 

Also the
"ELECTRON ROTATING WAVE THEORY AND THE EM PROPELLER
William H. F. Christie
AIBC
Port Coquitlam, British Columbia"
caught my attention on the link: http://ssi.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ssi_estes_park_proceedings_201609.pdf
Quote
Specifically, a Rotating Wave (RW) is formed by a photon brought into rotation by some
kind of binding energy, creating an electron and positron.
There is probably some kind of connection.  I would really like to know how in the paper: "“Applications of High-Frequency Gravitational Waves to the Global War on Terror by Robert M L Baker, Jr. (2010), http://www.drrobertbaker.com/docs/War%20on%20Terror%20Applications.pdf that they actually create gravitational waves and detect them across the globe.  One illustration I saw of such quadruple radiation reminded me of possible modulations of e-p pairs or virtual particles in the vacuum.   

Anyways my sense tingles that the increase in mass would again be related to some increased coupling to virtual particles in the vacuum.  I also ponder how they must be repulsed by mutual excitation due to changing magnetic fields (-dB/dt repulsion) while at the same time attracted by their charge distribution.  I wonder if their charge density could determine if they are repulsed or attracted depending on local virtual particle density.  Close to a planet vs deep deep space. 

Perhaps a forced gradient in the virtual particle density by -dB/dt where there is mutual repulsion between particles.  A larger change in the magnetic field (energy density) may exist in the narrow part of the cone pushing pairs more into the larger end.  This would give a lower pair density at the narrow end and larger density at the large end (possibly similar to squeezed light or vacuum).  Maybe this change in density forces energy to be distributed to the available pairs.  More energy per pair may increase the effective mass and decrease the number of available photons.  Photon quanta being the interaction of vacuum pairs with an electron in material with possible backwards time traveling waves that cancel out a quanta of energy going else where when absorbed.   
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/19/2017 05:19 pm
These charts aren't doing any favors to anyone without proof of the cited thrust figures. As of this posting, there's still no proof of a device that produces an anomalous force in the double digit millinewtons per kilowatt. Why shouldn't we dismiss the enormous figures as rambling claptrap?

While you are free to dismiss such numbers or that they've been adequately proven, it's not that such numbers haven't been amply reported as they have been. So, we should be able to discuss them here.

In all honesty Bob, even I as layman can tell that graph is worthless :
1/ Not enough sampling
2/comparing different configurations and setups really is "comparing apples and oranges"

What has been done there in that graph , is basically comparing diesel engines, with petrol engines, jet engines and rocket boosters while researching the best fuel..
The first rule to make a comparative listing is that only vary 1 parameter in design:

fe if you want to compare different fuels, you try the same rocket engine setup up with ethanol+O2, methanol+O2, kerosene+O2, etc and then see what produces the most thrust...

So, if any meaningful graph needs to be produced for the EMdrive, you have to use the SAME design and gradually ramp up the power and measure the reaction forces (if any).

The listing Shawyer has provided us is purely for marketing purposes in an attempt to get an opinion or believe across to the audience but can not be considered "proof".
It is in a way, dishonest to pretend it is a factual data sheet, where in fact it is nothing more pile of random info...
Hardly anything can be learned from that, because it is obscured by a zillion changing parameters...


Shawyer is not using that graph as formal peer reviewed 'proof' anyway so you are tearing down your own invented straw-man argument. It's part of a presentation, not a scientific paper. It is perfectly legitimate to compare N/KW levels from different devices because the graph is not intending to compare each method, just what has been achieved in total by anybody to make the point that that type of phenomenon is possible. Your critique reads way too much into the meaning. I even said it wasn't proof to begin with. My point was those numbers were reported which is Shawyer's point. And since that's a fact, that they are in the literature, we can discuss them.

Think of N/KW as a number, a metric like corporate profits. Would you demand each corporation make money in the exact same way before you compared the profits. I very much doubt that.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/19/2017 05:36 pm
Ok, I'm going to assume your position is that it's a red herring and that the apparent OU doesn't really need a explanation as long as input Rf is greater than the rate of kinetic energy gain in the immediate, local instantaneous rest frame of the device. I can accept that position well enough but I just wish it would be clearly acknowledged by those that hold it. Thanks.
That position doesn't really make sense, because it is a known fact that accelerating reference frames can't have conservation of energy directly applied to them. (There are way to do it, but aren't worth the effort.)

It does not matter anyway, because no matter what happens in the device frame, it does not change the fact that it is trivial to turn such a device into a power generator by having it accelerate and then extracting the kinetic energy.

There are ways to explain this from the device taking energy from somewhere or something else, or even that energy conservation simply does not hold.  Before considering the implications of any of these, the fact of using the device to generated energy must be accepted. Talking about energy conservation in the instantaneous rest frame is simply a way to ignore the issue.

I will not bother responding to TT directly, since TT has not addressed the simple fact that his last spreadsheet he shared did not even have the proper units in the energy calculation. The Pluto spreadsheet he has since shared a screenshoot of seems to have been further changed presumably to remove any remaining resemblance to the laws of physics.

That was Woodward's previous position which has since evolved but it made sense to me if constant acceleration is made from an average of pulses. You compare what happens during each pulse from the inertial frame between them. But if such a force can be created, you really don't need to worry about conserving anything because you can consider the force as an external force to your device. External forces generate momentum and energy. Like a charged particle feels when it encounters EM fields in space. Woodward and team now say, as I understand them, all the energy of motion of the device comes from Mach effects while the energy put into the device just creates the conditions for the Mach effect to work. Effectively like creating a gravity field and then falling through it. You just worry about what it takes to create the force you want and let nature do the rest. I do like that position better. It's much neater.

But would the concept of getting energy out of the Mach effect for example be really that shocking? Pretty much all the energy we use now ultimately comes from something just laying around or falling down or blowing by. We invest energy and money to extract and use it. That wouldn't change.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 08/19/2017 05:39 pm

snip..

Perhaps a forced gradient in the virtual particle density by -dB/dt where there is mutual repulsion between particles.  A larger change in the magnetic field (energy density) may exist in the narrow part of the cone pushing pairs more into the larger end.  This would give a lower pair density at the narrow end and larger density at the large end (possibly similar to squeezed light or vacuum).  Maybe this change in density forces energy to be distributed to the available pairs.  More energy per pair may increase the effective mass and decrease the number of available photons.  Photon quanta being the interaction of vacuum pairs with an electron in material with possible backwards time traveling waves that cancel out a quanta of energy going else where when absorbed.   

Sounds similar to the ideas of Dr. White et al.

(https://resonance.is/wp-content/uploads/Figure-7.jpg)
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-35ceHG6bN14/VNaGHv3nfnI/AAAAAAAA6vM/as39zPUG1aA/s1600/Copper%2BKettle%2B2PE%2BDiscs%2B50W_Plasma%2BCode%2BSim-2.jpg)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 08/19/2017 09:25 pm

snip..

Perhaps a forced gradient in the virtual particle density by -dB/dt where there is mutual repulsion between particles.  A larger change in the magnetic field (energy density) may exist in the narrow part of the cone pushing pairs more into the larger end.  This would give a lower pair density at the narrow end and larger density at the large end (possibly similar to squeezed light or vacuum).  Maybe this change in density forces energy to be distributed to the available pairs.  More energy per pair may increase the effective mass and decrease the number of available photons.  Photon quanta being the interaction of vacuum pairs with an electron in material with possible backwards time traveling waves that cancel out a quanta of energy going else where when absorbed.   

Sounds similar to the ideas of Dr. White et al.

(https://resonance.is/wp-content/uploads/Figure-7.jpg)
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-35ceHG6bN14/VNaGHv3nfnI/AAAAAAAA6vM/as39zPUG1aA/s1600/Copper%2BKettle%2B2PE%2BDiscs%2B50W_Plasma%2BCode%2BSim-2.jpg)

yes it mixes the vacuum plasma with vacuum pairs, virtual particles known to surround charges, electrons in the skin of the cavity, the woodward effect (changing in mass) force/power>=1/c [slowing light] - increasing impulse, the Polarizable vacuum, General relativity, with standard electrodynamics, with squeezed light/vacuum which creates alternating regions of positive and negative energy.  Possibly sensing and generating gravity waves.

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squeezed_coherent_state
Based on the presence of a mean field[edit]
Squeezed states of light can be divided into squeezed vacuum and bright squeezed light, depending on the absence or presence of a non-zero mean field (also called a carrier), respectively. Interestingly, an Optical Parametric Oscillator operated below threshold produces squeezed vacuum, whereas the same OPO operated above threshold produces bright squeezed light. Bright squeezed light can be advantageous for certain quantum information processing applications as it obviates the need of sending local oscillator to provide a phase reference, whereas squeezed vacuum is considered more suitable for quantum enhanced sensing applications. The AdLIGO and GEO600 gravitational wave detectors use squeezed vacuum to achieve enhanced sensitivity beyond the standard quantum limit



Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_energy
Casimir effect[edit]
Main article: Casimir effect
In the Casimir effect, two flat plates placed very close together restrict the wavelengths of quanta which can exist between them. This in turn restricts the types and hence number and density of virtual particle pairs which can form in the intervening vacuum and can result in a negative energy density.

If there is any truth to it many things may tie in. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Jim Davis on 08/19/2017 09:29 pm
But would the concept of getting energy out of the Mach effect for example be really that shocking? Pretty much all the energy we use now ultimately comes from something just laying around or falling down or blowing by. We invest energy and money to extract and use it. That wouldn't change.

But if, as Woodward claims, energy and momentum can be extracted from the rest of the universe via the Mach effect, why isn't Woodward pitching his device to power utilities instead of space agencies?

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/19/2017 11:04 pm
First S11 VNA scan with the new 3D printed frustum with spherical end-plates.  TE013 was located at 2.402738GHz vs 2.404GHz predicted by simulations. This difference could be because the end-plates are not yet bolted down and so are a little further apart. Still this is very close agreement with simulation.   ;D  With the linear actuator, I can easily tune the cavity to -45dB return loss or better. I need to purchase a male SMA shorting cap as I had to rig a SMA short during calibration.

Very interesting Smith chart results. Unlike anything I've seen with the flat end frustums.  :o
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 08/19/2017 11:08 pm
But would the concept of getting energy out of the Mach effect for example be really that shocking? Pretty much all the energy we use now ultimately comes from something just laying around or falling down or blowing by. We invest energy and money to extract and use it. That wouldn't change.

But if, as Woodward claims, energy and momentum can be extracted from the rest of the universe via the Mach effect, why isn't Woodward pitching his device to power utilities instead of space agencies?

I assume this is the case because it is too early. The phenomenon has yet to be clearly and incontrovertibly taken out of the noise level, validated and become accepted as such. Same as the Emdrive, but with some more firm experimental and theoretical data behind it.

Let's not forget MEGA thrusters come from a theoretical intuition and work first, while the Emdrive may be a serendipitous discovery looking for a theory to explain it.

And even if Prof. Woodward believes it could be taken to greater levels of thrust (e.g. 1g ships), nobody claims to have such hyper-strong MEGA thrusters as of yet.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: demofsky on 08/19/2017 11:15 pm
First S11 VNA scan with the new 3D printed frustum with spherical end-plates.  TE013 was located at 2.402738GHz vs 2.404GHz predicted by simulations. This difference could be because the end-plates are not yet bolted down and so are a little further apart. Still this is very close agreement with simulation.   ;D  With the linear actuator, I can easily tune the cavity to -45dB return loss or better.
Excellent results!!  Congratulations!  Have you tried TM011 yet?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 08/20/2017 01:33 am
Monomorphic -45db loss is unbelievable for DIY!! Wow!

Dustinthewind, your theory implies every charge imbalance within a resonant medium should self-accelerate due to limited pair numbers to communicate with for the wavelets which propagate within it. What makes the EM drive special? It cannot just be the microwaves themselves which cause this. It is the QV determined ratio of excitons/wavelet energy densities within the walls which accelerate the cavity by modifying the alignment of existing permanent dipole moments. Polarizing the QV forces the medium into a set number of alignments rather than chaotic alignment which does not repel linearly. In other words we charge the cavity sections by decreasing entropy in the surrounding QV and increasing the state mixing of the surface waves in the wall or phonons in the cavity. QV works then as an electric gain increasing the E field and providing an increase in magnitude of the state correlation. Only reason this does not become a postive feedback loop is that the electron emission spectra increases accordingly.

Unclear how this would produce any thrust though... perhaps repulsion between sections or the degree of decoherency/existing misalignment which the QV related gain cannot help 'correct'?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 08/20/2017 02:09 am
(...) I will gladly take the time to collect papers proving this point if the library project (remember some of us promised to collect and share all relevant literature in some sort of public database?) others talked about does not finally happen.

LowerAtmosphere,
if such a collection of relevant literature were put together and made accessible to all, I'm sure it would help students and newcomers to form their own independent conclusions. That will be valuable if the emdrive does prove to be a new transport technology.

Readers here enjoy the controversy regarding conservation of energy issues so I am sure they will be most entertained by the typhoon of rage that will inevitably follow that proof.  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star-Drive on 08/20/2017 04:40 am
First S11 VNA scan with the new 3D printed frustum with spherical end-plates.  TE013 was located at 2.402738GHz vs 2.404GHz predicted by simulations. This difference could be because the end-plates are not yet bolted down and so are a little further apart. Still this is very close agreement with simulation.   ;D  With the linear actuator, I can easily tune the cavity to -45dB return loss or better. I need to purchase a male SMA shorting cap as I had to rig a SMA short during calibration.

Very interesting Smith chart results. Unlike anything I've seen with the flat end frustums.  :o

Jamie:

It looks like you are over-coupled into the frustum.  The Smith chart circle OD should be no larger than from the 50 ohm center point to the perimeter of the chart.  A couple of examples of what I was seeing with the Agilent Field fox VNA at the Eagleworks Lab are attached.

Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 08/20/2017 04:59 am
Monomorphic -45db loss is unbelievable for DIY!! Wow!

Dustinthewind, your theory implies every charge imbalance within a resonant medium should self-accelerate due to limited pair numbers to communicate with for the wavelets which propagate within it. What makes the EM drive special? It cannot just be the microwaves themselves which cause this. It is the QV determined ratio of excitons/wavelet energy densities within the walls which accelerate the cavity by modifying the alignment of existing permanent dipole moments. Polarizing the QV forces the medium into a set number of alignments rather than chaotic alignment which does not repel linearly. In other words we charge the cavity sections by decreasing entropy in the surrounding QV and increasing the state mixing of the surface waves in the wall or phonons in the cavity. QV works then as an electric gain increasing the E field and providing an increase in magnitude of the state correlation. Only reason this does not become a postive feedback loop is that the electron emission spectra increases accordingly.

Unclear how this would produce any thrust though... perhaps repulsion between sections or the degree of decoherency/existing misalignment which the QV related gain cannot help 'correct'?

Charge imbalance?  Charge should be conserved.  I am suggesting it's the non-symetric structure and the gradient in the energy density of radiation in the cavity.  If you gather enough light to a single point you can create an electron-positron pair so obviously the vacuum must be able to be polarized by light.  These virtual pairs seem to even surround charges reducing their electric field as would a dielectric.  If they can osculate in the vacuum then like other charges they may be mutually repulsed via rapid osculation or -dB/dt. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ssi2TzUMNJY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXOa66-k9MA

We know the entropy of the universe in increasing.  Could the increase in radiation via entropy be causing the increased expansion of the universe?  The more energetic the changing magnetic field the more mutual repulsion from both the walls and each other.  Near the apex is the most energetic but this also depends on the particular mode. 

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star-Drive on 08/20/2017 05:00 am

snip..

Perhaps a forced gradient in the virtual particle density by -dB/dt where there is mutual repulsion between particles.  A larger change in the magnetic field (energy density) may exist in the narrow part of the cone pushing pairs more into the larger end.  This would give a lower pair density at the narrow end and larger density at the large end (possibly similar to squeezed light or vacuum).  Maybe this change in density forces energy to be distributed to the available pairs.  More energy per pair may increase the effective mass and decrease the number of available photons.  Photon quanta being the interaction of vacuum pairs with an electron in material with possible backwards time traveling waves that cancel out a quanta of energy going else where when absorbed.   

Sounds similar to the ideas of Dr. White et al.

(https://resonance.is/wp-content/uploads/Figure-7.jpg)
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-35ceHG6bN14/VNaGHv3nfnI/AAAAAAAA6vM/as39zPUG1aA/s1600/Copper%2BKettle%2B2PE%2BDiscs%2B50W_Plasma%2BCode%2BSim-2.jpg)

yes it mixes the vacuum plasma with vacuum pairs, virtual particles known to surround charges, electrons in the skin of the cavity, the woodward effect (changing in mass) force/power>=1/c [slowing light] - increasing impulse, the Polarizable vacuum, General relativity, with standard electrodynamics, with squeezed light/vacuum which creates alternating regions of positive and negative energy.  Possibly sensing and generating gravity waves.

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squeezed_coherent_state
Based on the presence of a mean field[edit]
Squeezed states of light can be divided into squeezed vacuum and bright squeezed light, depending on the absence or presence of a non-zero mean field (also called a carrier), respectively. Interestingly, an Optical Parametric Oscillator operated below threshold produces squeezed vacuum, whereas the same OPO operated above threshold produces bright squeezed light. Bright squeezed light can be advantageous for certain quantum information processing applications as it obviates the need of sending local oscillator to provide a phase reference, whereas squeezed vacuum is considered more suitable for quantum enhanced sensing applications. The AdLIGO and GEO600 gravitational wave detectors use squeezed vacuum to achieve enhanced sensitivity beyond the standard quantum limit



Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_energy
Casimir effect[edit]
Main article: Casimir effect
In the Casimir effect, two flat plates placed very close together restrict the wavelengths of quanta which can exist between them. This in turn restricts the types and hence number and density of virtual particle pairs which can form in the intervening vacuum and can result in a negative energy density.

If there is any truth to it many things may tie in. 

Dustinthewind:

If you liked those Quantum Vacuum plasma runs try out this mp4 movie of same.  I've also attached a related Eagleworks (EW) Lab paper with the start of our idea on this QV topic if you've not read it already.

Best,  Paul M.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 08/20/2017 06:46 am

snip..

Perhaps a forced gradient in the virtual particle density by -dB/dt where there is mutual repulsion between particles.  A larger change in the magnetic field (energy density) may exist in the narrow part of the cone pushing pairs more into the larger end.  This would give a lower pair density at the narrow end and larger density at the large end (possibly similar to squeezed light or vacuum).  Maybe this change in density forces energy to be distributed to the available pairs.  More energy per pair may increase the effective mass and decrease the number of available photons.  Photon quanta being the interaction of vacuum pairs with an electron in material with possible backwards time traveling waves that cancel out a quanta of energy going else where when absorbed.   

Sounds similar to the ideas of Dr. White et al.

(https://resonance.is/wp-content/uploads/Figure-7.jpg)
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-35ceHG6bN14/VNaGHv3nfnI/AAAAAAAA6vM/as39zPUG1aA/s1600/Copper%2BKettle%2B2PE%2BDiscs%2B50W_Plasma%2BCode%2BSim-2.jpg)

yes it mixes the vacuum plasma with vacuum pairs, virtual particles known to surround charges, electrons in the skin of the cavity, the woodward effect (changing in mass) force/power>=1/c [slowing light] - increasing impulse, the Polarizable vacuum, General relativity, with standard electrodynamics, with squeezed light/vacuum which creates alternating regions of positive and negative energy.  Possibly sensing and generating gravity waves.

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squeezed_coherent_state
Based on the presence of a mean field[edit]
Squeezed states of light can be divided into squeezed vacuum and bright squeezed light, depending on the absence or presence of a non-zero mean field (also called a carrier), respectively. Interestingly, an Optical Parametric Oscillator operated below threshold produces squeezed vacuum, whereas the same OPO operated above threshold produces bright squeezed light. Bright squeezed light can be advantageous for certain quantum information processing applications as it obviates the need of sending local oscillator to provide a phase reference, whereas squeezed vacuum is considered more suitable for quantum enhanced sensing applications. The AdLIGO and GEO600 gravitational wave detectors use squeezed vacuum to achieve enhanced sensitivity beyond the standard quantum limit



Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_energy
Casimir effect[edit]
Main article: Casimir effect
In the Casimir effect, two flat plates placed very close together restrict the wavelengths of quanta which can exist between them. This in turn restricts the types and hence number and density of virtual particle pairs which can form in the intervening vacuum and can result in a negative energy density.

If there is any truth to it many things may tie in. 

Dustinthewind:

If you liked those Quantum Vacuum plasma runs try out this mp4 movie of same.  I've also attached a related Eagleworks (EW) Lab paper with the start of our idea on this QV topic if you've not read it already.

Best,  Paul M.

Thanks for mentioning this paper as its fascinating.  I have been thinking for a while now about the electron cloud around an atom so it really hit home.  The way the electron can jump energy states or form a cloud seemed like a positron hole. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_hole

Possibly giving a reason why an electron cloud orbit doesn't lose energy via acceleration to radiation falling into the nucleus. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: giulioprisco on 08/20/2017 07:31 am
I am back here after a few months to check the status of EmDrive and related research. Good to see that the proceedings and videos of the Estes Park workshop have been published. I am too lazy to go through all the recent pages of this thread ;-) Is there any new development really WOW that I should check?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/20/2017 08:43 am
Attached is ver 13 of the EmDrive mission calculator.

Several lines are moved, added and removed to try to make it clearer how a fixed amount of input Rf energy is divided between working thrust (Fd) generation and the energy used to do work, via Fd, on mass, accelerating it and creating / increasing KE.

This is not new as Roger has always said that as some of the cavity energy is converted into KE, the working Q and thrust drops. Now that relationship is shown in the equations used in the calculator.

Also shown in the screenshot is how to use Goal Seek to vary Time to ensure a correct calculation. Plus estimated cavity Q changes are shown, with both static and working Q calculations.

Bottom line is, by doing the appropriate calculations,  the EmDrive accelerating mass is not OU. So sorry guys but you can't use an EmDrive to create OU energy. It is just a machine that obeys CofE and CofM.

BTW, assuming Mass (C6) and Specific Force (C5) are fixed, there are only 2 control inputs. Rf power (C4) and Acceleration Time (C9). By varing those inputs, desired dV and/or distance are controlled.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/20/2017 01:41 pm
It looks like you are over-coupled into the frustum.  The Smith chart circle OD should be no larger than from the 50 ohm center point to the perimeter of the chart.  A couple of examples of what I was seeing with the Agilent Field fox VNA at the Eagleworks Lab are attached.

It was a bad calibration. After a new calibration, i'm now getting good results. -52dB return loss! QL of ~7,200 (-3dB method ~3,600 x 2 as RL is better than -40dB). Next step is to rotate the end-plates to see if that can be improved - then bolting the plates in place. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/20/2017 02:19 pm
It was a bad calibration. After a new calibration, i'm now getting good results. -52dB return loss! QL of ~7,200 (-3dB method ~3,600 x 2 as RL is better than -40dB). Next step is to rotate the end-plates to see if that can be improved - then bolting the plates in place.

Jamie,

Please refer to the section "Measurement of cavity properties from S11" pages 7 & 8 of the attached paper for techniques to measure Qu and Ql using S11 and Smith Chart data.

A Ql of 7,200 with a rtn loss of -52dB seems low.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star-Drive on 08/20/2017 04:28 pm

snip..

Perhaps a forced gradient in the virtual particle density by -dB/dt where there is mutual repulsion between particles.  A larger change in the magnetic field (energy density) may exist in the narrow part of the cone pushing pairs more into the larger end.  This would give a lower pair density at the narrow end and larger density at the large end (possibly similar to squeezed light or vacuum).  Maybe this change in density forces energy to be distributed to the available pairs.  More energy per pair may increase the effective mass and decrease the number of available photons.  Photon quanta being the interaction of vacuum pairs with an electron in material with possible backwards time traveling waves that cancel out a quanta of energy going else where when absorbed.   

Sounds similar to the ideas of Dr. White et al.

(https://resonance.is/wp-content/uploads/Figure-7.jpg)
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-35ceHG6bN14/VNaGHv3nfnI/AAAAAAAA6vM/as39zPUG1aA/s1600/Copper%2BKettle%2B2PE%2BDiscs%2B50W_Plasma%2BCode%2BSim-2.jpg)

yes it mixes the vacuum plasma with vacuum pairs, virtual particles known to surround charges, electrons in the skin of the cavity, the woodward effect (changing in mass) force/power>=1/c [slowing light] - increasing impulse, the Polarizable vacuum, General relativity, with standard electrodynamics, with squeezed light/vacuum which creates alternating regions of positive and negative energy.  Possibly sensing and generating gravity waves.

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squeezed_coherent_state
Based on the presence of a mean field[edit]
Squeezed states of light can be divided into squeezed vacuum and bright squeezed light, depending on the absence or presence of a non-zero mean field (also called a carrier), respectively. Interestingly, an Optical Parametric Oscillator operated below threshold produces squeezed vacuum, whereas the same OPO operated above threshold produces bright squeezed light. Bright squeezed light can be advantageous for certain quantum information processing applications as it obviates the need of sending local oscillator to provide a phase reference, whereas squeezed vacuum is considered more suitable for quantum enhanced sensing applications. The AdLIGO and GEO600 gravitational wave detectors use squeezed vacuum to achieve enhanced sensitivity beyond the standard quantum limit



Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_energy
Casimir effect[edit]
Main article: Casimir effect
In the Casimir effect, two flat plates placed very close together restrict the wavelengths of quanta which can exist between them. This in turn restricts the types and hence number and density of virtual particle pairs which can form in the intervening vacuum and can result in a negative energy density.

If there is any truth to it many things may tie in. 

Dustinthewind:

If you liked those Quantum Vacuum plasma runs try out this mp4 movie of same.  I've also attached a related Eagleworks (EW) Lab paper with the start of our idea on this QV topic if you've not read it already.

Best,  Paul M.

Thanks for mentioning this paper as its fascinating.  I have been thinking for a while now about the electron cloud around an atom so it really hit home.  The way the electron can jump energy states or form a cloud seemed like a positron hole. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_hole

Possibly giving a reason why an electron cloud orbit doesn't lose energy via acceleration to radiation falling into the nucleus. 

Dustinthewind:

Find attached the next EW paper in that series by Dr. White.  I think the key takeaway from Dr. White's work to date is that both the electrons and positrons are NOT unique in time or space, but are just transient holes in the quantum vacuum (QV) that are controlled by 5th dimension based de Broglie guide waves.  I believe that logic can also be applied to ALL subatomic particles, so in the end analysis, all of creation is just QV oscillations and their electric, magnetic and gravitational field interactions.

BTW, find attached two overlaid QV plasma code thrust prediction runs for the EW Copper Frustum being run at 50W with a TM212 resonant mode at 1937 MHz.  As you can see this is a statistical process with lots of noise in it, but it appears to come close to predicting the actual thrust produced by these copper frustums.

Best,, Paul M.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/20/2017 07:52 pm
This attachment should clearly show how EmDrive dynamic thrust Fd drops as KE increases and draws off more and more cavity energy to support the increasing KE.

Also shows that using short pulsed Rf will reduce KE energy draw down and maintain high Fd.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/20/2017 08:26 pm
This attachment should clearly show how EmDrive dynamic thrust Fd drops as KE increases and draws off more and more cavity energy to support the increasing KE.

Also shows that using short pulsed Rf will reduce KE energy draw down and maintain high Fd.
What you are saying here is that the force when you turn it on is dependent on how long you plan to keep it on (all previous analysis was for constant acceleration)

In case you missed the implication here:
... It doesn't make sense for this value to depend on at what point in the future the drive is turned off.
and if somebody assumes for the present value to depend on future (yet unknown) states, it is essentially assuming knowledge of the future state: requiring superluminal communication, as with tachyons conveying future information and breaking causality...

If what you meant to say is that the force decreases with time then you have to note:
1. Still doesn't make sense because the RF source is moving with the cavity.
2. You have to redo the previous calculations accounting for variable thrust.
3. Since it magically resets if you pulse the RF, doing so clearly results in the same energy conservation problems. Energy flow from the battery and kinetic energy gain both only happen with RF on, so while you will travel farther, and it will take twice as long (assuming 50% duty cycle) to reach the same velocity, the same battery power will be spent and same kinetic energy gained, so still an energy generator.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 08/20/2017 08:59 pm

snip..

Perhaps a forced gradient in the virtual particle density by -dB/dt where there is mutual repulsion between particles.  A larger change in the magnetic field (energy density) may exist in the narrow part of the cone pushing pairs more into the larger end.  This would give a lower pair density at the narrow end and larger density at the large end (possibly similar to squeezed light or vacuum).  Maybe this change in density forces energy to be distributed to the available pairs.  More energy per pair may increase the effective mass and decrease the number of available photons.  Photon quanta being the interaction of vacuum pairs with an electron in material with possible backwards time traveling waves that cancel out a quanta of energy going else where when absorbed.   

Sounds similar to the ideas of Dr. White et al.

(https://resonance.is/wp-content/uploads/Figure-7.jpg)
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-35ceHG6bN14/VNaGHv3nfnI/AAAAAAAA6vM/as39zPUG1aA/s1600/Copper%2BKettle%2B2PE%2BDiscs%2B50W_Plasma%2BCode%2BSim-2.jpg)

yes it mixes the vacuum plasma with vacuum pairs, virtual particles known to surround charges, electrons in the skin of the cavity, the woodward effect (changing in mass) force/power>=1/c [slowing light] - increasing impulse, the Polarizable vacuum, General relativity, with standard electrodynamics, with squeezed light/vacuum which creates alternating regions of positive and negative energy.  Possibly sensing and generating gravity waves.

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squeezed_coherent_state
Based on the presence of a mean field[edit]
Squeezed states of light can be divided into squeezed vacuum and bright squeezed light, depending on the absence or presence of a non-zero mean field (also called a carrier), respectively. Interestingly, an Optical Parametric Oscillator operated below threshold produces squeezed vacuum, whereas the same OPO operated above threshold produces bright squeezed light. Bright squeezed light can be advantageous for certain quantum information processing applications as it obviates the need of sending local oscillator to provide a phase reference, whereas squeezed vacuum is considered more suitable for quantum enhanced sensing applications. The AdLIGO and GEO600 gravitational wave detectors use squeezed vacuum to achieve enhanced sensitivity beyond the standard quantum limit



Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_energy
Casimir effect[edit]
Main article: Casimir effect
In the Casimir effect, two flat plates placed very close together restrict the wavelengths of quanta which can exist between them. This in turn restricts the types and hence number and density of virtual particle pairs which can form in the intervening vacuum and can result in a negative energy density.

If there is any truth to it many things may tie in. 

Dustinthewind:

If you liked those Quantum Vacuum plasma runs try out this mp4 movie of same.  I've also attached a related Eagleworks (EW) Lab paper with the start of our idea on this QV topic if you've not read it already.

Best,  Paul M.

Thanks for mentioning this paper as its fascinating.  I have been thinking for a while now about the electron cloud around an atom so it really hit home.  The way the electron can jump energy states or form a cloud seemed like a positron hole. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_hole

Possibly giving a reason why an electron cloud orbit doesn't lose energy via acceleration to radiation falling into the nucleus. 

Dustinthewind:

Find attached the next EW paper in that series by Dr. White.  I think the key takeaway from Dr. White's work to date is that both the electrons and positrons are NOT unique in time or space, but are just transient holes in the quantum vacuum (QV) that are controlled by 5th dimension based de Broglie guide waves.  I believe that logic can also be applied to ALL subatomic particles, so in the end analysis, all of creation is just QV oscillations and their electric, magnetic and gravitational field interactions.

BTW, find attached two overlaid QV plasma code thrust prediction runs for the EW Copper Frustum being run at 50W with a TM212 resonant mode at 1937 MHz.  As you can see this is a statistical process with lots of noise in it, but it appears to come close to predicting the actual thrust produced by these copper frustums.

Best,, Paul M.

Thanks again.  I was reading this quote here:

Quote from: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=1662495948920176458&hl=en&as_sdt=0,26
The exact causative agent or physical rationale for the delineation of 2/3 and 1/3 factors, if one exists, is a matter for future consideration.


My thoughts immediately went to the ratio of dark energy to dark matter.  https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy

I'm not sure yet they wold be connected but thought I would just note the similarity.  Omega_A comes very close to the 69% dark energy ratio which I assume was intentional. 

I think it would be interesting if we could ever induce a flow in this vacuum to make the flow in a transverse toroidal direction.  https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39464.msg1484673#msg1484673 particularly this image "Light and Space-time toroid.png " but not necessarily using light.  I suspect the toroid would experience no net drag from the flow but an object in the center may.  Locking the 2 together would induce a stress in their connection.  Maybe if the flow were large enough something similar to super cavitation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercavitation could be induced shunting the surrounding vacuum around the toroid.  I am probably thinking too far ahead. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star-Drive on 08/20/2017 09:41 pm
Thanks again.  I was reading this quote here:

Quote from: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=1662495948920176458&hl=en&as_sdt=0,26

    The exact causative agent or physical rationale for the delineation of 2/3 and 1/3 factors, if one exists, is a matter for future consideration.

My thoughts immediately went to the ratio of dark energy to dark matter.  https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy

I'm not sure yet they wold be connected but thought I would just note the similarity.  Omega_A comes very close to the 69% dark energy ratio which I assume was intentional.

I think it would be interesting if we could ever induce a flow in this vacuum to make the flow in a transverse toroidal direction.  https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39464.msg1484673#msg1484673 particularly this image "Light and Space-time toroid.png " but not necessarily using light.  I suspect the toroid would experience no net drag from the flow but an object in the center may.  Locking the 2 together would induce a stress in their connection.  Maybe if the flow were large enough something similar to super cavitation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercavitation could be induced shunting the surrounding vacuum around the toroid.  I am probably thinking too far ahead. 



Dustinthewind:

Dr. White's earliest version of his QV conjecture leads directly to a predictions that the dark energy portion of the universe has to be exactly 2/3, which is what it is still tending down to using the latest WMAP and later cosmological constant thermal radiation data.  https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/20/2017 10:21 pm
Image showing how the antenna is positioned on the small curved end-plate. I've also printed a linear actuator for the flat end frustum. That way I have two frustums based on the same dimensions, only difference is flat vs curved end-plates. These actuators are a godsend, saving me enormous amounts of time impedance matching!  :D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 08/20/2017 11:18 pm
Absolutely great work you're doing Jamie, but hurry. I'm smack in the middle of the path of totality tomorrow morning. Beside looking at the corona, it would be a great time to see the heat signature of a frustum passing overhead.  ;D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 08/21/2017 05:43 am
Image showing how the antenna is positioned on the small curved end-plate. I've also printed a linear actuator for the flat end frustum. That way I have two frustums based on the same dimensions, only difference is flat vs curved end-plates. These actuators are a godsend, saving me enormous amounts of time impedance matching!  :D

Monomorph,
is there a reason for extending the conductive surface so far from the inside of the frustum? Could this contribute to I2R losses?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/21/2017 09:49 am
This attachment should clearly show how EmDrive dynamic thrust Fd drops as KE increases and draws off more and more cavity energy to support the increasing KE.

Also shows that using short pulsed Rf will reduce KE energy draw down and maintain high Fd.
What you are saying here is that the force when you turn it on is dependent on how long you plan to keep it on (all previous analysis was for constant acceleration)

In case you missed the implication here:
... It doesn't make sense for this value to depend on at what point in the future the drive is turned off.
and if somebody assumes for the present value to depend on future (yet unknown) states, it is essentially assuming knowledge of the future state: requiring superluminal communication, as with tachyons conveying future information and breaking causality...

If what you meant to say is that the force decreases with time then you have to note:
1. Still doesn't make sense because the RF source is moving with the cavity.
2. You have to redo the previous calculations accounting for variable thrust.
3. Since it magically resets if you pulse the RF, doing so clearly results in the same energy conservation problems. Energy flow from the battery and kinetic energy gain both only happen with RF on, so while you will travel farther, and it will take twice as long (assuming 50% duty cycle) to reach the same velocity, the same battery power will be spent and same kinetic energy gained, so still an energy generator.

Hi Meberbs,

Some of the cavity energy is used to do work on mass, accelerating it and creating KE. As there is a constant supply of cavity energy, what is left after subtracting the KE draw down results in force generation.

So yes as acceleration time increases, increasing the KE draw down, the force reduces.

No OU during acceleration.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/21/2017 12:35 pm
is there a reason for extending the conductive surface so far from the inside of the frustum? Could this contribute to I2R losses?

The flange is 3.5cm wide, which is a little more than 1/4 wavelength. Advice I received was the flange should be at least 2.5cm to accommodate bolts and nuts. I decided on 3.5 because at the time, I was using a material that wasn't as strong. I stuck with the 3.5cm as I wanted to be able to interchange the end-plates. Since the flange is  tight fitting, I do not expect it to contribute much, if anything to the copper loss - especially since with mode TE013, there are very little e-fields along the flange seam.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/21/2017 01:05 pm
As KE builds up, as velocity increases, thrust is not constant.

For the Pluto mission with a flip and decelerate point at ~2.3bkm, attached is the velocity vs time plot which clearly shows early mission thrust and velocity gain is greater than later in the mission. Plot is based on over 0.5m points.

By factoring in the earlier higher acceleration rate vs the simple calculator value time to flip droos from 3.9 years to 3.1 years.

Again no OU, just Rf energy input producing thrust and KE gain.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/21/2017 02:04 pm
Photons can be harvested for more momentum than obtained in a photon rocket.

The belief that the most momentum that can be harvested from a photon is that harvested by a single photon emit event by a photon rocket is clearly incorrect.

Solar sails harvest 2 momentum events. 1 on photon absorb and another on photon emit, with the emitted photon being a slightly lower energy and momentum with a longer wavelength.  Thus the momentum and KE gained by the solar sail is balanced by the momentum and energy lost by the emitted photon.

So both CofM and CofE are conserved by the dual absorb and emit event.

Photons can also be bounched between reflectors and the total radiation pressure on the reflectors increases by the number of reflections.

Clearly shown in this video:
https://youtu.be/QICCrlmBjvY

This example helps to explain how higher cavity Q increases force generation as the higher the Q, the more reflections and momentum transfer that occurs.

Of course there is a limit to how much momentum that can be harvested from a photon.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 08/21/2017 02:21 pm
Photons can be harvested for more momentum than obtained in a photon rocket.

The belief that the most momentum that can be harvested from a photon is that harvested by a single photon emit event by a photon rocket is clearly incorrect.

Solar sails harvest 2 momentum events. 1 on photon absorb and another on photon emit, with the emitted photon being a slightly lower energy and momentum with a longer wavelength.  Thus the momentum and KE gained by the solar sail is balanced by the momentum and energy lost by the emitted photon.

So both CofM and CofE are conserved by the dual absorb and emit event.

Photons can also be bounched between reflectors and the total radiation pressure on the reflectors increases by the number of reflections.

Clearly shown in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QICCrlmBjvY

This example helps to explain how higher cavity Q increases force generation as the higher the Q, the more reflections and momentum transfer that occurs.

Of course there is a limit to how much momentum that can be harvested from a photon.

What you are talking about is a photonic laser thruster initially developed by Young Bae,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photonic_laser_thruster

CoE is kept because a mother platform is involved which gains momentum in the opposite direction as that of the mission platform. This is different from EmDrive.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/PLT-Concept-Illustration.jpg/492px-PLT-Concept-Illustration.jpg)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/21/2017 03:00 pm
Photons can be harvested for more momentum than obtained in a photon rocket.

The belief that the most momentum that can be harvested from a photon is that harvested by a single photon emit event by a photon rocket is clearly incorrect.

Solar sails harvest 2 momentum events. 1 on photon absorb and another on photon emit, with the emitted photon being a slightly lower energy and momentum with a longer wavelength.  Thus the momentum and KE gained by the solar sail is balanced by the momentum and energy lost by the emitted photon.

So both CofM and CofE are conserved by the dual absorb and emit event.

Photons can also be bounched between reflectors and the total radiation pressure on the reflectors increases by the number of reflections.

Clearly shown in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QICCrlmBjvY

This example helps to explain how higher cavity Q increases force generation as the higher the Q, the more reflections and momentum transfer that occurs.

Of course there is a limit to how much momentum that can be harvested from a photon.

What you are talking about is a photonic laser thruster initially developed by Young Bae,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photonic_laser_thruster

CoE is kept because a mother platform is involved which gains momentum in the opposite direction as that of the mission platform. This is different from EmDrive.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/PLT-Concept-Illustration.jpg/492px-PLT-Concept-Illustration.jpg)

Example is to show how it is possible to harvest more photon momentum than can be harvested by a photon rocket. Also helps to explain why higher Q and hense more reflections,  increases EmDrive force generation.

Thrre are several steps to understanding how and why an EmDrive works.

1) EmDrive is not OU.

2) More photon momentum, than obtained in a photon rocket, is available to be harvest from photons.

3) Bounching photons between reflecting end plates increases the radiation pressure on the end plates.

4) Radiation pressure is the result of the Compton Effect, between photons and bound electrons of the lattice metallic atoms in the end plates.

5) Monentum & energy gain of the metallic atom lattice is balanced by the momentum & energy lost to the photons, resulting in them having lower monentum,  lower energy and longer wavelength.

6) In the demo, the moving reflector photon impacts are an inelastic event, ie momentum is lost to the impacting photons and for the other mirror it is an elastic event as there is no monentum transfer and thus no photon momentum loss.

Examples of all the above have been provided.

You follow so far?

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/21/2017 05:37 pm
Interesting Rocket In Space equations that show initial velocity has no effect on the dV obtained from the burn.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/rocket2.html

So why be concerned if the EmDrive equations ignore initial velocity?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/21/2017 06:36 pm
Photons can be harvested for more momentum than obtained in a photon rocket.

The belief that the most momentum that can be harvested from a photon is that harvested by a single photon emit event by a photon rocket is clearly incorrect.

Solar sails harvest 2 momentum events. 1 on photon absorb and another on photon emit, with the emitted photon being a slightly lower energy and momentum with a longer wavelength.  Thus the momentum and KE gained by the solar sail is balanced by the momentum and energy lost by the emitted photon.

So both CofM and CofE are conserved by the dual absorb and emit event.

Photons can also be bounched between reflectors and the total radiation pressure on the reflectors increases by the number of reflections.

Clearly shown in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QICCrlmBjvY

This example helps to explain how higher cavity Q increases force generation as the higher the Q, the more reflections and momentum transfer that occurs.

Of course there is a limit to how much momentum that can be harvested from a photon.

What you are talking about is a photonic laser thruster initially developed by Young Bae,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photonic_laser_thruster

CoE is kept because a mother platform is involved which gains momentum in the opposite direction as that of the mission platform. This is different from EmDrive.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/PLT-Concept-Illustration.jpg/492px-PLT-Concept-Illustration.jpg)

Example is to show how it is possible to harvest more photon momentum than can be harvested by a photon rocket. Also helps to explain why higher Q and hense more reflections,  increases EmDrive force generation.

Thrre are several steps to understanding how and why an EmDrive works.

1) EmDrive is not OU.

2) More photon momentum, than obtained in a photon rocket, is available to be harvest from photons.

3) Bounching photons between reflecting end plates increases the radiation pressure on the end plates.

4) Radiation pressure is the result of the Compton Effect, between photons and bound electrons of the lattice metallic atoms in the end plates.

5) Monentum & energy gain of the metallic atom lattice is balanced by the momentum & energy lost to the photons, resulting in them having lower monentum,  lower energy and longer wavelength.

6) In the demo, the moving reflector photon impacts are an inelastic event, ie momentum is lost to the impacting photons and for the other mirror it is an elastic event as there is no monentum transfer and thus no photon momentum loss.

Examples of all the above have been provided.

You follow so far?

It's a great concept for local travel where you have a mirror to reflect between and to show even photons can beat the photon rocket paradigm. Are you suggesting the EMDrive creates a virtual mirror?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/21/2017 06:48 pm
It's a great concept for local travel where you have a mirror to reflect between and to show even photons can beat the photon rocket paradigm. Are you suggesting the EMDrive creates a virtual mirror?

No not at all.

I linked the video as proof that bouncing photons between reflecting mirrors increases the radiation pressure on the moving mirror to be very much more than 3.3uN/kW.

You see there are still those that believe any force greater than 3.3uN/kW, photon rocket force, is not possible and would be OU.

This explains why force or end plate radiation pressure increases as cavity Q increases as with increasing cavity Q there are increasing photon end plate impact events.

Need to get the basics well understood before engaging the pathway to explain how and why the EmDrive works and is not in violation of Newton's Laws nor CofM nor CofE.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/21/2017 11:02 pm
Guys,

There is one universal equation that defines the work that is needed to be done to move a mass a distance over a time by a force.

It matters not if the propulsion tech is a

Chem rocket.
Ion drive.
Solar sail powered by the sun or a laser.
Photon rocket.
MEGA drive.
EmDrive.
Etc

That universal equation is:

W = N * 1/2a * t^2 where
W = Joules of energy
N = Newtons of force
t = time taken to do the move or acceleration time
a = acceleration in m/sec^2 = N / m where
m = mass in kgs

Please note there is no initial velocity value needed nor used.

Phil
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 08/21/2017 11:11 pm
Guys,

There is one universal equation that defines the work that is needed to be done to move a mass a distance over a time by a force.

It matters not if the propulsion tech is a

Chem rocket.
Ion drive.
Solar sail powered by the sun or a laser.
Photon rocket.
MEGA drive.
EmDrive.
Etc

That universal equation is:

W = N * d * t where
W = Joules of energy
N = Newtons of force
t = time taken to do the move
d = distance the mass moved in meters = 1/2 a * t^2 where
a = acceleration in m/sec^2 = N / m where
m = mass in kgs

Please note there is no initial velocity value needed nor used.

Phil

TT, wikipedia said W=Fs, where s=displacement, so this is your d. Your W has wrong unit.
also d=1/2 a * t^2+V*t, where V is the initial velocity, instead of d=1/2 a * t^2; so either you missed V*t or you assumed V=0. Did you assume V=0?

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: francesco nicoli on 08/21/2017 11:13 pm
No offense, but since TT keeps defending Shawyer no matter what, I won't pay any attention of any kind beyond this post to whatevs TT says, till either Shawyers' flying cars are proved, or TT comes to better senses. Enough of nonsense.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/22/2017 12:40 am
Guys,

There is one universal equation that defines the work that is needed to be done to move a mass a distance over a time by a force.

It matters not if the propulsion tech is a

Chem rocket.
Ion drive.
Solar sail powered by the sun or a laser.
Photon rocket.
MEGA drive.
EmDrive.
Etc

That universal equation is:

W = N * 1/2a * t^2 where
W = Joules of energy
N = Newtons of force
t = time taken to do the move or acceleration time
a = acceleration in m/sec^2 = N / m where
m = mass in kgs

Please note there is no initial velocity value needed nor used.

Phil

TT, wikipedia said W=Fs, where s=displacement, so this is your d. Your W has wrong unit.
also d=1/2 a * t^2+V*t, where V is the initial velocity, instead of d=1/2 a * t^2; so either you missed V*t or you assumed V=0. Did you assume V=0?

Thanks PN.

Equations fixed. Still jet lagged and sleep time is all messed up. Using 1/2a * t^2 as displacement as it brings in time.

As for initial velocity, floating in my tin can as Major Tom says, what initial v should I use? Based on what external to my tin can reference frame? Maybe Earth orbit velocity or solar orbit velocity or orbit velocity around the galactic hub or local group or great attractor? They are all so different and produce such different values. Maybe just use the pre thrust reference frame of my tin can, ie zero?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: gargoyle99 on 08/22/2017 01:22 am
Need to get the basics well understood before engaging the pathway to explain how and why the EmDrive works and is not in violation of Newton's Laws nor CofM nor CofE.

I agree it's good to understand the basics.

To check for conservation of momentum, simply add up the momentum vectors of all the components of your system before it starts, then run it for a while (say long enough for the EmDrive to get well on its way to Pluto), then turn the EmDrive off. Now, add up the momentum of all the components in the entire system again. Those two measurements should be exactly equal to each other in all frames of reference. If they aren't, then either you've violated conservation of momentum, or you've messed up your math, or you've left something out.

For a chemical rocket, beginners sometimes leave out the momenta of all the exhaust particles that the rocket has shot out the back. When you add all of that together (this is literally the source of the rocket equation, by the way), you get that the center of mass of the rocket/propellant system remains exactly where it started when you fired the rocket (in its initial rest frame). That is true of ALL systems that obey Newton's laws. The center of mass of the entire system doesn't change in velocity.

For the EmDrive, where is the term that cancels out the momentum of the spaceship going to Pluto? There is no exhaust and the microwave photons are all absorbed by the inside of the EmDrive cavity after it is turned off so it can't be them. (That's why many physicists are trying to think what terms might have been left out, i.e. an interaction with an external field of some sort, to explain the observations.) The EmDrive as Shawyer explains it clearly doesn't conserve momentum as Shawyer has no exhaust and does not invoke any external field.

What mass or energy (photons also have momentum) move in the opposite direction of the EmDrive after it's turned off? The power expended, mode, design factor, etc. do not affect the problem. It doesn't matter what the EmDrive does when it's running. We're just looking at the starting point when it is off and the ending point when it is also off but still moving.

How does the EmDrive conserve momentum?

This is the basic question and so far Shawyer's answer is not right.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 08/22/2017 02:56 am
Need to get the basics well understood before engaging the pathway to explain how and why the EmDrive works and is not in violation of Newton's Laws nor CofM nor CofE.

I agree it's good to understand the basics.

To check for conservation of momentum, simply add up the momentum vectors of all the components of your system before it starts, then run it for a while (say long enough for the EmDrive to get well on its way to Pluto), then turn the EmDrive off. Now, add up the momentum of all the components in the entire system again. Those two measurements should be exactly equal to each other in all frames of reference. If they aren't, then either you've violated conservation of momentum, or you've messed up your math, or you've left something out.

For a chemical rocket, beginners sometimes leave out the momenta of all the exhaust particles that the rocket has shot out the back. When you add all of that together (this is literally the source of the rocket equation, by the way), you get that the center of mass of the rocket/propellant system remains exactly where it started when you fired the rocket (in its initial rest frame). That is true of ALL systems that obey Newton's laws. The center of mass of the entire system doesn't change in velocity.

For the EmDrive, where is the term that cancels out the momentum of the spaceship going to Pluto? There is no exhaust and the microwave photons are all absorbed by the inside of the EmDrive cavity after it is turned off so it can't be them. (That's why many physicists are trying to think what terms might have been left out, i.e. an interaction with an external field of some sort, to explain the observations.) The EmDrive as Shawyer explains it clearly doesn't conserve momentum as Shawyer has no exhaust and does not invoke any external field.

What mass or energy (photons also have momentum) move in the opposite direction of the EmDrive after it's turned off? The power expended, mode, design factor, etc. do not affect the problem. It doesn't matter what the EmDrive does when it's running. We're just looking at the starting point when it is off and the ending point when it is also off but still moving.

How does the EmDrive conserve momentum?

This is the basic question and so far Shawyer's answer is not right.
gargoyle99,
if these arguments were clear there would be more agreement. IMO, if the emdrive works as Shawyer claims then it will disprove the notion that kinetic energy is gained in proportion to the square of the velocity from the launch point and discussion on the subject of the conservation of energy can proceed with the understanding that energy of motion must be relative. Shawyer may well be right, and his experiment is the only one that can prove it one way or the other. IMO.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/22/2017 04:55 am
If what you meant to say is that the force decreases with time then you have to note:
1. Still doesn't make sense because the RF source is moving with the cavity.
2. You have to redo the previous calculations accounting for variable thrust.
3. Since it magically resets if you pulse the RF, doing so clearly results in the same energy conservation problems. Energy flow from the battery and kinetic energy gain both only happen with RF on, so while you will travel farther, and it will take twice as long (assuming 50% duty cycle) to reach the same velocity, the same battery power will be spent and same kinetic energy gained, so still an energy generator.
...

So yes as acceleration time increases, increasing the KE draw down, the force reduces.

No OU during acceleration.
I both predicted this response and gave 3 counterarguments including why there clearly would still be overunity. You did not address the counterarguments. You started to address one in a later post , where you show the reduced trip time, but then you failed to follow through and recognize the reduced input energy, which should be enough to get past overunity in your example, since it was already close.

Try actually reading the post you are responding to next time.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/22/2017 05:06 am
gargoyle99,
if these arguments were clear there would be more agreement. IMO, if the emdrive works as Shawyer claims then it will disprove the notion that kinetic energy is gained in proportion to the square of the velocity from the launch point and discussion on the subject of the conservation of energy can proceed with the understanding that energy of motion must be relative. Shawyer may well be right, and his experiment is the only one that can prove it one way or the other. IMO.
There currently is no disagreement except from Shawyer and TT, and both have demonstrated repeated failures at high school level physics. (Everyone makes mistakes and flips a sign on occasion, but with them it has been consistent.)

Some of the posts between me and Bob012345 might sound like disagreement, but we are really agreeing on the basics, and the disagreement has really been on how to deal with it in (what I consider the low) chance the the conservation laws don't work. (various miscommunications have made that conversation more confusing) The basics of the conservation laws as presented by gargoyle99 are clear and not under dispute. The conclusion that Shawyer is not right stems from the fact that Shawyer claims the conservation laws hold and his device as described by him breaks the conservation laws.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Sjors Boomschors on 08/22/2017 04:40 pm
@Monomorphic:
Why are the current curved end-plates so different in there design from the flat end-plates ?

Not refering to them being curved or flat, but to there entire make up. The curved being 3D-printed or molded, and the flat being just a flat sollit copper plate.

Think it would be wise to also print or cast the flat end-plates and laminate them with the same EM reflective copper material. That way you can make them of exactly the same material, same thinkness and weight. Doing so will hopefully keep most of there weight-ratio and thermal properties exactly the same, exept for there unique shape.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/22/2017 04:50 pm
Guys,

There is one universal equation that defines the work that is needed to be done to move a mass a distance over a time by a force.

It matters not if the propulsion tech is a

Chem rocket.
Ion drive.
Solar sail powered by the sun or a laser.
Photon rocket.
MEGA drive.
EmDrive.


Phil

That's  true for any observer in an inertial reference frame. If any phenomenon generates a force, that force acts the same and does the necessary work to match what's required from all observers viewpoint. The work energy theorem always shows the force does just the right amount of work to match the kinetic energy from any inertial point of view.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/22/2017 05:01 pm
Need to get the basics well understood before engaging the pathway to explain how and why the EmDrive works and is not in violation of Newton's Laws nor CofM nor CofE.

I agree it's good to understand the basics.

To check for conservation of momentum, simply add up the momentum vectors of all the components of your system before it starts, then run it for a while (say long enough for the EmDrive to get well on its way to Pluto), then turn the EmDrive off. Now, add up the momentum of all the components in the entire system again. Those two measurements should be exactly equal to each other in all frames of reference. If they aren't, then either you've violated conservation of momentum, or you've messed up your math, or you've left something out.

For a chemical rocket, beginners sometimes leave out the momenta of all the exhaust particles that the rocket has shot out the back. When you add all of that together (this is literally the source of the rocket equation, by the way), you get that the center of mass of the rocket/propellant system remains exactly where it started when you fired the rocket (in its initial rest frame). That is true of ALL systems that obey Newton's laws. The center of mass of the entire system doesn't change in velocity.

For the EmDrive, where is the term that cancels out the momentum of the spaceship going to Pluto? There is no exhaust and the microwave photons are all absorbed by the inside of the EmDrive cavity after it is turned off so it can't be them. (That's why many physicists are trying to think what terms might have been left out, i.e. an interaction with an external field of some sort, to explain the observations.) The EmDrive as Shawyer explains it clearly doesn't conserve momentum as Shawyer has no exhaust and does not invoke any external field.

What mass or energy (photons also have momentum) move in the opposite direction of the EmDrive after it's turned off? The power expended, mode, design factor, etc. do not affect the problem. It doesn't matter what the EmDrive does when it's running. We're just looking at the starting point when it is off and the ending point when it is also off but still moving.

How does the EmDrive conserve momentum?

This is the basic question and so far Shawyer's answer is not right.
gargoyle99,
if these arguments were clear there would be more agreement. IMO, if the emdrive works as Shawyer claims then it will disprove the notion that kinetic energy is gained in proportion to the square of the velocity from the launch point and discussion on the subject of the conservation of energy can proceed with the understanding that energy of motion must be relative. Shawyer may well be right, and his experiment is the only one that can prove it one way or the other. IMO.

To be crystal clear, the issue is if the EMDrive works as Shawyer claims, not if the EMDrive works.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/22/2017 05:28 pm
It's a great concept for local travel where you have a mirror to reflect between and to show even photons can beat the photon rocket paradigm. Are you suggesting the EMDrive creates a virtual mirror?

No not at all.

I linked the video as proof that bouncing photons between reflecting mirrors increases the radiation pressure on the moving mirror to be very much more than 3.3uN/kW.

You see there are still those that believe any force greater than 3.3uN/kW, photon rocket force, is not possible and would be OU.

This explains why force or end plate radiation pressure increases as cavity Q increases as with increasing cavity Q there are increasing photon end plate impact events.

Need to get the basics well understood before engaging the pathway to explain how and why the EmDrive works and is not in violation of Newton's Laws nor CofM nor CofE.

For a given set of conditions, reusing even one photon amounts to besting the theoretical photon rocket. I think the concept of OU causes too much confusion and should be junked. Who decides what's 'unity'? Nothing is ever 'over unity' nor is any law ever broken. Some new situations though are just not so obvious to understand and may require new insights to interpret the same laws. An example is Keith Wanser's paper with new insights to center of mass acceleration in a system with fluctuating masses. No new physics but there are surprises.

http://www.tsijournals.com/abstract/center-of-mass-acceleration-of-an-isolated-system-of-two-particles-with-time-variable-masses-interacting-with-each-other-2502.html
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Flyby on 08/22/2017 06:29 pm

To be crystal clear, the issue is if the EMDrive works as Shawyer claims, not if the EMDrive works.
To be even more crystal clear-er, there are only indications that the EMDrive might work, but we have yet to see it confirmed by 3rd party experiments....

There is nothing confirmed...yet...

We have yet to see tests where, by noise elimination, we have no answer except then to say "it works...".
The tests so far still carry a lot of thermal/other noise residual, but DO show some promise...

All what is needed is to keep improving the tests so there is no doubt left to where the force signal is coming from...

So...from what I've been seeing, I still have to be convinced, but at the same time I've seen things that make me hopeful....
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 08/22/2017 08:17 pm
My main concern is that our Chinese friends have gone quiet. After all the buzz surrounding their secret testing and supposed space test there has not been a single word from them. Either their government put a halt on discussing the subject or people have lost interest. Both are detrimental to experimental progress and future cubesat missions. We need to push for more international LEO testing campaigns or something tangible since it seems that all theory discussion for the entire summer has not made any headway (no interesting calculations or continuation of Warptech's thrust equation). Even Peter Lauwer, who seemed to have a solid experimental setup, has gone quiet.

Still stuck on CoE and laser thrusters? Seriously? These are the oldest most worn out lines of thought and areas to debate. It almost seems like some are chatting for the sake of posting something, not contributing something new. Let's please move back to a higher level discussion involving the wide variety of actually new and relevant research and theory from Estes and Eagleworks and including peer reviewed sources fully compliant with the standard model or string theory. For example let's consider that we can now create two dimensional complicated floquet time crystals. You can start to see how a cavity lined with these may break causality for resonant particles within. Or rather that is the question: is it possible to create a macroscopic region of space with complex time... even a time machine based on the boundary conditions*? https://m.phys.org/news/2017-08-unconventional-quantum-optical-devices.html

In other research a tunable mode-based transparent metamaterial has been created allowing for a potential feedback system activating and automatically transmitting resonant waves above and below desired frequencies. This is huge for removing noise from the cavity and rejecting splatter if designed correctly and with well placed sensors, or even program the response profile into the material itself by using empirically determined eigenmode values and detected boundary incoming waveforms. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0030401817300652

Alternatively we could hypothesize about which metamaterials and permittivity would lead to the highest Q factor. There are exotic options such as near zero permittivity or time varying permittivity or even layered varying permittivity values (such as with silica wafers which can lead to lovely waveform variations depending on the metamterial. We are at the forefront of a brave new world of quantum optics and metamaterial research, why not increase the gain and tweak the properties of light which we desire in order to begin disproving theories of operation and improving thrust?

*see here also smolyaninov's old papers on symmetry breaking at negative refraction index and consider relativistic resonant electrons
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 08/22/2017 08:32 pm
 FYI

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-00343-8.pdf

Quote
State-of-the-art compact antennas rely on electromagnetic wave resonance, which leads
to antenna sizes that are comparable to the electromagnetic wavelength. As a result,
antennas typically have a size greater than one-tenth of the wavelength, and further
miniaturization of antennas has been an open challenge for decades. Here we report on
acoustically actuated nanomechanical magnetoelectric (ME) antennas with a suspended
ferromagnetic/piezoelectric thin-film heterostructure. These ME antennas receive
and transmit electromagnetic waves through the ME effect at their acoustic resonance
frequencies. The bulk acoustic waves in ME antennas stimulate magnetization oscillations of
the ferromagnetic thin film, which results in the radiation of electromagnetic waves.
Vice versa, these antennas sense the magnetic fields of electromagnetic waves, giving a
piezoelectric voltage output. The ME antennas (with sizes as small as one-thousandth of a
wavelength
) demonstrates 1–2 orders of magnitude miniaturization over state-of-the-art
compact antennas without performance degradation. These ME antennas have potential
implications for portable wireless communication systems.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 08/22/2017 08:33 pm
My main concern is that our Chinese friends have gone quiet. After all the buzz surrounding their secret testing and supposed space test there has not been a single word from them. Either their government put a halt on discussing the subject or people have lost interest. Both are detrimental to experimental progress and future cubesat missions. We need to push for more international LEO testing campaigns or something tangible since it seems that all theory discussion for the entire summer has not made any headway (no interesting calculations or continuation of Warptech's thrust equation). Even Peter Lauwer, who seemed to have a solid experimental setup, has gone quiet.

Still stuck on CoE and laser thrusters? Seriously? These are the oldest most worn out lines of thought and areas to debate. It almost seems like some are chatting for the sake of posting something, not contributing something new. Let's please move back to a higher level discussion involving the wide variety of actually new and relevant research and theory from Estes and Eagleworks and including peer reviewed sources fully compliant with the standard model or string theory. For example let's consider that we can now create two dimensional complicated floquet time crystals. You can start to see how a cavity lined with these may break causality for resonant particles within. Or rather that is the question: is it possible to create a macroscopic region of space with complex time... even a time machine based on the boundary conditions*? https://m.phys.org/news/2017-08-unconventional-quantum-optical-devices.html

In other research a tunable mode-based transparent metamaterial has been created allowing for a potential feedback system activating and automatically transmitting resonant waves above and below desired frequencies. This is huge for removing noise from the cavity and rejecting splatter if designed correctly and with well placed sensors, or even program the response profile into the material itself by using empirically determined eigenmode values and detected boundary incoming waveforms. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0030401817300652

Alternatively we could hypothesize about which metamaterials and permittivity would lead to the highest Q factor. There are exotic options such as near zero permittivity or time varying permittivity or even layered varying permittivity values (such as with silica wafers which can lead to lovely waveform variations depending on the metamterial. We are at the forefront of a brave new world of quantum optics and metamaterial research, why not increase the gain and tweak the properties of light which we desire in order to begin disproving theories of operation and improving thrust?

*see here also smolyaninov's old papers on symmetry breaking at negative refraction index and consider relativistic resonant electrons

"Either their government put a halt on discussing the subject or people have lost interest."

None of them. It is the third case: Test failed.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 08/23/2017 12:27 am
"Either their government put a halt on discussing the subject or people have lost interest."

None of them. It is the third case: Test failed.

Is that a reasonable guess, or something that's been confirmed?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 08/23/2017 12:31 am
"Either their government put a halt on discussing the subject or people have lost interest."

None of them. It is the third case: Test failed.

Is that a reasonable guess, or something that's been confirmed?

leaked info, not official. Ask "oyzw" on this forum. It was leaked to him from his contacts.

update: added "to him"
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: mclumber1 on 08/23/2017 06:10 am

"Either their government put a halt on discussing the subject or people have lost interest."

None of them. It is the third case: Test failed.

I would assume that if the test was successful (even it was not wildly successful, but showed promise) the Chinese government would either go silent, or claim the test was a failure.  I'm sure the US (or pretty much any other military power) would do the same.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Jim Davis on 08/23/2017 12:49 pm
I would assume that if the test was successful (even it was not wildly successful, but showed promise) the Chinese government would either go silent, or claim the test was a failure.  I'm sure the US (or pretty much any other military power) would do the same.

The logic here is amusing. The claim boils down to that there are two ways to tell if a test was a success - firstly, if it was announced as a success, and secondly, if it was announced as a failure!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 08/23/2017 02:18 pm
No offense, but since TT keeps defending Shawyer no matter what, I won't pay any attention of any kind beyond this post to whatevs TT says, till either Shawyers' flying cars are proved, or TT comes to better senses. Enough of nonsense.

How would a flying car prove bouncing photons inside a can is the source of any net asymetric force? The sun moving across the sky, doesn't seem to have proven that the Greek chariot myth was accurate!

Credible repeated recreation of even any significant milinewton results, would on the other hand be a huge step toward fleshing out a credible theory/mechanism of operation.

TT has bouncing photons stuck in his head, even when it should seem clear that explaining the interaction of microwave frequencies is better deescribed and understood as waves than bouncing balls. People come to believe what they tell their self, if they tell their self the same thing long enough.., whether it is an accurate description of reality or not.

Believing is not proof and here even a flying car alone is not proof of why it flys.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 08/23/2017 02:39 pm
I would assume that if the test was successful (even it was not wildly successful, but showed promise) the Chinese government would either go silent, or claim the test was a failure.  I'm sure the US (or pretty much any other military power) would do the same.

The logic here is amusing. The claim boils down to that there are two ways to tell if a test was a success - firstly, if it was announced as a success, and secondly, if it was announced as a failure!
Or if there was no announcement at all. So, based on these three criteria, I'd say the test was a resounding success!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/23/2017 04:06 pm

To be crystal clear, the issue is if the EMDrive works as Shawyer claims, not if the EMDrive works.
To be even more crystal clear-er, there are only indications that the EMDrive might work, but we have yet to see it confirmed by 3rd party experiments....

There is nothing confirmed...yet...

We have yet to see tests where, by noise elimination, we have no answer except then to say "it works...".
The tests so far still carry a lot of thermal/other noise residual, but DO show some promise...

All what is needed is to keep improving the tests so there is no doubt left to where the force signal is coming from...

So...from what I've been seeing, I still have to be convinced, but at the same time I've seen things that make me hopeful....

Who decides which replication is a confirmation or not? It seems that since more that two teams reported results, by definition your statement is misleading. Someone has to be a 'third' party.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/23/2017 05:09 pm
My main concern is that our Chinese friends have gone quiet. After all the buzz surrounding their secret testing and supposed space test there has not been a single word from them. Either their government put a halt on discussing the subject or people have lost interest. Both are detrimental to experimental progress and future cubesat missions. We need to push for more international LEO testing campaigns or something tangible since it seems that all theory discussion for the entire summer has not made any headway (no interesting calculations or continuation of Warptech's thrust equation). Even Peter Lauwer, who seemed to have a solid experimental setup, has gone quiet.

Still stuck on CoE and laser thrusters? Seriously? These are the oldest most worn out lines of thought and areas to debate. It almost seems like some are chatting for the sake of posting something, not contributing something new. Let's please move back to a higher level discussion involving the wide variety of actually new and relevant research and theory from Estes and Eagleworks and including peer reviewed sources fully compliant with the standard model or string theory. For example let's consider that we can now create two dimensional complicated floquet time crystals. You can start to see how a cavity lined with these may break causality for resonant particles within. Or rather that is the question: is it possible to create a macroscopic region of space with complex time... even a time machine based on the boundary conditions*? https://m.phys.org/news/2017-08-unconventional-quantum-optical-devices.html

In other research a tunable mode-based transparent metamaterial has been created allowing for a potential feedback system activating and automatically transmitting resonant waves above and below desired frequencies. This is huge for removing noise from the cavity and rejecting splatter if designed correctly and with well placed sensors, or even program the response profile into the material itself by using empirically determined eigenmode values and detected boundary incoming waveforms. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0030401817300652

Alternatively we could hypothesize about which metamaterials and permittivity would lead to the highest Q factor. There are exotic options such as near zero permittivity or time varying permittivity or even layered varying permittivity values (such as with silica wafers which can lead to lovely waveform variations depending on the metamterial. We are at the forefront of a brave new world of quantum optics and metamaterial research, why not increase the gain and tweak the properties of light which we desire in order to begin disproving theories of operation and improving thrust?

*see here also smolyaninov's old papers on symmetry breaking at negative refraction index and consider relativistic resonant electrons

"Either their government put a halt on discussing the subject or people have lost interest."

None of them. It is the third case: Test failed.

Until we understand why it failed, if that is true, we can't draw valid conclusions.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 08/23/2017 06:04 pm
No offense, but since TT keeps defending Shawyer no matter what, I won't pay any attention of any kind beyond this post to whatevs TT says, till either Shawyers' flying cars are proved, or TT comes to better senses. Enough of nonsense.

How would a flying car prove bouncing photons inside a can is the source of any net asymetric force? The sun moving across the sky, doesn't seem to have proven that the Greek chariot myth was accurate!

Credible repeated recreation of even any significant milinewton results, would on the other hand be a huge step toward fleshing out a credible theory/mechanism of operation.

TT has bouncing photons stuck in his head, even when it should seem clear that explaining the interaction of microwave frequencies is better deescribed and understood as waves than bouncing balls. People come to believe what they tell their self, if they tell their self the same thing long enough.., whether it is an accurate description of reality or not.

Believing is not proof and here even a flying car alone is not proof of why it flys.

Bouncing photons isn't a problem.  From that concept with energy and momentum conservation I can derive the Doppler effect and even 2nd order terms responsible for accelerating a laser thruster which are well over standard laser force.  The problem is a laser thruster is an open system where the cavity is a closed system unless we find the mechanism that opens it.  Changing the mass of photons allows the system to accelerate but the changing of mass suggests them coupling to something that is invisible.  Experiments have shown a change in the impulse of photons which suggest a change in effective mass.  Light as far as is known is the electric field which is connected to the charges them selves.  Woodward's theory considers the charges I believe but I'm not sure you can separate the charges from their respective electric fields.  If the charge changes in mass it's likely connected to the electric field.  The whole thing smacks of coupling/uncoupling to the vacuum and we are learning the vacuum may be a lot more real than previously understood. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/23/2017 06:04 pm
W = (N^2 * sec^2) / (2 * kg) is an interesting equation.

What it says is all I need in my EmDrive propelled tin can is a watch. Plus knowing the mass of my tin can and the Force of the EmDrive.  From those 3 pieces of information I can calc Work done during the acceleration.

With N and kg known and fixed, sec is the only variable needed to solve for W.

Seems Work can be invarient across different inertial constant velocity frames as Force, time and mass are also frame invarient.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/23/2017 06:49 pm
W = (N^2 * sec^2) / (2 * kg) is an interesting equation.

What it says is all I need in my EmDrive propelled tin can is a watch. Plus knowing the mass of my tin can and the Force of the EmDrive.  From those 3 pieces of information I can calc Work done during the acceleration.

With N and kg known and fixed, sec is the only variable to solve for W.

Seems Work can be invarient across different inertial constant velocity frames as Force, time and mass are also frame invarient.
First, your equation is just relating units, which makes it wrong because of the divide by 2, and the W (Watts) is the wrong unit, it would be J (Joules). Presumably what you meant to write is:

W = F^2*t^2 /(2*m), where the W stands for work (energy).

This equation is derived from
W = F*d
d = 0.5*a*t^2
a = F/m

The conclusions you come to about frame invariance are wrong, because the equation for d is only valid in one frame.
The full general equation is:
d = 0.5*a*t^2 + v_i * t   (where v_i is the initial velocity)

The extra v_i term clearly shows that the work will be frame dependent.

This seems like a deliberate distraction on your part to try and avoid addressing the corner the previous discussion backed you into.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/23/2017 07:06 pm
W = (N^2 * sec^2) / (2 * kg) is an interesting equation.

What it says is all I need in my EmDrive propelled tin can is a watch. Plus knowing the mass of my tin can and the Force of the EmDrive.  From those 3 pieces of information I can calc Work done during the acceleration.

With N and kg known and fixed, sec is the only variable to solve for W.

Seems Work can be invarient across different inertial constant velocity frames as Force, time and mass are also frame invarient.
First, your equation is just relating units, which makes it wrong because of the divide by 2, and the W (Watts) is the wrong unit, it would be J (Joules). Presumably what you meant to write is:

W = F^2*t^2 /(2*m), where the W stands for work (energy).

This equation is derived from
W = F*d
d = 0.5*a*t^2
a = F/m

The conclusions you come to about frame invariance are wrong, because the equation for d is only valid in one frame.
The full general equation is:
d = 0.5*a*t^2 + v_i * t   (where v_i is the initial velocity)

The extra v_i term clearly shows that the work will be frame dependent.

This seems like a deliberate distraction on your part to try and avoid addressing the corner the previous discussion backed you into.

W in the equation is work, which is clearly the case.

The equation calculates the Work that is done on mass over a fixed time. It is valid.

As N, kg & sec are frame invarient, the work done by a fixed force on a fixed mass over a fixed time is also frame invarient.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/23/2017 07:14 pm
W in the equation is work, which is clearly the case.
Every other variable in the first equation was a unit. While you can see I was able to interpret what you meant this time, unless you are deliberately trying to misinform and confuse, you should use variables the same way everyone else does.

The equation calculates the Work that is done on mass over a fixed time. It is valid.

As N, kg & sec are frame invarient, the work done by a fixed force on a fixed mass over a fixed time is also frame invarient.
It is not valid unless the initial velocity in the frame you are using is zero. I clearly just demonstrated this.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/23/2017 11:04 pm
New 3D printed spherical end-plate frustum is now bolted together. I was able to achieve -54dB return loss.  ;D  It's ready to mount to the torsional pendulum!

After that, next step is to get the 30W amplifier working.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThinkerX on 08/24/2017 01:38 am
"Either their government put a halt on discussing the subject or people have lost interest."

None of them. It is the third case: Test failed.

Is that a reasonable guess, or something that's been confirmed?

leaked info, not official. Ask "oyzw" on this forum. It was leaked to him from his contacts.

update: added "to him"

I have a hazy recollection of a few short posts in one of the prior threads mentioning severe thermal issues and lack of 'thrust' with the Chinese EM Drive unit in space.

At the time, a number of posters here and elsewhere on the site believed the Chinese EM Drive to be a more conventional electric thruster. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 08/24/2017 02:06 am
New 3D printed spherical end-plate frustum is now bolted together. I was able to achieve -54dB return loss.  ;D  It's ready to mount to the torsional pendulum!

After that, next step is to get the 30W amplifier working.
Will you do a test series with this new frustum at low power before you ramp it up and risk carbonizing the inside of it?
NB: it looks beautiful  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 08/24/2017 02:18 am
gargoyle99,
if these arguments were clear there would be more agreement. IMO, if the emdrive works as Shawyer claims then it will disprove the notion that kinetic energy is gained in proportion to the square of the velocity from the launch point and discussion on the subject of the conservation of energy can proceed with the understanding that energy of motion must be relative. Shawyer may well be right, and his experiment is the only one that can prove it one way or the other. IMO.
There currently is no disagreement except from Shawyer and TT, and both have demonstrated repeated failures at high school level physics. (Everyone makes mistakes and flips a sign on occasion, but with them it has been consistent.)

Some of the posts between me and Bob012345 might sound like disagreement, but we are really agreeing on the basics, and the disagreement has really been on how to deal with it in (what I consider the low) chance the the conservation laws don't work. (various miscommunications have made that conversation more confusing) The basics of the conservation laws as presented by gargoyle99 are clear and not under dispute. The conclusion that Shawyer is not right stems from the fact that Shawyer claims the conservation laws hold and his device as described by him breaks the conservation laws.
Surely any continuous thrust from a sealed and physically independent device must break conservation of momentum, unless the universe is Machian and there is a mechanism for conection between what is inside the seal and the remote universe.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/24/2017 02:52 am
gargoyle99,
if these arguments were clear there would be more agreement. IMO, if the emdrive works as Shawyer claims then it will disprove the notion that kinetic energy is gained in proportion to the square of the velocity from the launch point and discussion on the subject of the conservation of energy can proceed with the understanding that energy of motion must be relative. Shawyer may well be right, and his experiment is the only one that can prove it one way or the other. IMO.
There currently is no disagreement except from Shawyer and TT, and both have demonstrated repeated failures at high school level physics. (Everyone makes mistakes and flips a sign on occasion, but with them it has been consistent.)

Some of the posts between me and Bob012345 might sound like disagreement, but we are really agreeing on the basics, and the disagreement has really been on how to deal with it in (what I consider the low) chance the the conservation laws don't work. (various miscommunications have made that conversation more confusing) The basics of the conservation laws as presented by gargoyle99 are clear and not under dispute. The conclusion that Shawyer is not right stems from the fact that Shawyer claims the conservation laws hold and his device as described by him breaks the conservation laws.
Surely any continuous thrust from a sealed and physically independent device must break conservation of momentum, unless the universe is Machian and there is a mechanism for conection between what is inside the seal and the remote universe.
Your statement is correct, but there are other ways besides Mach effect to break the "sealed and physically independent" such as some up until now undetected particle that can pass through metal being somehow accelerated. These explanations have their own problems, but those have to be dealt with on an individual basis. Shawyer claims that such explanations aren't necessary, so the general statements hold when discussing his explanation.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 08/24/2017 10:15 am
SPR posted its accounts for the year to end March 2017.

The level of disclosure continues to decline. The only real movement visible was another £11380 reduction in debts. Current assets, which last year was cash and this year is undefined, fell by a very similar amount. Last year there was a related party disclosure which told us that Shawyer had received £5000 as part of the debt reduction, this year there is no disclosure. It's a fair guess he did the same again, without the disclosure. The company has an Audit exemption.

Last year we had visibility of the profit and loss account to see that a profit had been made. This year there is no such disclosure. But shareholders funds have barely moved, so it is reasonable to conclude that there was no material profit, though that doesn't preclude some income paid out 100% in wages or other costs. The company hasn't published a p&l in a while, based on a small company exemption.

Overall, no proof the company did anything material in this accounting period.

Shawyer could do the same again in the current year from cash reserves.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/24/2017 12:01 pm
Will you do a test series with this new frustum at low power before you ramp it up and risk carbonizing the inside of it?

Yes, plan is to start out around 5W and then try 10W and finally 20W. I can go up to ~25W, but that is the limit of my attenuator.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 08/24/2017 12:23 pm
SPR posted its accounts for the year to end March 2017.

The level of disclosure continues to decline. The only real movement visible was another £11380 reduction in debts. Current assets, which last year was cash and this year is undefined, fell by a very similar amount. Last year there was a related party disclosure which told us that Shawyer had received £5000 as part of the debt reduction, this year there is no disclosure. It's a fair guess he did the same again, without the disclosure. The company has an Audit exemption.

Last year we had visibility of the profit and loss account to see that a profit had been made. This year there is no such disclosure. But shareholders funds have barely moved, so it is reasonable to conclude that there was no material profit, though that doesn't preclude some income paid out 100% in wages or other costs. The company hasn't published a p&l in a while, based on a small company exemption.

Overall, no proof the company did anything material in this accounting period.

Shawyer could do the same again in the current year from cash reserves.

Dear Mr. Rert,

If you are referring only to the SPR you will never recieve an objective picture of the current financial status of Mr. Shawyer and people working on the EmDrive.

You need to check the Universial Propulsion company as well as additional Gilo Industries smaller companies. We know about Mr. Shawyer cooperation with them and you need to look on them as that.

You need to especially check the Universal Propulsion company which is direct link between Mr. Shawyer and Gilo Industries for the research of the EmDrive.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10257752

There is also statment that "Gilo Industries is a person with a significant control of this company". With quite recent funds they recieved from many of their investors I do not have any doubt that he has any financial trouble with his research.

 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/24/2017 01:19 pm
Major Tom retires from doing Mars cargo runs and buys himself a 4t space yacht. Upgrades it with the latest TT Industries 500N/kW EmDrive and a 100kW Rf amp.

Takes it out into deep space for a shake down test, which comes up all Green.

Deciding a cold beer would be nice, Major Tom clicks on Google Space and locates a spin station 30,000km away.

Then firing up the radar, which confirms the spin station is 30,000km away, plus shows the dV between his ship and the spin station is 2,500 m/s.

Now knowing the ship's mass is 4,000 kg, propulsion system produces max 50,000 N, distance = 30,000 km and dV change needed is 2,5000 m/s, what is the burn time and Rf power needed to achieve 0 dV at 3,000 km?

Please do the maths and show the answer.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/24/2017 01:31 pm
SPR posted its accounts for the year to end March 2017.

The level of disclosure continues to decline. The only real movement visible was another £11380 reduction in debts. Current assets, which last year was cash and this year is undefined, fell by a very similar amount. Last year there was a related party disclosure which told us that Shawyer had received £5000 as part of the debt reduction, this year there is no disclosure. It's a fair guess he did the same again, without the disclosure. The company has an Audit exemption.

Last year we had visibility of the profit and loss account to see that a profit had been made. This year there is no such disclosure. But shareholders funds have barely moved, so it is reasonable to conclude that there was no material profit, though that doesn't preclude some income paid out 100% in wages or other costs. The company hasn't published a p&l in a while, based on a small company exemption.

Overall, no proof the company did anything material in this accounting period.

Shawyer could do the same again in the current year from cash reserves.

Dear Mr. Rert,

If you are referring only to the SPR you will never recieve an objective picture of the current financial status of Mr. Shawyer and people working on the EmDrive.

You need to check the Universial Propulsion company as well as additional Gilo Industries smaller companies. We know about Mr. Shawyer cooperation with them and you need to look on them as that.

You need to especially check the Universal Propulsion company which is direct link between Mr. Shawyer and Gilo Industries for the research of the EmDrive.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10257752

There is also statment that "Gilo Industries is a person with a significant control of this company". With quite recent funds they recieved from many of their investors I do not have any doubt that he has any financial trouble with his research.

Gilo Cardozo originally held 60 % of the shares:

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10257752/filing-history/MzE1MTkxNTUwN2FkaXF6a2N4/document?format=pdf&download=0

Now Gilo Industries Group, who received the big Chinese investment, are the 60% shareholder.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10257752/filing-history/MzE4MzI1MzQxNGFkaXF6a2N4/document?format=pdf&download=0

I consider that a major change.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 08/24/2017 02:39 pm
We will see when Universal Propulsion files its first accounts. They have filed nothing yet. UP is currently circa 14 months old. My first guess is that that means they have to publish accounts within around 7 months from now, maybe someone knows better.

SPR was a 40% shareholder in UP initially. There is no evidence of any significant financial investment by SPR based on their recent filing covering the period of UPs founding.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/24/2017 02:53 pm
Please do the maths and show the answer.
I assume this is directed at me.

Why don't you do the math? Also, why aren't you addressing my previous reply to you, or the thread of conversation before that that you dropped? Are you allergic to admitting you were wrong?

The answer is very, very, clearly that conservation of energy does not hold.

Also, it doesn't need 3000 km to accelerate, Major Tom can handle roughly 1.3 g for a few minutes.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/24/2017 02:56 pm
We will see when Universal Propulsion files its first accounts. They have filed nothing yet. UP is currently circa 14 months old. My first guess is that that means they have to publish accounts within around 7 months from now, maybe someone knows better.

SPR was a 40% shareholder in UP initially. There is no evidence of any significant financial investment by SPR based on their recent filing covering the period of UPs founding.

The published documents show that UP is now majority owned and controlled by Gilo Industries Group, with Roger and his accountant as directors, that do what Gilo Industries Group directs them to do.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/24/2017 03:02 pm
gargoyle99,
if these arguments were clear there would be more agreement. IMO, if the emdrive works as Shawyer claims then it will disprove the notion that kinetic energy is gained in proportion to the square of the velocity from the launch point and discussion on the subject of the conservation of energy can proceed with the understanding that energy of motion must be relative. Shawyer may well be right, and his experiment is the only one that can prove it one way or the other. IMO.
There currently is no disagreement except from Shawyer and TT, and both have demonstrated repeated failures at high school level physics. (Everyone makes mistakes and flips a sign on occasion, but with them it has been consistent.)

Some of the posts between me and Bob012345 might sound like disagreement, but we are really agreeing on the basics, and the disagreement has really been on how to deal with it in (what I consider the low) chance the the conservation laws don't work. (various miscommunications have made that conversation more confusing) The basics of the conservation laws as presented by gargoyle99 are clear and not under dispute. The conclusion that Shawyer is not right stems from the fact that Shawyer claims the conservation laws hold and his device as described by him breaks the conservation laws.
Surely any continuous thrust from a sealed and physically independent device must break conservation of momentum, unless the universe is Machian and there is a mechanism for conection between what is inside the seal and the remote universe.

I would expect gravity to be open and Mach effect mass fluctuations should reach into a sealed cavity. I would consider any force generated to be locally an external force and momentum conserved globally instead of locally.
In other words, the force acts on the system generating energy and creating momentum but at the expense of whatever created such a force and wherever and whenever it acted in the universe.

Also, I would expect the same for asymmetric Lorentzian forces if the total momentum is not conserved directly by the local field momentum. I have a growing suspicion that the EMDrive is far less esoteric and more conventional and involves such forces not that there couldn't be Mach effects acting as well. The surprise would be exactly how such asymmetric forces can come about. I bring this up because as I understand it, Fetta assumes Lorentzian forces.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/24/2017 03:26 pm
W in the equation is work, which is clearly the case.
Every other variable in the first equation was a unit. While you can see I was able to interpret what you meant this time, unless you are deliberately trying to misinform and confuse, you should use variables the same way everyone else does.

The equation calculates the Work that is done on mass over a fixed time. It is valid.

As N, kg & sec are frame invarient, the work done by a fixed force on a fixed mass over a fixed time is also frame invarient.
It is not valid unless the initial velocity in the frame you are using is zero. I clearly just demonstrated this.

There is no velocity in the inertial frame of the EmDrive. Needs another frame to provide a velocity reference. But which to use: Velocity of orbit around galactic hub? Velocity of orbit around the sun? There are almost an infinite number to choose from.

Or maybe zero velocity from the last inertial frame of the EmDrive before acceleration started? To me that rest frame as zero velocity at the start of acceleration makes sense.

When moving from place to place in space dV is the only value of interest, as in my Major Tom example. All he needs is the dV between his ship and the cold beer on the spin station. There are no absolute velocities in space, only dV between 2 objects in which we can safely assume our ships velocity is zero and we need to add or subtract the dV via application of Force, to do Work on Mass, to achieve the desired dV change,

Glad to see you accept my Work during acceleration equation is not rubbish.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/24/2017 04:01 pm
W in the equation is work, which is clearly the case.
Every other variable in the first equation was a unit. While you can see I was able to interpret what you meant this time, unless you are deliberately trying to misinform and confuse, you should use variables the same way everyone else does.

The equation calculates the Work that is done on mass over a fixed time. It is valid.

As N, kg & sec are frame invarient, the work done by a fixed force on a fixed mass over a fixed time is also frame invarient.
It is not valid unless the initial velocity in the frame you are using is zero. I clearly just demonstrated this.

There is no velocity in the inertial frame of the EmDrive. Needs another frame to provide a velocity reference. But which to use: Velocity of orbit around galactic hub? Velocity of orbit around the sun? There are almost an infinite number to choose from.
Actually there are a full uncountably infinite number to choose from, and they all work equally well.

Or maybe zero velocity from the last inertial frame of the EmDrive before acceleration started? To me that rest frame as zero velocity at the start of acceleration makes sense.
That is a reasonable choice, but you cannot draw conclusions about different frames when your equation only works in the one.

When moving from place to place in space dV is the only value of interest, as in my Major Tom example. All he needs is the dV between his ship and the cold beer on the spin station. There are no absolute velocities in space, only dV between 2 objects in which we can safely assume our ships velocity is zero and we need to add or subtract the dV via application of Force, to do Work on Mass, to achieve the desired dV change,

Glad to see you accept my Work during acceleration equation is not rubbish.
No, of course it isn't rubbish, it is trivial to derive, but it is rubbish if you try to conclude "work is the same in all frames" by applying it in reference frames where it is wrong.

As is clear in your Major Tom example, an emDrive that works as described would trivially be used as an energy generator, either breaking conservation of energy, or requiring some sort of new physics explanation (such as Mach effect, degradable quantum vacuum, etc.) A basic principle of any such new physics explanation is that it would introduce a meaningful external reference frame.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/24/2017 04:13 pm
W in the equation is work, which is clearly the case.
Every other variable in the first equation was a unit. While you can see I was able to interpret what you meant this time, unless you are deliberately trying to misinform and confuse, you should use variables the same way everyone else does.

The equation calculates the Work that is done on mass over a fixed time. It is valid.

As N, kg & sec are frame invarient, the work done by a fixed force on a fixed mass over a fixed time is also frame invarient.
It is not valid unless the initial velocity in the frame you are using is zero. I clearly just demonstrated this.

There is no velocity in the inertial frame of the EmDrive. Needs another frame to provide a velocity reference. But which to use: Velocity of orbit around galactic hub? Velocity of orbit around the sun? There are almost an infinite number to choose from.
Actually there are a full uncountably infinite number to choose from, and they all work equally well.

Or maybe zero velocity from the last inertial frame of the EmDrive before acceleration started? To me that rest frame as zero velocity at the start of acceleration makes sense.
That is a reasonable choice, but you cannot draw conclusions about different frames when your equation only works in the one.

When moving from place to place in space dV is the only value of interest, as in my Major Tom example. All he needs is the dV between his ship and the cold beer on the spin station. There are no absolute velocities in space, only dV between 2 objects in which we can safely assume our ships velocity is zero and we need to add or subtract the dV via application of Force, to do Work on Mass, to achieve the desired dV change,

Glad to see you accept my Work during acceleration equation is not rubbish.
No, of course it isn't rubbish, it is trivial to derive, but it is rubbish if you try to conclude "work is the same in all frames" by applying it in reference frames where it is wrong.

As is clear in your Major Tom example, an emDrive that works as described would trivially be used as an energy generator, either breaking conservation of energy, or requiring some sort of new physics explanation (such as Mach effect, degradable quantum vacuum, etc.) A basic principle of any such new physics explanation is that it would introduce a meaningful external reference frame.

It's easy to see that different observers see the work done by a force different for each frame. They see the force act over a different distance thus generate different work which exactly matches the different gains in kinetic energy each observer sees. The Work Energy Theorem translates between frames. In principle, different observers could extract such energy and use it quite aside from the EMDrive example. Trivially, you negatively benefit from such an effect if your relative velocity is higher to an object about to collide with you. The impact on you is real.  ;D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/24/2017 05:07 pm
We could say any mass in another inertial frame is OU. The space rock that hits another space rock delivers energy to it that was not imparted to it in the frame of the impacted space rock.

As I have shown, the EmDrive, in it's frame, can not generate excess energy as the energy to do Work on Mass to alter it's dV has come from the input Rf energy.

So for Major Tom, using the last rest frame to measure his ships velocity increase is perfectly valid and doing the burn calcs using just N, mass and time will see his ship's dV vs the spin station drop to zero as he docks and enjoys his cold beer,
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/24/2017 05:17 pm
We could say any mass in another inertial frame is OU. The space rock that hits another space rock delivers energy to it that was not imparted to it in the frame of the impacted space rock.
There is no frame where at least one of the rocks wasn't already moving, so there is always kinetic energy present, and if you added it all up, you would never find a case where the total energy changed.

As I have shown, the EmDrive, in it's frame, can not generate excess energy as the energy to do Work on Mass to alter it's dV has come from the input Rf energy.
By "in its frame" do you mean the accelerating frame, because you have to do extra math when trying to do energy calculations in an accelerating frame and you have never done this.

So for Major Tom, using the last rest frame to measure his ships velocity increase is perfectly valid and doing the burn calcs using just N, mass and time will see his ship's dV vs the spin station drop to zero as he docks and enjoys his cold beer,
Using his initial rest frame is fine, and it clearly results in generating massively more kinetic energy than the electrical input energy. It would be simple to build a device that makes use of this and turns the kinetic energy into electrical energy.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RonM on 08/24/2017 05:23 pm
As I have shown, the EmDrive, in it's frame, can not generate excess energy as the energy to do Work on Mass to alter it's dV has come from the input Rf energy.

If the EM drive in your example is accelerating and your frame is based on the vehicle itself, then it is an accelerating frame, not an inertial frame. Newton's laws of motion do not apply in an accelerating frame.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/24/2017 05:25 pm
Using his initial rest frame is fine, and it clearly results in generating massively more kinetic energy than the electrical input energy. It would be simple to build a device that makes use of this and turns the kinetic energy into electrical energy.

You clearly have not been following what I have shown. During acceleration, as the KE climbs, the force generated drops, acceleration drops and velocity increase drops.

There is no OU when you understand the dynamics and do the maths.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/24/2017 05:31 pm
As I have shown, the EmDrive, in it's frame, can not generate excess energy as the energy to do Work on Mass to alter it's dV has come from the input Rf energy.

If the EM drive in your example is accelerating and your frame is based on the vehicle itself, then it is an accelerating frame, not an inertial frame. Newton's laws of motion do not apply in an accelerating frame.

Work = (N^2 * sec^2) / (2 * kg) works fine.

Is based on the rest frame of the mass just before acceleration started. Only need to know N, kg & sec of acceleration.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/24/2017 06:26 pm
As I have shown, the EmDrive, in it's frame, can not generate excess energy as the energy to do Work on Mass to alter it's dV has come from the input Rf energy.

If the EM drive in your example is accelerating and your frame is based on the vehicle itself, then it is an accelerating frame, not an inertial frame. Newton's laws of motion do not apply in an accelerating frame.

Work = (N^2 * sec^2) / (2 * kg) works fine.

Is based on the rest frame of the mass just before acceleration started. Only need to know N, kg & sec of acceleration.
What about the sentence "Newton's laws of motion do not apply in an accelerating frame." did you not understand?

Using his initial rest frame is fine, and it clearly results in generating massively more kinetic energy than the electrical input energy. It would be simple to build a device that makes use of this and turns the kinetic energy into electrical energy.

You clearly have not been following what I have shown. During acceleration, as the KE climbs, the force generated drops, acceleration drops and velocity increase drops.

There is no OU when you understand the dynamics and do the maths.
You are the one who needs to do some math.
You have not provided any equation describing how the acceleration changes with velocity (and I can't come up with one myself, because it is a logically inconsistent idea, since you can just stop the drive, restart it, and the efficiency comes back anyway.)

From your talk of pulsing before, there shouldn't be much change in the force produced over 1 second right?

Why don't you tell me how much kinetic energy Major Tom's ship has after accelerating full throttle for 1 second? (This obviously uses 100 kJ of energy from the battery)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/24/2017 06:48 pm
Why don't you tell me how much kinetic energy Major Tom's ship has after accelerating full throttle for 1 second? (This obviously uses 100 kJ of energy from the battery)

I have already posted the calculator. Simple for you to use.

Work = (N^2 * sec^2) / (2 * kg) is fully complient with Newtons laws.

What amazes me is you seem to be suggesting what someone at the galactic hub would calculate as the work done would somehow have an effect on the real world Work done during x seconds of acceleration on the mass of Major Tom's ship. Of course the galactic hub results will have no effect. So making calculations of Work after acceleration, based on anything other than the rest frame just before acceleration starts and after it finishes will result in non reality results.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/24/2017 07:24 pm
Why don't you tell me how much kinetic energy Major Tom's ship has after accelerating full throttle for 1 second? (This obviously uses 100 kJ of energy from the battery)

I have already posted the calculator. Simple for you to use.

Work = (N^2 * sec^2) / (2 * kg) is fully complient with Newtons laws.
50000^2*1/(2*4000) = 312500 J (312.5 kJ)
Are you still denying that the emDrive as described generates energy? 100kJ in this situation produces 312.5 kJ.

You also have not in fact provided a calculator for the force reduction versus time, because the last excel sheet you provided was one that assumed constant force. You have not explained what math is behind the recent graph you posted.

Also, I already told you that using units like "kg" instead of variables like "m" is something that you should not do unless you are deliberately trying to confuse or misinform. I therefore conclude that you have no interest in real communication.

What amazes me is you seem to be suggesting what someone at the galactic hub would calculate as the work done would somehow have an effect on the real world Work done during x seconds of acceleration on the mass of Major Tom's ship. Of course the galactic hub results will have no effect. So making calculations of Work after acceleration, based on anything other than the rest frame just before acceleration starts and after it finishes will result in non reality results.
What amazes me is that you still don't get that while the kinetic energy of an object is obviously frame dependent, conservation of energy is something that holds in any frame, and an emDrive as described by you or Shawyer breaks this in every frame.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/24/2017 08:41 pm
Why don't you tell me how much kinetic energy Major Tom's ship has after accelerating full throttle for 1 second? (This obviously uses 100 kJ of energy from the battery)

I have already posted the calculator. Simple for you to use.

Work = (N^2 * sec^2) / (2 * kg) is fully complient with Newtons laws.
50000^2*1/(2*4000) = 312500 J (312.5 kJ)
Are you still denying that the emDrive as described generates energy? 100kJ in this situation produces 312.5 kJ.

You also have not in fact provided a calculator for the force reduction versus time, because the last excel sheet you provided was one that assumed constant force. You have not explained what math is behind the recent graph you posted.

Also, I already told you that using units like "kg" instead of variables like "m" is something that you should not do unless you are deliberately trying to confuse or misinform. I therefore conclude that you have no interest in real communication.

What amazes me is you seem to be suggesting what someone at the galactic hub would calculate as the work done would somehow have an effect on the real world Work done during x seconds of acceleration on the mass of Major Tom's ship. Of course the galactic hub results will have no effect. So making calculations of Work after acceleration, based on anything other than the rest frame just before acceleration starts and after it finishes will result in non reality results.
What amazes me is that you still don't get that while the kinetic energy of an object is obviously frame dependent, conservation of energy is something that holds in any frame, and an emDrive as described by you or Shawyer breaks this in every frame.

As KE increases, force drops as the increasing KE drains cavity energy, dropping Q and dropping force. Just like a battery's output voltage drops as load increases. Different dog but same leg action.

It would seem that if Major Tom does a long burn, when his ship has moved 30,000km, the dV change will only be aporox 50% of what he needs as attached.

This plot is based on over 500k points.

BTW there is CofE within a frame based on last rest frame to acceleration finished rest frame. As for CofE vs say the galactic hub to our mass's frame, never will happen. That galactic hub data will have no effect on what happens in the local frame of our ship's mass.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: wicoe on 08/24/2017 09:09 pm
Quote
As KE increases, force drops as the increasing KE drains cavity energy, dropping Q and dropping force. Just like a battery's output voltage drops as load increases. Different dog but same leg action.

No, KE is a totally different beast as it is frame dependent, while forces are not.  KE increasing in one frame is KE decreasing in another.  Non-KE (i.e. battery) power cannot be converted into motion for the center of mass - it can only be used to push things apart.

Quote
BTW there is CofE within a frame based on last rest frame to acceleration finished rest frame. As for CofE vs say the galactic hub to our mass's frame, never will happen. That galactic hub data will have no effect on what happens in the local frame of our ship's mass.

CoE must hold in any inertial reference frame.  Why is this so hard to accept?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/24/2017 09:25 pm
Quote
As KE increases, force drops as the increasing KE drains cavity energy, dropping Q and dropping force. Just like a battery's output voltage drops as load increases. Different dog but same leg action.

No, KE is a totally different beast as it is frame dependent, while forces are not.  KE increasing in one frame is KE decreasing in another.  Non-KE (i.e. battery) power cannot be converted into motion for the center of mass - it can only be used to push things apart.

Quote
BTW there is CofE within a frame based on last rest frame to acceleration finished rest frame. As for CofE vs say the galactic hub to our mass's frame, never will happen. That galactic hub data will have no effect on what happens in the local frame of our ship's mass.

CoE must hold in any inertial reference frame.  Why is this so hard to accept?

Energy loss per cycle vs total cavity energy defines Q, which factors into EmDrive force being N = 2 * Q * Pwr * Df / c.

During continual acceleration, as KE increases, the energy to support increasing Work and KE is sourced from cavity energy, increasing energy loss per cycle, dropping Q and dropping N.

Why is this so hard to accept?

Yes Work, KE and increasing velocity are conserved betwern the various local frames of Major Tom ship's mass. Ie initial pre acceleration inertial frame (v = 0) vs post acceleration inertial frame (v = dV).

However Work, distance moved and KE are non invarient between frames where initial velocity is not = zero.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/24/2017 09:41 pm
During continual acceleration, as KE increases, the energy to support increasing Work and KE is sourced from cavity energy, increasing energy loss per cycle, dropping Q and dropping N.

Why is this so hard to accept?
Because it makes no sense, it implies that an emdrive that has been accelerating for 10 minutes will produce less force than one that has been accelerating for 10 seconds, when there is nothing physically different between them. There is no mechanism by which it can tell the difference, the RF is from a co-moving source, so there will not be Doppler problems, and you have claimed that simply turning it back off and then back on will reset the magic tracking how long it was running for by some additional magic.

Now go back and take a look at the example of Major Tom's ship running for 1 second. It produces 3 times the energy that was put in.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 08/24/2017 09:52 pm
During continual acceleration, as KE increases, the energy to support increasing Work and KE is sourced from cavity energy, increasing energy loss per cycle, dropping Q and dropping N.

Why is this so hard to accept?
Because it makes no sense, it implies that an emdrive that has been accelerating for 10 minutes will produce less force than one that has been accelerating for 10 seconds, when there is nothing physically different between them. There is no mechanism by which it can tell the difference, the RF is from a co-moving source, so there will not be Doppler problems, and you have claimed that simply turning it back off and then back on will reset the magic tracking how long it was running for by some additional magic.

Now go back and take a look at the example of Major Tom's ship running for 1 second. It produces 3 times the energy that was put in.
Therefore there is an easy way to resolve this (besides using "prior beliefs" and accepted laws of physics): does Shawyer have experimental data showing this phenomenon ?  ( that an emdrive that has been accelerating for 10 minutes will produce less force than one that has been accelerating for 10 seconds, and that  simply turning it back off and then back on will reset the magic tracking how long it was running for by some additional magic)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/24/2017 10:00 pm
During continual acceleration, as KE increases, the energy to support increasing Work and KE is sourced from cavity energy, increasing energy loss per cycle, dropping Q and dropping N.

Why is this so hard to accept?
Because it makes no sense, it implies that an emdrive that has been accelerating for 10 minutes will produce less force than one that has been accelerating for 10 seconds, when there is nothing physically different between them. There is no mechanism by which it can tell the difference, the RF is from a co-moving source, so there will not be Doppler problems, and you have claimed that simply turning it back off and then back on will reset the magic tracking how long it was running for by some additional magic.

Now go back and take a look at the example of Major Tom's ship running for 1 second. It produces 3 times the energy that was put in.

There is a fixed amount of energy entering the cavity per cycle. Increasing KE and Work energy,  due to increasing velocity, is supplied from that fixed cavity energy input, which increases energy loss per cycle, dropping Q and dropping thrust.

Ie there is only one fixed size pie. As increasing KE takes an increasing slice of the pie, the remaining pie is less capable of producing force.

Not complex, just real world physics.

As for Major Tom's ship, with initial acceleration of 12.5m/s^2, the KE significantly increases on a millisecond level, reducing thrust very quickly as you can see in the plot I posted which is based on a 65ms resolution over 500k samples.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/24/2017 10:08 pm
During continual acceleration, as KE increases, the energy to support increasing Work and KE is sourced from cavity energy, increasing energy loss per cycle, dropping Q and dropping N.

Why is this so hard to accept?
Because it makes no sense, it implies that an emdrive that has been accelerating for 10 minutes will produce less force than one that has been accelerating for 10 seconds, when there is nothing physically different between them. There is no mechanism by which it can tell the difference, the RF is from a co-moving source, so there will not be Doppler problems, and you have claimed that simply turning it back off and then back on will reset the magic tracking how long it was running for by some additional magic.

Now go back and take a look at the example of Major Tom's ship running for 1 second. It produces 3 times the energy that was put in.

There is a fixed amount of energy entering the cavity per cycle. Increasing KE and Work energy,  due to increasing velocity, is supplied from that fixed cavity energy input, which increases energy loss per cycle, dropping Q and dropping thrust.
In its instantaneous rest frame at any point it is not moving, and there is literally nothing different about it so there is no reason it would be producing less thrust. You have described no mechanism that would in any way be capable of tracking "time since it last was off."

As for Major Tom's ship, with initial acceleration of 12.5m/s^2, the KE significantly increases on a millisecond level, reducing thrust very quickly as you can see in the plot I posted which is based on a 65ms resolution over 500k samples.
Telling me the resolution and number of samples tells me nothing about the equation you are using. What velocity do you claim his ship is moving at after 1 second, and how exactly do you arrive at that answer?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/24/2017 10:20 pm
During continual acceleration, as KE increases, the energy to support increasing Work and KE is sourced from cavity energy, increasing energy loss per cycle, dropping Q and dropping N.

Why is this so hard to accept?
Because it makes no sense, it implies that an emdrive that has been accelerating for 10 minutes will produce less force than one that has been accelerating for 10 seconds, when there is nothing physically different between them. There is no mechanism by which it can tell the difference, the RF is from a co-moving source, so there will not be Doppler problems, and you have claimed that simply turning it back off and then back on will reset the magic tracking how long it was running for by some additional magic.

Now go back and take a look at the example of Major Tom's ship running for 1 second. It produces 3 times the energy that was put in.
Therefore there is an easy way to resolve this (besides using "prior beliefs" and accepted laws of physics): does Shawyer have experimental data showing this phenomenon ?  ( that an emdrive that has been accelerating for 10 minutes will produce less force than one that has been accelerating for 10 seconds, and that  simply turning it back off and then back on will reset the magic tracking how long it was running for by some additional magic)

There is no magic.
Just physics based on local, to the accelerating mass, pre and post acceleration rest frames.

During acceleration, the energy that supports increasing KE is sourced from cavity energy, which drops Q and drops force. To think force is constant as KE increases and there is a constant inflow of Rf energy is madness.

The EmDrive was never OU, except to those that never bothered to listen to Roger who has always said cavity energy is divided between energy to support KE and that left to generate thrust.

Please listen to what Roger explains from 11.32
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBtk6xWDrwY?t=690

Consider that if KE = cavity input energy then energy loss per cycle = input energy per cycle,  Q = 1 and thrust is < photon rocket thrust as Df < 1.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Gilbertdrive on 08/24/2017 11:36 pm
During continual acceleration, as KE increases, the energy to support increasing Work and KE is sourced from cavity energy, increasing energy loss per cycle, dropping Q and dropping N.

Why is this so hard to accept?
Because it makes no sense, it implies that an emdrive that has been accelerating for 10 minutes will produce less force than one that has been accelerating for 10 seconds, when there is nothing physically different between them. There is no mechanism by which it can tell the difference, the RF is from a co-moving source, so there will not be Doppler problems, and you have claimed that simply turning it back off and then back on will reset the magic tracking how long it was running for by some additional magic.

Now go back and take a look at the example of Major Tom's ship running for 1 second. It produces 3 times the energy that was put in.
Therefore there is an easy way to resolve this (besides using "prior beliefs" and accepted laws of physics): does Shawyer have experimental data showing this phenomenon ?  ( that an emdrive that has been accelerating for 10 minutes will produce less force than one that has been accelerating for 10 seconds, and that  simply turning it back off and then back on will reset the magic tracking how long it was running for by some additional magic)

There is no magic.
Just physics based on local, to the accelerating mass, pre and post acceleration rest frames.

During acceleration, the energy that supports increasing KE is sourced from cavity energy, which drops Q and drops force. To think force is constant as KE increases and there is a constant inflow of Rf energy is madness.

The EmDrive was never OU, except to those that never bothered to listen to Roger who has always said cavity energy is divided between energy to support KE and that left to generate thrust.

Please listen to what Roger explains from 11.32
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBtk6xWDrwY?t=690

Consider that if KE = cavity input energy then energy loss per cycle = input energy per cycle,  Q = 1 and thrust is < photon rocket thrust as Df < 1.

If I understand correctly, the position that you support now is that the relevant Kinetic Energy has to be considered in the reference frame where the drive speed was zero before it started. And if the drive stops and start again, the reference frame is replaced by a new one where the speed start again to zero.

Is it OK, or did I miss something ?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 08/25/2017 01:05 am
During continual acceleration, as KE increases, the energy to support increasing Work and KE is sourced from cavity energy, increasing energy loss per cycle, dropping Q and dropping N.

Why is this so hard to accept?
Because it makes no sense, it implies that an emdrive that has been accelerating for 10 minutes will produce less force than one that has been accelerating for 10 seconds, when there is nothing physically different between them. There is no mechanism by which it can tell the difference, the RF is from a co-moving source, so there will not be Doppler problems, and you have claimed that simply turning it back off and then back on will reset the magic tracking how long it was running for by some additional magic.

Now go back and take a look at the example of Major Tom's ship running for 1 second. It produces 3 times the energy that was put in.
Therefore there is an easy way to resolve this (besides using "prior beliefs" and accepted laws of physics): does Shawyer have experimental data showing this phenomenon ?  ( that an emdrive that has been accelerating for 10 minutes will produce less force than one that has been accelerating for 10 seconds, and that  simply turning it back off and then back on will reset the magic tracking how long it was running for by some additional magic)

There is no magic.
Just physics based on local, to the accelerating mass, pre and post acceleration rest frames.

During acceleration, the energy that supports increasing KE is sourced from cavity energy, which drops Q and drops force. To think force is constant as KE increases and there is a constant inflow of Rf energy is madness.

The EmDrive was never OU, except to those that never bothered to listen to Roger who has always said cavity energy is divided between energy to support KE and that left to generate thrust.

Please listen to what Roger explains from 11.32
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBtk6xWDrwY?t=690

Consider that if KE = cavity input energy then energy loss per cycle = input energy per cycle,  Q = 1 and thrust is < photon rocket thrust as Df < 1.

This discussion on resolving FTL paradoxes " https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43385.msg1709370#msg1709370 " led to an interesting conclusion for me which I felt some what applies in this situation also.  I don't think you can just say, "I stopped accelerating so my frame is now a standard reference frame."  WarpTech brought up a good example of this problem by asking what we thought about the Twin Paradox.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

My take on it is when two twins exist on earth and one accelerates to near the speed of light and returns later one twin should be older than the other, and time should run slower for the twin near the speed of light.  In actuality the twin that accelerates tilts their time space cone and travels through time.  The twin that does not accelerate to near the speed of light does not tilt their space time cone and travel through time.  This suggests either one is traveling near the speed of light, or they are not. 

If the universe could just "forget" what frame you were in you would go back to having a flat time space axis after you stopped accelerating but in relativity this is not the case. 

Also the universe seems to know how fast we are moving with respect to the CMB here: 

Quote from: http://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~kolena/cmb.htm
By measuring the amount of the dipole anisotropy (the bluest part of the sky is .0033 K hotter than average), we can determine the magnitude of the earth's motion with respect to the CMB: the earth is moving at a speed of 370 km/s in the direction of the constellation Virgo.

From this site notice the difference between the frame not moving at near the speed of light (top) with respect to the (middle) image of some one moving near the speed of light that has a tilted time space axis.  [i.e. traveling through time. x-axis space tilts into the y-axis time]  (bottom image for reference between the two frames) I personally feel resolved one can not use ftl jumps to use relativity to move backwards in time so no paradox for me. This preservation of frames is one reason why I disagree that your frame can not just reset after not accelerating.
 http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/archives/000089.html
(http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/images/minkowski.png)
and
(http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/images/secondtransmission.png)

(http://www.theculture.org/rich/sharpblue/images/causalityviolation.png)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.LeBel on 08/25/2017 01:36 am
My main concern is that our Chinese friends have gone quiet. After all the buzz surrounding their secret testing and supposed space test there has not been a single word from them. Either their government put a halt on discussing the subject or people have lost interest. Both are detrimental to experimental progress and future cubesat missions. We need to push for more international LEO testing campaigns or something tangible since it seems that all theory discussion for the entire summer has not made any headway (no interesting calculations or continuation of Warptech's thrust equation). Even Peter Lauwer, who seemed to have a solid experimental setup, has gone quiet.

Still stuck on CoE and laser thrusters? Seriously? These are the oldest most worn out lines of thought and areas to debate. It almost seems like some are chatting for the sake of posting something, not contributing something new. Let's please move back to a higher level discussion involving the wide variety of actually new and relevant research and theory from Estes and Eagleworks and including peer reviewed sources fully compliant with the standard model or string theory. For example let's consider that we can now create two dimensional complicated floquet time crystals. You can start to see how a cavity lined with these may break causality for resonant particles within. Or rather that is the question: is it possible to create a macroscopic region of space with complex time... even a time machine based on the boundary conditions*? https://m.phys.org/news/2017-08-unconventional-quantum-optical-devices.html

In other research a tunable mode-based transparent metamaterial has been created allowing for a potential feedback system activating and automatically transmitting resonant waves above and below desired frequencies. This is huge for removing noise from the cavity and rejecting splatter if designed correctly and with well placed sensors, or even program the response profile into the material itself by using empirically determined eigenmode values and detected boundary incoming waveforms. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0030401817300652

Alternatively we could hypothesize about which metamaterials and permittivity would lead to the highest Q factor. There are exotic options such as near zero permittivity or time varying permittivity or even layered varying permittivity values (such as with silica wafers which can lead to lovely waveform variations depending on the metamterial. We are at the forefront of a brave new world of quantum optics and metamaterial research, why not increase the gain and tweak the properties of light which we desire in order to begin disproving theories of operation and improving thrust?

*see here also smolyaninov's old papers on symmetry breaking at negative refraction index and consider relativistic resonant electrons

... Something new?

All these empirical equations being shuffled around here contain the variable t for `time`. Nobody understands what Time is. Conclusion; nobody understands what they`re really doing. It is all empirical.

We control all variables except time. And gravity is just that; `the unequable flow of time from place to place`(Unruh).

Do we seriously want (or have a chance) to locally control the flow of time without first asking and understanding what time is?

We must first understand (not the description) how the universe makes gravity before we can do it ourselves.  It, is, that, simple.

Comments:
- We often see people saying something like `at a relativistic speed` or near c during some explanation. The fact is that GR is true at all speed as it has no lower bound where it stops or break down. It is just an empirical limit too often used for the engineering rounding off.  Physics (or philosophical) rounding off is not acceptable in the theory or explanation. It is only acceptable in the preparation of an empirical (measurable) demonstration. If I throw a ball, it gets heavier, even if it is not measurable, and it is certainly not insignificant in terms of understanding.

Food for thought
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: moreno7798 on 08/25/2017 01:47 am
During continual acceleration, as KE increases, the energy to support increasing Work and KE is sourced from cavity energy, increasing energy loss per cycle, dropping Q and dropping N.

Why is this so hard to accept?
Because it makes no sense, it implies that an emdrive that has been accelerating for 10 minutes will produce less force than one that has been accelerating for 10 seconds, when there is nothing physically different between them. There is no mechanism by which it can tell the difference, the RF is from a co-moving source, so there will not be Doppler problems, and you have claimed that simply turning it back off and then back on will reset the magic tracking how long it was running for by some additional magic.

Now go back and take a look at the example of Major Tom's ship running for 1 second. It produces 3 times the energy that was put in.

There is a fixed amount of energy entering the cavity per cycle. Increasing KE and Work energy,  due to increasing velocity, is supplied from that fixed cavity energy input, which increases energy loss per cycle, dropping Q and dropping thrust.
In its instantaneous rest frame at any point it is not moving, and there is literally nothing different about it so there is no reason it would be producing less thrust. You have described no mechanism that would in any way be capable of tracking "time since it last was off."

As for Major Tom's ship, with initial acceleration of 12.5m/s^2, the KE significantly increases on a millisecond level, reducing thrust very quickly as you can see in the plot I posted which is based on a 65ms resolution over 500k samples.
Telling me the resolution and number of samples tells me nothing about the equation you are using. What velocity do you claim his ship is moving at after 1 second, and how exactly do you arrive at that answer?

It would be nice if you re-enforced your counter argument with the math to prove your point. Regurgitating "No because I said so" means very little.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/25/2017 04:48 am
Because it makes no sense, it implies that an emdrive that has been accelerating for 10 minutes will produce less force than one that has been accelerating for 10 seconds, when there is nothing physically different between them. There is no mechanism by which it can tell the difference, the RF is from a co-moving source, so there will not be Doppler problems, and you have claimed that simply turning it back off and then back on will reset the magic tracking how long it was running for by some additional magic.

Now go back and take a look at the example of Major Tom's ship running for 1 second. It produces 3 times the energy that was put in.

There is a fixed amount of energy entering the cavity per cycle. Increasing KE and Work energy,  due to increasing velocity, is supplied from that fixed cavity energy input, which increases energy loss per cycle, dropping Q and dropping thrust.
In its instantaneous rest frame at any point it is not moving, and there is literally nothing different about it so there is no reason it would be producing less thrust. You have described no mechanism that would in any way be capable of tracking "time since it last was off."

As for Major Tom's ship, with initial acceleration of 12.5m/s^2, the KE significantly increases on a millisecond level, reducing thrust very quickly as you can see in the plot I posted which is based on a 65ms resolution over 500k samples.
Telling me the resolution and number of samples tells me nothing about the equation you are using. What velocity do you claim his ship is moving at after 1 second, and how exactly do you arrive at that answer?

It would be nice if you re-enforced your counter argument with the math to prove your point. Regurgitating "No because I said so" means very little.
I did, about 3 messages back, and I also was asking for equations from TT so that I can do further math, but he has yet to provide them. TT has yet to provide any math (except clearly wrong math that was promptly disproved) or coherent logic to back up any of his assertions. (Or experimental evidence as Rodal pointed out) Your comment would be better directed to TT, although his are more along the lines of "no because Shawyer said so" even though Shawyer has repeatedly demonstrated he can't even do a simple force balance.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 08/25/2017 10:15 am
Can we imagine that the EMdrive is an electric rocket with an invisible, inexhaustible reaction mass (which it finds along the way)?

It might be a miracle, but let's see if we can limit ourselves to just that miracle.

The rocket is always in its own rest frame. In that rest frame physics is always the same, the operation of the rocket is constant until it runs out of power supply. It seems unavoidable that the acceleration of the rocket is also constant, ie thrust is constant, in its instantaneous rest frame.

If the rocket were a chemical rocket, we would say that the KE of the rocket plus the KE of the exhaust equals (best case) the reduction in the chemical potential energy of the fuel, and be easily satisfied that that must be true in all inertial frames. That is completely independent of the acceleration profile of the rocket, in other words true for constant acceleration.

A chemical rocket can operate with any value of thrust/power dependent on the exhaust velocity.

So, it cannot be that such a (miraculous) electric rocket is necessarily OU when a corresponding chemical rocket, with exactly the same acceleration profile and thrust/power, is not.

As an aside, we are being pretty ambitious trying to calculate the energy balance when the exhaust is invisible and, for all we know, the potential energy of the vacuum might be changing...

If someone can clear up where I've gone wrong, I'd be very grateful.



Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 08/25/2017 02:42 pm
Can we imagine that the EMdrive is an electric rocket with an invisible, inexhaustible reaction mass (which it finds along the way)?

It might be a miracle, but let's see if we can limit ourselves to just that miracle.

The rocket is always in its own rest frame. In that rest frame physics is always the same, the operation of the rocket is constant until it runs out of power supply. It seems unavoidable that the acceleration of the rocket is also constant, ie thrust is constant, in its instantaneous rest frame.

If the rocket were a chemical rocket, we would say that the KE of the rocket plus the KE of the exhaust equals (best case) the reduction in the chemical potential energy of the fuel, and be easily satisfied that that must be true in all inertial frames. That is completely independent of the acceleration profile of the rocket, in other words true for constant acceleration.

A chemical rocket can operate with any value of thrust/power dependent on the exhaust velocity.

So, it cannot be that such a (miraculous) electric rocket is necessarily OU when a corresponding chemical rocket, with exactly the same acceleration profile and thrust/power, is not.

As an aside, we are being pretty ambitious trying to calculate the energy balance when the exhaust is invisible and, for all we know, the potential energy of the vacuum might be changing...

If someone can clear up where I've gone wrong, I'd be very grateful.
As I understand it, you are asking us to << imagine that the EMdrive is an electric rocket with an invisible, inexhaustible reaction mass (which it finds along the way)?>> and then for us to <<clear up where I've gone wrong, I'd be very grateful.>>.

Well, I would say that we should start by that first step.  What is the experimental, observational, logical or scientific basis to consider an "invisible, inexhaustible reaction mass (which it finds along the way)?"?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/25/2017 03:03 pm
Can we imagine that the EMdrive is an electric rocket with an invisible, inexhaustible reaction mass (which it finds along the way)?
Finding it along the way implies some relative velocity to that reaction mass and thrust/power is now a function of relative velocity to that medium. If you specify that part of the "miracle" is that you there is always some of that mass moving with the same velocity as the drive, then you still get the result that it is an energy generator, but you can now explain that the energy comes from the kinetic energy of that mass. (And logic implies you in some way locally depleted the parts of that mass moving with your velocity.)

A chemical rocket can operate with any value of thrust/power dependent on the exhaust velocity.

So, it cannot be that such a (miraculous) electric rocket is necessarily OU when a corresponding chemical rocket, with exactly the same acceleration profile and thrust/power, is not.
How would a normal rocket have the same acceleration profile and thrust/power? The mass of the normal rocket is changing, so constant acceleration involves a decreasing thrust. Thrust/power is not a well defined number for a standard rocket, because every frame seems a different kinetic energy of the exhaust. Conservation of energy only applies in an inertial frame, and due to the changing kinetic energy of the propellant before it is exhausted, it is simply not true that the chemical rocket can operate with an arbitrary thrust/power.


As an aside, we are being pretty ambitious trying to calculate the energy balance when the exhaust is invisible and, for all we know, the potential energy of the vacuum might be changing...
Shawyer's explanation of the device does not have invisible exhaust, since he claims no new physics. This means there is no exhaust velocity to worry about and the device trivially breaks conservation of energy and momentum. Theories where there is some form of exhaust don't necessarily do this, but most would introduce a special frame the efficiency is relative to based on the motion of the medium the emDrive is using as exhaust.

If someone can clear up where I've gone wrong, I'd be very grateful.
I hope this helps.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Gilbertdrive on 08/25/2017 04:02 pm

Shawyer's explanation of the device does not have invisible exhaust, since he claims no new physics. This means there is no exhaust velocity to worry about and the device trivially breaks conservation of energy and momentum. Theories where there is some form of exhaust don't necessarily do this, but most would introduce a special frame the efficiency is relative to based on the motion of the medium the emDrive is using as exhaust.

Very well summarized !
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/25/2017 06:44 pm
During continual acceleration, as KE increases, the energy to support increasing Work and KE is sourced from cavity energy, increasing energy loss per cycle, dropping Q and dropping N.

Why is this so hard to accept?
Because it makes no sense, it implies that an emdrive that has been accelerating for 10 minutes will produce less force than one that has been accelerating for 10 seconds, when there is nothing physically different between them. There is no mechanism by which it can tell the difference, the RF is from a co-moving source, so there will not be Doppler problems, and you have claimed that simply turning it back off and then back on will reset the magic tracking how long it was running for by some additional magic.

Now go back and take a look at the example of Major Tom's ship running for 1 second. It produces 3 times the energy that was put in.
Therefore there is an easy way to resolve this (besides using "prior beliefs" and accepted laws of physics): does Shawyer have experimental data showing this phenomenon ?  ( that an emdrive that has been accelerating for 10 minutes will produce less force than one that has been accelerating for 10 seconds, and that  simply turning it back off and then back on will reset the magic tracking how long it was running for by some additional magic)

There is no magic.
Just physics based on local, to the accelerating mass, pre and post acceleration rest frames.

During acceleration, the energy that supports increasing KE is sourced from cavity energy, which drops Q and drops force. To think force is constant as KE increases and there is a constant inflow of Rf energy is madness.

The EmDrive was never OU, except to those that never bothered to listen to Roger who has always said cavity energy is divided between energy to support KE and that left to generate thrust.

Please listen to what Roger explains from 11.32
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBtk6xWDrwY?t=690

Consider that if KE = cavity input energy then energy loss per cycle = input energy per cycle,  Q = 1 and thrust is < photon rocket thrust as Df < 1.

It might be more fruitful to consider that since a force is the gradient of some potential energy, what potential energy is created in the cavity whose gradient is the force? Then consider that the mechanisms that do that are lossy and that that energy ends up as heat. It doesn't necessarily take energy to maintain a force (like the force of a book resting on a table) but the mechanisms for EMDrive and MEGA drive devices are lossy. Finally, once to you create the force, just let nature do the work. She does the right amount of work as computed in every reference frame for all observers.

Also, I can accept that there would be a relationship between the force and acceleration but that could result from loss mechanisms due to Doppler shifts or other phenomenon and not from imparting kinetic energy to the device. If static tests show all the input Rf becomes heat, I suspect dynamic tests would show that too but that will eventually be testable. In fact, if the Rf energy is the source of the kinetic energy, then the cavity should be self-cooling under greater acceleration becoming even more efficient. There would be measurable less heat dissipated if the EMdrive is undergoing a constant acceleration than in a static test.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 08/25/2017 07:49 pm
….

There is no velocity in the inertial frame of the EmDrive. Needs another frame to provide a velocity reference. But which to use: Velocity of orbit around galactic hub? Velocity of orbit around the sun? There are almost an infinite number to choose from.

Or maybe zero velocity from the last inertial frame of the EmDrive before acceleration started? To me that rest frame as zero velocity at the start of acceleration makes sense.


TT, repeatedly it seems your argument(s) depend on interpreting the EmDrive within the context of Newtonian physics. Not even Special Relativity since it seems there is no clear account of relativistic effects.

When you continually attempt to invoke an ever changing rest frame of the EmDrive, as a preferred frame, you lock your argument to an entirely flat spacetime and the empty space of Newton. That is not even close to real world physics, even where Newtonian mechanics remains a valid approximation of the observable dynamics.

In reality, there is no time we can expect that any EmDrive will be operating outside of a gravitational field, the complexity of which increases as does the scope of discussion. Even the galactic hub and all other mass within the galaxy has some impact on what happens here in our local speck of spacetime.

The point is space is not empty in the Newtonian sense. Once you start talking about spaceships and EmDrives traveling to or between planets, space isn’t even entirely limited to conditions defined within Special Relativity.

Once you turn an EmDrive on, all acceleration, whether it is continuous or broken into a series of events, remains relative to its initial inertial rest frame. A frame of reference associated with the earth, the sun, the galaxy as a whole and even the stars and galaxies in the far distance.

You cannot when dealing with orbital mechanics and travel between planets, ignore the dynamics of the gravitational field, which in itself IS the constantly changing frame of reference, within which the drive’s performance must be evaluated.

Set aside the possibility of any sort of interaction with any interpretation of the quantum vacuum, your EmDrive is also moving and accelerating relative to a very real electromagnetic background, and the boundary conditions associated with that interaction, no matter how small, must be treated as real and asymmetric, as a function of both the local dynamics of acceleration, proximity of massive objects and the gravitational field in general.

Space is not empty in the Newtonian sense, not even flat in the sense of Special Relativity and any assumption that the EmDrive’s operation is dependent on a constantly changing instantaneous rest frame that moves with the drive, does not seem a realistic approach to a credible explanation of how it works.., if it works.

I still tend to hope/believe that an anomalous thrust will eventually be demonstrated. I am also certain that if/when it is, it will be the result of New Physics. Even if that New Physics winds up no more that an improved understanding of the dynamics of the interaction between a frustum and the contained resonating electromagnetic field(s).

You cannot dismiss the affect of the real world the drive moves through and relative to, by asserting that it functions relative to its own constantly changing instantaneous rest frame.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/26/2017 07:29 am
New EmDrive patent application
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/26/2017 07:32 am
You cannot dismiss the affect of the real world the drive moves through and relative to, by asserting that it functions relative to its own constantly changing instantaneous rest frame.

Of course it is more complex. However that does not invalidate using the pre acceleration rest frame as the initial velocity external frame to measure distance moved, Work done and KE gained.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/26/2017 07:38 am
Also, I can accept that there would be a relationship between the force and acceleration but that could result from loss mechanisms due to Doppler shifts or other phenomenon and not from imparting kinetic energy to the device. If static tests show all the input Rf becomes heat, I suspect dynamic tests would show that too but that will eventually be testable. In fact, if the Rf energy is the source of the kinetic energy, then the cavity should be self-cooling under greater acceleration becoming even more efficient. There would be measurable less heat dissipated if the EMdrive is undergoing a constant acceleration than in a static test.

Correct. Well deduced. There is less thermal radiation by the cavity as KE drains cavity energy.

Same thing happens with a 1m^2 solar panel,  ie no load = 1kW heat to radiate, 250W load = 750W to radiate.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/26/2017 07:47 am
As I understand it, you are asking us to << imagine that the EMdrive is an electric rocket with an invisible, inexhaustible reaction mass (which it finds along the way)?>> and then for us to <<clear up where I've gone wrong, I'd be very grateful.>>.

Well, I would say that we should start by that first step.  What is the experimental, observational, logical or scientific basis to consider an "invisible, inexhaustible reaction mass (which it finds along the way)?"?

No not at all.

Inelastic Compton effect photons impacting end plate bound metallic atom electrons allows momentum and energy transfer from the trapped impacting photons to the end plate metallic atoms. In reaction the photons lose momentum, energy and their wavelength increase.

It is the loss of trapped photon momentum and energy that provides the increased EmDrive momentum, Work done and KE increase.

Momentum is conserved and Energy is conserved.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 08/26/2017 10:17 am
TheTraveller,

You do realise that the wall electrons cannot differentiate between an incident wave which has been reflected and one which is original? The only way I could interpret your posts as making sense is if you claim that the walls transmit the KE in a different direction over time as they gain energy and increase current. So instead of the KE vector being net outward the vector becomes circular (locked dipole less overall net direction)?

This would make a bit more sense. At first the cavity absorbs/reflects/transmits incident waves in a net direction (big endian), though as current increases and the walls reach saturation more of the energy will be redirected towards the closed circuits and eddies both within the internal atmo and in the walls like baseballs in a hurricane.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/26/2017 02:41 pm
...
Momentum is conserved and Energy is conserved.
Momentum is obviously not conserved. Start with an emDrive at rest, it has 0 momentum. Run it for a while, and then turn it off. It now has momentum, but nothing has left the cavity, and there is nothing inside the cavity moving the opposite direction. The only thing that could possible leave the cavity is IR radiation, but that would at best have the momentum of a photon thruster. Obviously nothing in the cavity is moving the opposite direction, because if it was it would soon hit the back of the cavity and make the cavity stop moving forward.

Therefore there in now net forward momentum that a closed system has acquired from no external interactions. This is the very definition of breaking conservation of momentum.

Your counterargument  is logically equivalent to the following conversation between "A" and "B"

A: 1+1+1+1 = 5
B: that is wrong, and breaks basic addition
A: no it doesn't, because 1+1 = 2, so 1+1+1+1 = 2+2
B: yes, but 2+2 is not equal to 5.

It doesn't matter if you show that 1 intermediate step is done correctly, when there is another that is wrong.

Now why haven't you responded yet to the simple question I asked in the last post I directed to you? Are you afraid that you answer will allow me to demonstrate how wrong you are about energy conservation?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 08/26/2017 02:56 pm
meberbs - let me try another way. Drive a chemical rocket at constant proper acceleration along a given trajectory. Now send an emdrive on the same trajectory with the same proper acceleration, and an INVISIBLE exhaust. How can one necessarily be OU, but the other not? If you could see the exhaust they would appear identical to a distant observer.

Yes, it's a big miracle, violates standard physics, and we can't think how it might work. I don't think that changes the above. I'm not trying to argue that Shawyers explanation is correct. If it obeys standard physics, it breaks COE. But once we have concluded that it violates standard physics, onward deductions that it is OU are on shaky ground.

Rodal - thank you for your response, I hope you enjoyed it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: wicoe on 08/26/2017 03:05 pm
Now send an emdrive on the same trajectory with the same proper acceleration, and an INVISIBLE exhaust. How

What is more likely: a systematic experimental error or an "invisible exhaust"?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/26/2017 03:13 pm
Also, I can accept that there would be a relationship between the force and acceleration but that could result from loss mechanisms due to Doppler shifts or other phenomenon and not from imparting kinetic energy to the device. If static tests show all the input Rf becomes heat, I suspect dynamic tests would show that too but that will eventually be testable. In fact, if the Rf energy is the source of the kinetic energy, then the cavity should be self-cooling under greater acceleration becoming even more efficient. There would be measurable less heat dissipated if the EMdrive is undergoing a constant acceleration than in a static test.

Correct. Well deduced. There is less thermal radiation by the cavity as KE drains cavity energy.

Same thing happens with a 1m^2 solar panel,  ie no load = 1kW heat to radiate, 250W load = 750W to radiate.

Are you saying that in principle or in practice? In other words, I'd really have to see data for an accelerating cavity.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 08/26/2017 03:42 pm
New EmDrive patent application

Phil. Perfect find. I did some digging around. That guy is a british billionaire businessman or at least they have same names. Will be looking for more information about him.

Ok correction: He is not a billionare. Just the same name. The guy is an american rotating equipment engineer working in turbine industry. Good luck to him in his endeavour.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/26/2017 03:56 pm
...
Momentum is conserved and Energy is conserved.
Momentum is obviously not conserved. Start with an emDrive at rest, it has 0 momentum. Run it for a while, and then turn it off. It now has momentum, but nothing has left the cavity, and there is nothing inside the cavity moving the opposite direction. The only thing that could possible leave the cavity is IR radiation, but that would at best have the momentum of a photon thruster. Obviously nothing in the cavity is moving the opposite direction, because if it was it would soon hit the back of the cavity and make the cavity stop moving forward.

Therefore there in now net forward momentum that a closed system has acquired from no external interactions. This is the very definition of breaking conservation of momentum.


I'm not saying I know but I'm uncomfortable with the statement that we know the only possible thing that can leave the cavity is IR radiation. It's a reasonable and logical assertion to be sure, but is it actually true? I think we should look more closely at Lorentz forces created in the device. Naturally, the very first thought anyone would have is that all such forces would necessarily cancel. They certainly do under the usual assumptions of steady state or quasi static induced currents. But Newton's Third Law is known to not hold in electrodynamic situations where events are spacelike due to the finite speed of light (see Feynman's Lectures). Therefore, a net force may occur under specific conditions. Here is some theoretical support;

http://przyrbwn.icm.edu.pl/APP/PDF/131/a131z5p21.pdf

 Miron Tuval & Asher Yahalom "Newton’s Third Law in the Framework of Special ‎Relativity" Eur. Phys. J. Plus (11 Nov 2014) 129: 240 DOI: 10.1140/epjp/i2014-14240-x. (arXiv:1302.2537 [physics.gen-‎ph]).‎

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjp/i2016-16374-1


Tuval and Yahalom show two current loops can have a net Lorentz force on the system which includes both which constitutes a space drive. Even Kirk McDonald of Princeton accepts that it works but thinks it wouldn't have any more momentum than a photon rocket. Of course, they disagree and show the momentum carried by the fields equal the momentum generated by the force on the device. So the debate continues.

http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/tuval.pdf

Some points to consider about Lorentz forces on currents. First, magnetic fields pass through wires and could also pass through cavity walls. A century of electric motor design where fields pass through thick loops of copper wires proves that. So momentum carrying magnetic fields could escape. Then, in motors and other electrical devices, great forces and force changes are mediated by magnetic fields. Thus, huge amounts of momentum are mediated by those fields. Strictly speaking, they are always disjointed in time and thus the fields must be carrying momentum. The great internal forces cancel by Newtons Third Law on average so we don't notice any violations.

If true, it may be that the EMDrive is unintentionally creating such conditions and they are not optimized. I suspect the Cannae drive is more optimized for Lorentz forces. My suspicions are that Yahalom is correct.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: nickolas on 08/26/2017 04:13 pm
Here is a link to a video describing a new experiment which could provide a common explanation for EmDrive and Woodward effect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klgfRjn3dX4. Mr. Shawyer ignores the collisions with the oblique walls of the cavity, but they might be the actual explanation for the thrust. Mr. Woodward describes a propulsion concept based on transient mass fluctuations due to the influence of distant matter, but that is difficult to prove.

The video on the provided link describes a simple device that can be used to manipulate mass locally in order to verify if a closed system can generate thrust without expelling mass.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/26/2017 04:23 pm
New EmDrive patent application

This may be the inventor:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrew-currie-p-eng-b2549072/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 08/26/2017 04:58 pm
You cannot dismiss the affect of the real world the drive moves through and relative to, by asserting that it functions relative to its own constantly changing instantaneous rest frame.

Of course it is more complex. However that does not invalidate using the pre acceleration rest frame as the initial velocity external frame to measure distance moved, Work done and KE gained.

TT, I don't think you understand what I am attempting to say. Your argument depends on an EmDrive’s constantly changing instantaneous rest frame (inertial frame), in the context of velocity or acceleration, as being equivalent, one after another.., the same.., as defined within special relativity. That is not an accurate real world assumption, because it ignores the affect of location in a gravitational field. It isn't even fully compatible with special relativity.

The work required to produce a specific increase in velocity is different if your drive starts on a launch pad on earth or from LEO. In a way, that is what makes the promise of an EmDrive with even a few N/Kw exciting, because from LEO a few N/Kw wold make travel to and from a lunar base routine and travel to Mars and beyond, realistically possible. Forget about the Station keeping potential for low altitude spy satellite possibilities.

When you talk about work done and kinetic energy gained, your argument assumes that every instantaneous rest frame is exactly the same as all earlier instantaneous rest frames. That is not true in a gravitational field. The previously acquired velocity is a critical component of your instantaneous rest frame's stability and cannot be ignored in any attempt to calculate the total accumulated KE.


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 08/26/2017 05:07 pm
Now send an emdrive on the same trajectory with the same proper acceleration, and an INVISIBLE exhaust. How

What is more likely: a systematic experimental error or an "invisible exhaust"?

The fact of the matter is, nobody has done any experiments to determine if there is any exhaust coming out or not. We can all guess what the answer is, but until someone tests for it, there is no data.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 08/26/2017 05:30 pm
Now send an emdrive on the same trajectory with the same proper acceleration, and an INVISIBLE exhaust. How

What is more likely: a systematic experimental error or an "invisible exhaust"?

The fact of the matter is, nobody has done any experiments to determine if there is any exhaust coming out or not. We can all guess what the answer is, but until someone tests for it, there is no data.

There were those Eagleworks interferometer tests, but they haven't published anything about them yet.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 08/26/2017 06:06 pm
As I understand it, you are asking us to << imagine that the EMdrive is an electric rocket with an invisible, inexhaustible reaction mass (which it finds along the way)?>> and then for us to <<clear up where I've gone wrong, I'd be very grateful.>>.

Well, I would say that we should start by that first step.  What is the experimental, observational, logical or scientific basis to consider an "invisible, inexhaustible reaction mass (which it finds along the way)?"?

No not at all.

Inelastic Compton effect photons impacting end plate bound metallic atom electrons allows momentum and energy transfer from the trapped impacting photons to the end plate metallic atoms. In reaction the photons lose momentum, energy and their wavelength increase.

It is the loss of trapped photon momentum and energy that provides the increased EmDrive momentum, Work done and KE increase.

Momentum is conserved and Energy is conserved.

The concept of the cavity acquiring momentum from light is a bit complicated.  Part of the problem is that the light emitted inside the cavity has no net momentum to begin with when emitted in all directions.  Hypothetically speaking, the light or cavity charges acquire net momentum because of suggested coupling/uncoupling to something invisible which can change their mass.  The ball bouncing in the cavity can not accelerate the cavity unless it has some where to dump its energy outside the cavity.  If the cavity accelerates one direction the back reaction on the invisible mass should be in the opposite direction.  If its light the light must be heavier at one end than the other. 

When light bounces off an object it can go through a red-shift from accelerating it which is very similar to a frame shift.  If the frame of the light just before absorption was decelerated we might have the back reaction to red-shift the light for an object at starting zero velocity.  This is very similar to when light enters water for instance.  The measured impulse of light in water has been measured to increase vs a vacuum but there appears to be a back reaction on the water. 

If this invisible vacuum is similar and for some reason its density varies inside the cavity it might cause a gradient in some index.  Such a variation in the index could be used to change the impulse from the light and the back reaction would be on the vacuum.  The vacuum being some how free to move through the cavity but maybe the density being disturbed by the energy density inside. 

Another problem is assuming this invisible frame.  Relativity seems to imply either your moving with respect to the vacuum or your not which seems to correlate to the tilting of the space time axis on the light cone.  Either your moving near the speed of light or you are not.  If one creates a light pulse inside the cavity near the speed of light I have my suspicions such a light impulse would not appear symmetric inside the cavity in that the frequency hitting the front of the cavity would have the same wavelength hitting the rear of the cavity. 

I suspect the light striking the front of the cavity would appear red-shifted because the light moving with the vacuum would appear to be moving away from the direction of the cavity.  The back of the cavity would appear to see blue-shifted light because the stimulated vacuum is moving toward the back of the near c moving cavity.  Similar to a car pushing off a moving road [Preservation of frames] https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1715978#msg1715978 .  The speed of light might be constant locally but the wavelength I don't believe has to be. 

There fore I suspect the devices has limits to any maximum speed it can reach corresponding to the magnitude of coupling/un-coupling to the vacuum or the magnitude of the change in mass.  (I.e. when the loss in light wavelength (energy) to the front of the cavity, via cavity near c movement equals the net difference in energy imparted via the woodward effect.)  Energy should be lost to the imparted kinetic energy of the coupled invisible mass.

So is there anyway we can some how take the vacuum with us?  Possibly by using the vacuum to swim with via a transverse toroid circulation [ https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39464.msg1484673#msg1484673 ].  Keep our local inner vacuum flowing forwards while causing the outer vacuum to flow backwards.  We know the vacuum appears to be able to circulate as it does via the frame dragging effect.  To what magnitude we can achieve this... time will tell. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/26/2017 06:43 pm
...
Momentum is conserved and Energy is conserved.
Momentum is obviously not conserved. Start with an emDrive at rest, it has 0 momentum. Run it for a while, and then turn it off. It now has momentum, but nothing has left the cavity, and there is nothing inside the cavity moving the opposite direction. The only thing that could possible leave the cavity is IR radiation, but that would at best have the momentum of a photon thruster. Obviously nothing in the cavity is moving the opposite direction, because if it was it would soon hit the back of the cavity and make the cavity stop moving forward.

Therefore there in now net forward momentum that a closed system has acquired from no external interactions. This is the very definition of breaking conservation of momentum.


I'm not saying I know but I'm uncomfortable with the statement that we know the only possible thing that can leave the cavity is IR radiation. It's a reasonable and logical assertion to be sure, but is it actually true?
I probably should have stated this again in my original post, but in my responses to TT, I specifically work under the assumption of "no new physics" that Shawyer claims. Under this assumption the only thing that leaves the cavity is clearly EM radiation, almost entirely in the form of IR, but the frequency is irrelevant. In Shawyers description, there explicitly are no external fields or other matter that Lorentz or other forces can push on.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/26/2017 06:59 pm
Here is a link to a video describing a new experiment which could provide a common explanation for EmDrive and Woodward effect:
The video is fine up until about 3:25, when it starts incorrectly describing the delay. The box would have equal and opposite momentum to the yellow ball. This momentum would initially only be in the right wall, so it would be moving faster to the right than the yellow ball is moving to the left (say the right wall has mass m/4, the wall will be moving at speed 4*v). This stretches the material as the right wall tries to pull away. The elastic forces holding the material together act to slow down the right wall while accelerating the rest of the box. Total momentum in the box remains the same m*v to the right. When the shock wave reaches where the red balls are, additional force is needed to accelerate them, so the rest of the cavity slows down further, finally ending up moving to the right at speed v/3.

Edit: One nit with earlier in the video is where it says physicists are "wrong" for saying that you can't move your car by pushing on the dashboard, because physicists typically would mean doing so while sitting in the seat so you can't move backwards. This seems like they are deliberately looking for a nit so they can say "I am smarter than physicists," when their later wrong statements show that they aren't.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: nickolas on 08/26/2017 07:47 pm
say the right wall has mass m/4, the wall will be moving at speed 4*v [...] The elastic forces holding the material together act to slow down the right wall while accelerating the rest of the box. Total momentum in the box remains the same m*v to the right.

By that logic, if you apply momentum conservation law to tiniest part of the wall near the yellow ball it would result that that part of the wall moves with speeds higher than speed of light. They pointed that aspect in the video. If the elastic forces act to slow down (that is, pull the right walk in the opposite direction) then, as the rest of the frame catches up with the moving one, the elastic forces should push to accelerate the returning part of the wall. The real question is how do we apply momentum conservation and distribute it over the entire frame in the described device? Everything comes down to how inertia propagates through the material if those micro forces tend to slow down the object (or parts of it). And it seems they raised that point in the video.

Probably they were a little ironical towards some physicists that pretend mathematical and logical accuracy from others, but they are sloppy and insulting when they refuse to investigate EmDrive.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/26/2017 08:20 pm
say the right wall has mass m/4, the wall will be moving at speed 4*v [...] The elastic forces holding the material together act to slow down the right wall while accelerating the rest of the box. Total momentum in the box remains the same m*v to the right.

By that logic, if you apply momentum conservation law to tiniest part of the wall near the yellow ball it would result that that part of the wall moves with speeds higher than speed of light.
No. A finite force is used to accelerate the ball and the cavity in some finite amount of time. This finite time allows more of the wall to be affected.

The description in the video is simply wrong.

They pointed that aspect in the video.
If you mean what they said at 6:30, then by that point in the video everything they were saying was basically incoherent gibberish.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: nickolas on 08/26/2017 08:41 pm
say the right wall has mass m/4, the wall will be moving at speed 4*v

Say the right wall has m/1000,000 and the yellow ball moves with 100 km/s. What speed will have the right wall according to your argument?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/26/2017 09:24 pm
say the right wall has mass m/4, the wall will be moving at speed 4*v

Say the right wall has m/1000,000 and the yellow ball moves with 100 km/s. What speed will have the right wall according to your argument?
One that needs to  be calculated with relativity. You (and the maker of that video) seem to think relativity just says "you suddenly stop accelerating at c." This is not how relativity works. Effective mass increases as you approach c, allowing you to have ever higher momentum stored in the same rest mass as you approach c.

The momentum in the ball (assuming m = 1kg) is 100000 kg*m/s, which is sufficiently not relativistic that relativity can be ignored.
The wall has the same momentum (but opposite direction) and the relativistic momentum equation is p = gamma*m*v, where gamma is a function of v. It is slightly annoying to solve that equation because of gamma, so I just put m = 1*10^-6 and p = 1*10^5 in this calculator (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/relmom.html) and I got that the corresponding v = 0.9999955*c
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: nickolas on 08/27/2017 04:59 am
say the right wall has mass m/4, the wall will be moving at speed 4*v

Say the right wall has m/1000,000 and the yellow ball moves with 100 km/s. What speed will have the right wall according to your argument?
One that needs to  be calculated with relativity. You (and the maker of that video) seem to think relativity just says "you suddenly stop accelerating at c." This is not how relativity works. Effective mass increases as you approach c, allowing you to have ever higher momentum stored in the same rest mass as you approach c.

The momentum in the ball (assuming m = 1kg) is 100000 kg*m/s, which is sufficiently not relativistic that relativity can be ignored.

I said that the ball had 100 km/s; how is that relativistic compared with 300,000 km/s when mass is 1kg as you proposed?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/27/2017 05:30 am
say the right wall has mass m/4, the wall will be moving at speed 4*v

Say the right wall has m/1000,000 and the yellow ball moves with 100 km/s. What speed will have the right wall according to your argument?
One that needs to  be calculated with relativity. You (and the maker of that video) seem to think relativity just says "you suddenly stop accelerating at c." This is not how relativity works. Effective mass increases as you approach c, allowing you to have ever higher momentum stored in the same rest mass as you approach c.

The momentum in the ball (assuming m = 1kg) is 100000 kg*m/s, which is sufficiently not relativistic that relativity can be ignored.

I said that the ball had 100 km/s; how is that relativistic compared with 300,000 km/s when mass is 1kg as you proposed?
Try reading my post I said the ball is not relativistic.

The wall with 1 millionth the mass and the same momentum obviously is.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: nickolas on 08/27/2017 07:17 am
say the right wall has mass m/4, the wall will be moving at speed 4*v

Say the right wall has m/1000,000 and the yellow ball moves with 100 km/s. What speed will have the right wall according to your argument?
One that needs to  be calculated with relativity. You (and the maker of that video) seem to think relativity just says "you suddenly stop accelerating at c." This is not how relativity works. Effective mass increases as you approach c, allowing you to have ever higher momentum stored in the same rest mass as you approach c.

The momentum in the ball (assuming m = 1kg) is 100000 kg*m/s, which is sufficiently not relativistic that relativity can be ignored.

I said that the ball had 100 km/s; how is that relativistic compared with 300,000 km/s when mass is 1kg as you proposed?
Try reading my post I said the ball is not relativistic.

The wall with 1 millionth the mass and the same momentum obviously is.

Sorry, but you sounded that you referred to the ball (it's momentum) when you said "The momentum in the ball (assuming m = 1kg) is 100000 kg*m/s, which is sufficiently not relativistic". In addition, if you haven't noticed you used m/s not km/s. 100 km/s (or 100 kg*km/s) is not relativistic at all.

Then, for the wall you can't apply non-relativistic physics to deduct it's potential speed after the collision, then switch the rules to relativistic physics to calculate again it's speed. That's wrong.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/27/2017 07:53 am
Sorry, but you sounded that you referred to the ball (it's momentum) when you said "The momentum in the ball (assuming m = 1kg) is 100000 kg*m/s, which is sufficiently not relativistic". In addition, if you haven't noticed you used m/s not km/s. 100 km/s (or 100 kg*km/s) is not relativistic at all.

Then, for the wall you can't apply non-relativistic physics to deduct it's potential speed after the collision, then switch the rules to relativistic physics to calculate again it's speed. That's wrong.
Yes, I know exactly what units I used. Your entire first paragraph is simply agreeing with what I said. The ball's speed is NOT relativistic. This does not change the fact that the wall you defined with the same momentum and 1 / 1000000 of the mass is definitely relativistic.

I did not "switch the rules," I noted that the velocity of the ball is small enough compared to the speed of light that the relativistic momentum is not meaningfully different from the classical result, so I saved myself the trouble of using a more complicated equation to get the same answer. The relativistic result by the way is 100000.006 for the ball's momentum.

This is drifting from the original point that the video you posted is complete nonsense.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: nickolas on 08/27/2017 08:13 am
Sorry, but you sounded that you referred to the ball (it's momentum) when you said "The momentum in the ball (assuming m = 1kg) is 100000 kg*m/s, which is sufficiently not relativistic". In addition, if you haven't noticed you used m/s not km/s. 100 km/s (or 100 kg*km/s) is not relativistic at all.

Then, for the wall you can't apply non-relativistic physics to deduct it's potential speed after the collision, then switch the rules to relativistic physics to calculate again it's speed. That's wrong.
Yes, I know exactly what units I used. Your entire first paragraph is simply agreeing with what I said. The ball's speed is NOT relativistic. This does not change the fact that the wall you defined with the same momentum and 1 / 1000000 of the mass is definitely relativistic.

I did not "switch the rules," I noted that the velocity of the ball is small enough compared to the speed of light that the relativistic momentum is not meaningfully different from the classical result, so I saved myself the trouble of using a more complicated equation to get the same answer. The relativistic result by the way is 100000.006 for the ball's momentum.

This is drifting from the original point that the video you posted is complete nonsense.

The drift was caused by your argument which was fallacious. You assumed that relativity is involved when relative speed of wall and ball was only 100 km/s.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/27/2017 09:37 am
Sorry, but you sounded that you referred to the ball (it's momentum) when you said "The momentum in the ball (assuming m = 1kg) is 100000 kg*m/s, which is sufficiently not relativistic". In addition, if you haven't noticed you used m/s not km/s. 100 km/s (or 100 kg*km/s) is not relativistic at all.

Then, for the wall you can't apply non-relativistic physics to deduct it's potential speed after the collision, then switch the rules to relativistic physics to calculate again it's speed. That's wrong.
Yes, I know exactly what units I used. Your entire first paragraph is simply agreeing with what I said. The ball's speed is NOT relativistic. This does not change the fact that the wall you defined with the same momentum and 1 / 1000000 of the mass is definitely relativistic.

I did not "switch the rules," I noted that the velocity of the ball is small enough compared to the speed of light that the relativistic momentum is not meaningfully different from the classical result, so I saved myself the trouble of using a more complicated equation to get the same answer. The relativistic result by the way is 100000.006 for the ball's momentum.

This is drifting from the original point that the video you posted is complete nonsense.

The drift was caused by your argument which was fallacious. You assumed that relativity is involved when relative speed of wall and ball was only 100 km/s.
But the speed of the wall is not 100000 m/s, it is called conservation of momentum, not conservation of velocity. The mass of the wall is not equal to that of the ball, so it must have a different velocity, and for the numbers you provided, it is obvious that velocity is relativistic.

My description is not fallacious, but is an accurate account of how momentum conservation works. You have yet to demonstrate anything other than the fact that you do not understand introductory level physics or the basics of relativity.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: nickolas on 08/27/2017 10:00 am
Sorry, but you sounded that you referred to the ball (it's momentum) when you said "The momentum in the ball (assuming m = 1kg) is 100000 kg*m/s, which is sufficiently not relativistic". In addition, if you haven't noticed you used m/s not km/s. 100 km/s (or 100 kg*km/s) is not relativistic at all.

Then, for the wall you can't apply non-relativistic physics to deduct it's potential speed after the collision, then switch the rules to relativistic physics to calculate again it's speed. That's wrong.
Yes, I know exactly what units I used. Your entire first paragraph is simply agreeing with what I said. The ball's speed is NOT relativistic. This does not change the fact that the wall you defined with the same momentum and 1 / 1000000 of the mass is definitely relativistic.

I did not "switch the rules," I noted that the velocity of the ball is small enough compared to the speed of light that the relativistic momentum is not meaningfully different from the classical result, so I saved myself the trouble of using a more complicated equation to get the same answer. The relativistic result by the way is 100000.006 for the ball's momentum.

This is drifting from the original point that the video you posted is complete nonsense.

The drift was caused by your argument which was fallacious. You assumed that relativity is involved when relative speed of wall and ball was only 100 km/s.
But the speed of the wall is not 100000 m/s, it is called conservation of momentum, not conservation of velocity. The mass of the wall is not equal to that of the ball, so it must have a different velocity, and for the numbers you provided, it is obvious that velocity is relativistic.

My description is not fallacious, but is an accurate account of how momentum conservation works. You have yet to demonstrate anything other than the fact that you do not understand introductory level physics or the basics of relativity.

So, when your argument was proven fallacious, you changed your argument to personal attack...

Relativity doesn't work the way you applied it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/27/2017 02:46 pm
So, when your argument was proven fallacious, you changed your argument to personal attack...

Relativity doesn't work the way you applied it.
You have not proven anything. Relativity works exactly as I applied it. If you think otherwise, you are wrong. Also, if I am wrong you need to describe exactly how it does work. Just saying that I'm wrong doesn't help.

Stating that you have demonstrated that you don't understand what you are talking about isn't a personal attack, it is a fact.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: nickolas on 08/27/2017 03:37 pm
So, when your argument was proven fallacious, you changed your argument to personal attack...

Relativity doesn't work the way you applied it.
You have not proven anything. Relativity works exactly as I applied it. If you think otherwise, you are wrong. Also, if I am wrong you need to describe exactly how it does work. Just saying that I'm wrong doesn't help.

Stating that you have demonstrated that you don't understand what you are talking about isn't a personal attack, it is a fact.

When you refer to person's ability that is a personal attack. Stick to logical statements, math or principles of physics to avoid that.

Your first error was to assume that is a relativistic situation when prior the collision neither the ball nor the wall had any relativistic speeds or momentum. Then, after collision you apriori considered that is relativistic scenario, and used formulas from relativity to prove that the speed is relativistic. That is at least circular logic.

Your second error was the separation of the right wall from the entire frame, reducing its mass, in order to prove that its speed would be higher than the one of the yellow ball. But, you should have applied that rule symmetrically to the ball, taking only a portion of its mass into the conservation of momentum equation. Then the results would not yield a higher speed for the wall. If you would go further, you could analyze collisions of the molecules and atoms near the impact point, and you'll see that you get equal speeds after the collision.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/27/2017 04:10 pm
Your first error was to assume that is a relativistic situation when prior the collision neither the ball nor the wall had any relativistic speeds or momentum. Then, after collision you apriori considered that is relativistic scenario, and used formulas from relativity to prove that the speed is relativistic. That is at least circular logic.
It is never wrong to assume that something is relativistic. If it isn't relativistic, then you will have done some extra work, but will get the same answer. If it is relativistic, but you don't use the relativistic equations, then you get incorrect answers like 100*c. If you had ever taken a course on relativity you would know this, so please stop making proclamations in a field that you know nothing about.

Your second error was the separation of the right wall from the entire frame, reducing its mass, in order to prove that its speed would be higher than the one of the yellow ball. But, you should have applied that rule symmetrically to the ball, taking only a portion of its mass into the conservation of momentum equation. Then the results would not yield a higher speed for the wall. If you would go further, you could analyze collisions of the molecules and atoms near the impact point, and you'll see that you get equal speeds after the collision.
You seem to be confused on one single and simple point. Force is defined as rate of change of momentum. What the force does is that it imparts a specific, equal and opposite momentum into the ball and the box. This momentum starts concentrated in a small piece of each object and spreads outwards through the object. This means that initially parts of the object move at higher speeds than other parts, and the object temporarily deforms. The same thing does happen in both the ball and the box, but the ball is much smaller than the box, so it doesn't take as long for it to reach a uniform velocity.

The explanations in the video do not make any sense, and clearly do not conserve momentum.

P.S. I never said that you aren't able to understand this, I said that you don't understand this. If I didn't think you were able to understand this, I wouldn't bother explaining it to you.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: as58 on 08/27/2017 04:28 pm
This thread and the whole section of forum has always been well outside the mainstream (and I guess it's supposed to be, it is New Physics after all), but it seems to me that in the last few weeks it's turned much worse. There's been a lot of new threads that are just complete gibberish and that non-sense seems to be spilling also to older established threads (maybe because the silliest new threads are usually locked or deleted quickly). meberbs is doing heroic labour at trying to defend science here, although I fear he may be fighting a losing battle.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/27/2017 04:35 pm
A few pages ago I asked if anyone could figure out why Cullen measured reduced end plate radiation pressure as waveguide diameter decreases and why the reduction from standard radiation pressure was equal to

p = (2 * E ) / c) * (external wavelength / guide wavelength)

Found an excellent graphic from XRay that gives a nice hint as attached.
The other atrachment also supplies a hint.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/27/2017 04:49 pm
A few pages ago I asked if anyone could figure out why Cullen measured reduced end plate radiation pressure as waveguide diameter decreases and why the reduction from standard radiation pressure was equal to

p = (2 * E ) / c) * (external wavelength / guide wavelength)

Found an excellent graphic from XRay that gives a nice hint as attached.
The other atrachment also supplies a hint.
I missed that question among all of the nonsense you posted.

The answer has been known since before Cullen did any experiments, although it should be noted that Cullen used a constant diameter waveguide, not a changing diameter. The diagram you found is accurate, and makes the answer clear enough. It also demonstrates why Shawyer's claim of no radiation pressure on the sidewalls is simply wrong.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/27/2017 05:38 pm
This thread and the whole section of forum has always been well outside the mainstream (and I guess it's supposed to be, it is New Physics after all), but it seems to me that in the last few weeks it's turned much worse. There's been a lot of new threads that are just complete gibberish and that non-sense seems to be spilling also to older established threads (maybe because the silliest new threads are usually locked or deleted quickly). meberbs is doing heroic labour at trying to defend science here, although I fear he may be fighting a losing battle.

I agree.

While throwing one's toys out of the cot and saying "I don't like it so we shouldn't have it" would be very wrong of me, I think a "Space Policy" section approach may be a good way of taking this forward, where it's read only apart from selected members (L2 - seen as they are literally funding the site, and those on invitation - those who have proved to be useful contributors) who can add posts and threads.

I'll have a think about that.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: kaublezw on 08/27/2017 06:35 pm
This thread and the whole section of forum has always been well outside the mainstream (and I guess it's supposed to be, it is New Physics after all), but it seems to me that in the last few weeks it's turned much worse. There's been a lot of new threads that are just complete gibberish and that non-sense seems to be spilling also to older established threads (maybe because the silliest new threads are usually locked or deleted quickly). meberbs is doing heroic labour at trying to defend science here, although I fear he may be fighting a losing battle.

I agree.

While throwing one's toys out of the cot and saying "I don't like it so we shouldn't have it" would be very wrong of me, I think a "Space Policy" section approach may be a good way of taking this forward, where it's read only apart from selected members (L2 - seen as they are literally funding the site, and those on invitation - those who have proved to be useful contributors) who can add posts and threads.

I'll have a think about that.

I'd rather read all sides of the debate and make up my own mind than see only one side.  This is an internet forum, not a university physics department.  There's a lot of wild ideas and what seem like obvious logical fallacies posted on these pages, but if you restrict who can post, I certainly won't be coming back.   

Here's what I do when I read posts that I don't consider useful:  I ignore them.

 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThinkerX on 08/27/2017 08:15 pm
This thread and the whole section of forum has always been well outside the mainstream (and I guess it's supposed to be, it is New Physics after all), but it seems to me that in the last few weeks it's turned much worse. There's been a lot of new threads that are just complete gibberish and that non-sense seems to be spilling also to older established threads (maybe because the silliest new threads are usually locked or deleted quickly). meberbs is doing heroic labour at trying to defend science here, although I fear he may be fighting a losing battle.

I agree.

While throwing one's toys out of the cot and saying "I don't like it so we shouldn't have it" would be very wrong of me, I think a "Space Policy" section approach may be a good way of taking this forward, where it's read only apart from selected members (L2 - seen as they are literally funding the site, and those on invitation - those who have proved to be useful contributors) who can add posts and threads.

I'll have a think about that.

I'd rather read all sides of the debate and make up my own mind than see only one side.  This is an internet forum, not a university physics department.  There's a lot of wild ideas and what seem like obvious logical fallacies posted on these pages, but if you restrict who can post, I certainly won't be coming back.   

Here's what I do when I read posts that I don't consider useful:  I ignore them.

 

There is some very good material posted here - notably the DIY updates and attendant commentary.  Same for
papers that present theories that don't immediately fall apart when subject to more than superficial scrutiny.  The various simulations are also pretty good.  Likewise, a number of educated posters here make admirable efforts to enlighten honest misconceptions or hash out ideas.

On the not so good side, we have an increasing number of 'crazy-train' type DIY efforts, conspiracy theories, and concepts that are...'obviously flawed at a fundamental level.' (I'm being polite.)

Currently, though, from where I'm standing (on the sidelines since thread one) the good points outweigh the bad.  Therefore, with the greatest respect for Chris Bergin, I suggest the current situation continue.   
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 08/27/2017 09:06 pm
If people need to have a regular account for at least a few months before being allowed to post in the New Physics section, that could also cut down on the noise.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 08/27/2017 09:56 pm
My humble request to the moderators, is that any topic that doesn't "cut it" for any reason isn't just blocked but removed after a while.

This section has a lot of activity in very few posts and very little on the noise discussions, therefore the later remain clogging the channel and giving the impression that anything goes here, which isn't (or shouldn't be) the case.

I'd prefer to see a couple of very focused and good topics here than a lot of "OMG look at my shiny new Theory of Everything!" from newuser19765
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/27/2017 10:20 pm
If people need to have a regular account for at least a few months before being allowed to post in the New Physics section, that could also cut down on the noise.
The worst of the problems are almost always due to people who have never posted before, so this might be a good solution without excluding anyone. If you really have that great of an idea, you can wait 2 months before posting it. In the mean time you can lurk, or post on other sections of the site. Obviously L2 membership should bypass this.

I can't say it will totally fix the problem, since it might just make people post their nonsense in Advanced Concepts instead.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: moreno7798 on 08/28/2017 01:39 am
If people need to have a regular account for at least a few months before being allowed to post in the New Physics section, that could also cut down on the noise.
The worst of the problems are almost always due to people who have never posted before, so this might be a good solution without excluding anyone. If you really have that great of an idea, you can wait 2 months before posting it. In the mean time you can lurk, or post on other sections of the site. Obviously L2 membership should bypass this.

I can't say it will totally fix the problem, since it might just make people post their nonsense in Advanced Concepts instead.

That is the worst idea I've ever heard. First, because "THAT IS WHAT L2 IS FOR". If you want a club, then you have L2. Businesswise, not letting people post is the equivalent of turning people away at your storefront.

I've said this before, this thread should be about the hardware (regardless of what your opinion of how EMDrive works). It should be about building and testing the hell out of EMDrive.

BUT . . . This thread should NOT be about a test of wills to see who can outlast the other in a war of words. If that's what you want, as far as I'm concerned, that should be in a separate thread - THAT'S HOW YOU CUT DOWN ON THE NOISE.

Start a thread on " How EMDrive might actually work" and you will see the noise on this thread go down to zero.

One more time:  "The proof is in the pudding". You build it, you test the hell out of it, and the answers will come on their own.

Just my opinion.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 08/28/2017 01:53 am
My humble request to the moderators, is that any topic that doesn't "cut it" for any reason isn't just blocked but removed after a while.

This section has a lot of activity in very few posts and very little on the noise discussions, therefore the later remain clogging the channel and giving the impression that anything goes here, which isn't (or shouldn't be) the case.

I'd prefer to see a couple of very focused and good topics here than a lot of "OMG look at my shiny new Theory of Everything!" from newuser19765.
tchernik,
if conservation within GR is broken by the emdrive, then there is new theoretical work which needs to be done. Shiny or not, let us not through the baby out with the bathwater.
       If it is only emdrive experimenters who have direct evidence that conservation within GR is no longer valid, then they have the added responsibility of reproducing their results for the benefit to theoretical physics as well as its benefits to transportation and exploration.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/28/2017 02:21 am
That is the worst idea I've ever heard. First, because "THAT IS WHAT L2 IS FOR". If you want a club, then you have L2. Businesswise, not letting people post is the equivalent of turning people away at your storefront.
First you seem to have missed the part where anyone can post, they would just have to wait a little while before they can post in this section.

Also, L2 is not a "special club." It is only for the posting of space industry inside information and the discussion of that information. Everything else is not allowed.

This suggestion is significantly more open than what this site already does for the Space Policy section, which is public, but only L2 members can post. The whole reason for these restrictions is to reduce the burden on the awesome moderators of this site.

I've said this before, this thread should be about the hardware (regardless of what your opinion of how EMDrive works). It should be about building and testing the hell out of EMDrive.

BUT . . . This thread should NOT be about a test of wills to see who can outlast the other in a war of words. If that's what you want, as far as I'm concerned, that should be in a separate thread - THAT'S HOW YOU CUT DOWN ON THE NOISE.

Start a thread on " How EMDrive might actually work" and you will see the noise on this thread go down to zero.
Splitting into 2 threads, one for experiment and one for theory seems like a reasonable idea. There would be some crossover since theory should inform experiment and vice versa, so others have expressed a preference to keep it one thread when this has been suggested before.

Req just tried to start one for just builder updates and it immediately got taken over by a new member who wanted to promote his "theory of everything" and some poorly described device that doesn't appear to do anything. This is the kind of thing we are trying to have less of.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 08/28/2017 03:40 am
My humble request to the moderators, is that any topic that doesn't "cut it" for any reason isn't just blocked but removed after a while.

This section has a lot of activity in very few posts and very little on the noise discussions, therefore the later remain clogging the channel and giving the impression that anything goes here, which isn't (or shouldn't be) the case.

I'd prefer to see a couple of very focused and good topics here than a lot of "OMG look at my shiny new Theory of Everything!" from newuser19765.
tchernik,
if conservation within GR is broken by the emdrive, then there is new theoretical work which needs to be done. Shiny or not, let us not through the baby out with the bathwater.
       If it is only emdrive experimenters who have direct evidence that conservation within GR is no longer valid, then they have the added responsibility of reproducing their results for the benefit to theoretical physics as well as its benefits to transportation and exploration.

I have to add that I have no problem with discussions about scientifically controversial topics, like the respect of COE/COM or lack thereof of any new physics applied to the subject of space propulsion.

My little grudge is against badly prepared discussions, without any reasonable body of evidence (theoretical or experimental) to back them up, usually coming from random newcomers that seem to display a very loose definition of "theory" or "evidence".

The Emdrive and the MEGA drive have a significant amount of theoretical and/or experimental evidence to be above of this quality threshold, in my belief. Besides they are a thing outside this forum, which means there could be a discussion between several informed parties obtaining their information elsewhere.

The same as other more theoretical discussions, like the one about FTL paradoxes. They are speculative, yet have a lot of interesting opinions and reasoned mathematical arguments to also place them inside the on-topic category.

But a random person coming with a new kitchen sink drive or a never before seen theory of antigravity, life and everything should have to demonstrate a lot more than a few paragraphs. This is IMO not the place to start such discussions, just for reflecting those already started by becoming peer reviewed/published papers and demos.

If you have such a good theory or experiment, publish it first and then we can talk about it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: wicoe on 08/28/2017 06:28 am
I have to add that I have no problem with discussions about scientifically controversial topics, like the respect of COE/COM or lack thereof of any new physics applied to the subject of space propulsion.

I'm not sure I understood this correctly, but how is the respect of COE/COM considered controversial?  Isn't this one of the least controversial topics in the scientific community?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 08/28/2017 07:11 am
Folks, things have gotten testy in the past, but the thread survives.

Maybe just relax, and if someone gets in your face on either side of an issue just don't respond instead of hammering on and on. It's hard to argue if the only response is what you see in the mirror.

Eventually the winner will will be decided by whomever wins the Nobel prize.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/28/2017 08:06 am
A few pages ago I asked if anyone could figure out why Cullen measured reduced end plate radiation pressure as waveguide diameter decreases and why the reduction from standard radiation pressure was equal to

p = (2 * E ) / c) * (external wavelength / guide wavelength)

Found an excellent graphic from XRay that gives a nice hint as attached.
The other atrachment also supplies a hint.
I missed that question among all of the nonsense you posted.

The answer has been known since before Cullen did any experiments, although it should be noted that Cullen used a constant diameter waveguide, not a changing diameter. The diagram you found is accurate, and makes the answer clear enough. It also demonstrates why Shawyer's claim of no radiation pressure on the sidewalls is simply wrong.

Hi Meberbs,

Roger never claimed no side wall radiation pressure. What he said was with good cavity design the side wall radiation pressure could be made insignificant.

BTW you do know Roger has stated that if the EmDrive is  not accelerating then there is NO static force generated? Which says that in a static, non accelerating situation, all the radiation pressures equal ZERO?

Seems that for the static, non accelerating condition, you and Roger agree?

At least you and others should now understand the photon impact angle on the end plate decreases as cavity diameter drops and this is what caused the drop in radiation pressure on the end plate Cullen observed. Radiation pressure drops via the square of the cos loss.

p = (2 * E * cos(impact angle)^2) / c

Which is the same as Cullen's

p = ((2 * E) / c) * (wavelength external / guide wavelength)

BTW my work equation of
Work = (N^2 * t^2) / (2 * m) is correct.
Your use of 50,000N against 3,000kg for 1 sec is clearly incorrect as using the traditional Work = N * distance also results in the Work being OU. Why? Because the dynamics of the EmDrive will not generate 50,000 Ns of force in a dynamic accelerating enviroment. Which is why I created the EmDrive mission calculator as it factors in the dynamics of the EmDrive where N of force generated drop as KE climbs during acceleration.

Which says YES, 50,000N of force applied to accelerate 3,000kg of mass over 1 sec is OU. So instead of using it to claim bad theory and bad equation, maybe take a step back and try to understand that in the EmDrive, force drops as the KE gain of mass during acceleration increases. It is not a static situation but a dynamic situation. So any analysis needs to be done using dynamic equations.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/28/2017 08:25 am
I have to add that I have no problem with discussions about scientifically controversial topics, like the respect of COE/COM or lack thereof of any new physics applied to the subject of space propulsion.

Which is why Roger and I try to explain how the dynamic characterists of the EmDrive obey CofM and CofE.

There are no new physics needed to understand the EmDrive. Just a need to view the physics from a slightly unconventional viewpoint and understand the dynamics of the drive.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThinkerX on 08/28/2017 10:32 am
Traveler, enough of this:

Quote
Which is why Roger and I try to explain how the dynamic characterists of the EmDrive obey CofM and CofE.

There are no new physics needed to understand the EmDrive. Just a need to view the physics from a slightly unconventional viewpoint and understand the dynamics of the drive.

It is past time you presented the results, with accompanying photo's, graphs, and charts, of your own DIY EM Drive project.

Because this other stuff is getting you exactly nowhere.  In fact, it is arguably destroying what credibility you did have. 

So...

what is your greatest verified thrust?

duration of said thrust?

measurement issues?

thermal issues? 

Just for starters.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 08/28/2017 12:19 pm
Traveler, enough of this:

Enough of what?

Explaining why Cullen measured reduced radiation pressure inside a circular wave guide and why this effect causes asymmetrical force generation?

Explaining why an EmDrive, while accelerating mass, can't be overunity and can't violate CofE?

Explaining why trapped photon momentum and energy loss is the source of gained EmDrive momentum and KE and thus CofM and CofE is obeyed?

Have shared 13.7N/kW at 4K as best result some time ago. Also shared use of a rotary test rig that backed up Roger's acceleration claims. Plus have shared I'm working with the client who bought 4 x 0.4N/kW very early build EmDrives to produce a TRL 9 unit for commercial space use. This testing has included tests at 77K and 4K using cavities of various base metals and inner surface coatings. Can report straight Cu cavities increased Q and force generation about 2.5x at 77K and 4.5x at 4K vs room temp Q and force. This is needed to understand EmDrive characterists when operating in space and using black body thermal radiation as the only cooling.

When my client decides to go commercial, they will provide what test data they choose. They believe the time to achieve TRL 8 will be about 2 years, then more time doing testing in space to achieve TRL 9.

Gilo Industries Group has recently taken controlling interest in Universal Propulsion, the JV between SPR and Gilo Cardozo. I expect they will go commercial with a very high specific force EmDrive thruster, designed to lift mass out of the Earth's gravity well, before my client goes commercial with our much lower specific force thruster designed to replace 200mN Ion drive spacecraft thrusters.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Notsosureofit on 08/28/2017 02:17 pm
FYI:

http://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.1.20170824a/full/?utm_campaign=8615607_Q+-+TWIP+21%E2%80%9325+August&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Physics+Today&dm_i=1Y69%2C54NUF%2CE1MTSN%2CJOILQ%2C1
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/28/2017 02:19 pm
Roger never claimed no side wall radiation pressure. What he said was with good cavity design the side wall radiation pressure could be made insignificant.
This is equally wrong. The nature of the EM radiation is such that this would not happen, if it did simple logic shows that in this case there would be no difference between the force on the end plates, since as you say the difference in force is due to the photons effectively travelling at different angles.

BTW you do know Roger has stated that if the EmDrive is  not accelerating then there is NO static force generated? Which says that in a static, non accelerating situation, all the radiation pressures equal ZERO?
This does not come out of his theory in any way, which is part of why no number for "minimum acceleration" has ever been provided. It seems like an excuse he made up to explain why decently controlled experiments don't replicate his results. Any guesses what I conclude from that?

BTW my work equation of
Work = (N^2 * t^2) / (2 * m) is correct.
It is, but it only applies force a constant force, and when working in the initial rest frame of the object. You are now claiming decreasing force with time, some what would you even use for the force value?

Your use of 50,000N against 3,000kg for 1 sec is clearly incorrect as using the traditional Work = N * distance also results in the Work being OU. Why? Because the dynamics of the EmDrive will not generate 50,000 Ns of force in a dynamic accelerating enviroment. Which is why I created the EmDrive mission calculator as it factors in the dynamics of the EmDrive where N of force generated drop as KE climbs during acceleration.

Which says YES, 50,000N of force applied to accelerate 3,000kg of mass over 1 sec is OU. So instead of using it to claim bad theory and bad equation, maybe take a step back and try to understand that in the EmDrive, force drops as the KE gain of mass during acceleration increases. It is not a static situation but a dynamic situation. So any analysis needs to be done using dynamic equations.
You have still not provided those "dynamic equations". All I have to work with is a constant force per power ratio. Even if you don't provide these equations, at least tell me how fast you claim the ship would be moving after 1 second. Also, just to be clear, lets stick with the 4000 kg ship to not change the scenario we were discussing

Also do you see the implications of claiming simultaneously that there is no force when the drive is not accelerating, and that the magnitude of the force decreases as it accelerates?

Traveler, enough of this:

Enough of what?
Your explanations have consistently been wrong and contradictory, and basically everyone here can recognize this.

You have thrown out a couple of experimental claims before, but the best you have provided is a simple sketch, and when pressed for evidence you come up with creative excuses like "a burned out amplifier meant I couldn't take a picture of a frustum."
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 08/28/2017 02:29 pm
TheTraveller

Hiding behind a corporate shield does not absolve you of the duties of science, rigor and validity. Both internal and external validity are needed to verify and remove uncertainty from physical interpretations of the theoretical results.

Show us the evidence so the empiricists can be sated. If you can't then as scientists we have to assume the null hypothesis.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 08/28/2017 11:24 pm
Folks, things have gotten testy in the past, but the thread survives.

Maybe just relax, and if someone gets in your face on either side of an issue just don't respond instead of hammering on and on. It's hard to argue if the only response is what you see in the mirror.

Eventually the winner will will be decided by whomever wins the Nobel prize.

Bob -

Couldn't agree more.   

I went back over the past 10+ pages and I could only find one sequence where a "newbie" (say less than 25 posts) posited a highly questionable theory and then proceeded to throw personal attacks and vitriol on meberbs when he pointed out the flaws in the newbie theory.   I've seen this happen before on numerous times probably going back to thread 2.   If everyone just keeps calm it always dies down - I don't think there is much need to change the forum processes.

 IIRC there have even been some cases where "newbies" posed very good questions and ideas.   And sometimes DIYers show up as "newbies" with an operating experiment and interesting data to post.  Often times there are systematic and operational errors in their systems but it still provides valuable data and a good chance to discuss experimental error sources and elimination techniques.   So I would like to suggest that making "newbies" wait to post has too much potential to discard the infant with the cleaning fluid. 

I try to only post when there is something to contribute and as such most of my posts are about the experimental side as that is where most of my professional experience (and gray beard hair) came from - but I very much like and enjoy the theoretical discussion.   Much is beyond my decades old math but I still love to try and follow it.   

I particularly appreciate folks like meberbs, Prof Rodal, WarpTech, Paul M. et al  for their discussions and explanations.  Likewise I love pouring over DIY designs like monomorphic and seashells etc.   So I don't favor separating theory and experimental sections into separate forums.   That is a purely selfish reason but here is one which I think has a more value to the group.

Keeping the two together tends to keep the theory and experimental discussions synced up to an extent (albeit not perfectly BUT much better than I have found in other groups).   This lets DIY results or design kick off detailed discussions of many topics such as Lorentz Force and Thermal Effects to name a couple, while discussions of GR,  Mach et al has sometimes affected DIY test programs.   That is real time valuable interaction that is often missing.   It will go away or be vastly reduced if the forums are split.

On last comment and I will close - a flurry of "newbies" and also "new" theories from left field often show up when something about EMDrive shows up in popular media.   The show Salvation has something they are calling EMDrive as a  central concept.  From what little I have seen Very little accurate data and almost no grounding in reality BUT much discussion on the shall we say 'seedier" side of the internet.  SOme of that always boils over here.   The more we ignore it,  only give them,  as Bob said in his post,  the response you get looking in a mirror. the sooner they will find someone else to troll.

Herman
Graybeardsyseng
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/29/2017 12:40 am
Thingiverse post is up. Anyone with a 3D printer can now download and print the parts for a 2.404GHz TE013 EmDrive.

https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2505612
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 08/29/2017 03:31 am
I have to add that I have no problem with discussions about scientifically controversial topics, like the respect of COE/COM or lack thereof of any new physics applied to the subject of space propulsion.

I'm not sure I understood this correctly, but how is the respect of COE/COM considered controversial?  Isn't this one of the least controversial topics in the scientific community?
wicoe,
from the thermodynamic perspective a device contravenes conservation of momentum if it can accelerate without mechanical force, mass or radiation crossing its outer boundaries. Shawyer claims that relativity allows thrust to be produced due to an imbalance of radiation pressure within his frustum when it is moving, but there are two problems with this. First, moving relative to what? Second, there is no accepted explanation for how such a dynamic could operate.

If thrust is produced, the coe/com questions are the relevant ones to ask if you want a seamless thermodynamic resolution of how it is possible for that to happen. Credible physicists agree that any emdrive thrust would contravene both conservation of energy and conservation of momentum, which is why Eagleworks try to maximize their characterization of their apparatus and do not go for the maximum possible output.

Just as soon as results are credibly confirmed it is the absolute obligation of academic physicists to explain how this could possibly happen. My own bet is that they will quietly turn their subject upside down in the process and it is my joy to attempt to preempt their solution.

Mass can never reach the speed of light because the speed of light never changes relative to it. Light itself exists at the infinite velocity c, where a different structure of space must exist, a structure within which time must have its complex component due to covariance, otherwise these things cannot be true all at once.

The emdrive has asymmetric Lorentzian forces within its asymmetric frustum due to the resonance of electron motion on its inside surface. We are then at an impasse when we try to use this to explain its acceleration because the frustum is also a Faraday cage. We must take care not to grasp at wild ideas in attempting a resolution but we can consider alternatives which fit the rest of the evidence we have.

Gravity is accepted as being a time dilation because that is the simplest explanation available but electromagnetic action does not appear to act by dilation of time because its action is relative to the dynamic distribution of excess of and/or deficit of charge locally. I propose that we should re-consider this interpretation for the following reasons.

Electromagnetic action propagates at velocity c in a vacuum, the photon being so far as we know, a resonance between a discreet pair of charges transferring energy in proportion to the local rate of passage of time for each of the two charges. This is an interaction with specific direction whose duration from the perspective of either charge is exactly proportional to the regions of time dilation (gravity) through which that direction passes.

If we can accept that the simplest explanation for this is that electromagnetism acts by time dilation across complex time, then we can avoid the difficulty of explaining why and how energy discovers the direction it should take toward the ideal absorber when the emission and absorption occur at different places in both space and time. If complex time is simply that place where locations separated by ict are coincident, then we have an explanation free from paradox.

Charges are then defined by the distortion of spacetime caused by their presence, even if their mass varies with their sign by a factor of 1836. For an electrically neutral object the generation of gravity is then the geometric consequence of the separation of charges within the atom. The action of gravity differs from the action we attribute to photons because it is not shielded by a Faraday cage. This is because photon interactions are comparatively rare and find ideal absorbers at the outside of a faraday cage, whereas gravity and inertia are the action of all charges upon all other charges and are not shielded.

The Mach effect explaining the mechanism of the emdrive is then the direct consequence of the asymmetric Lorentzian forces within its asymmetric frustum acting across complex time against all the rest of the charges of the universe and both energy and momentum can be conserved within the whole system of the universe.

This explanation cannot satisfy anyone who insists on making account of all force locally and it cannot satisfy anyone who considers the coincidence of locations which are remote from a point perspective to be impossible even at light speed. What this explanation can do, however, is to satisfy those who accept that relativity necessitates complex time as the only adequate explanation for electromagnetic action.

I stand by my statement that any continuous thrust from a sealed and physically independent device must break conservation of momentum, unless the universe is Machian and there is a mechanism for connection between what is inside the seal and the remote universe. We do not need some undetected particle that can pass through metal, because we have the mechanism required to explain that interaction in front of us already.

Yes, explanations for emdrive thrust involving mass fluctuations or virtual particles in the vacuum may eventually be defined but in my opinion these will amount to the same thing as the above arrived at through greater mathematical intricacy and more convoluted definitions of fundamental components. They may even circumnavigate the need for coincidence within complex time across separations ict, but at the expense of simplicity.

The nearest I can come to a proof of all this is that the gain in both momentum and energy for an object falling into a gravitational field is directly proportional to its total energy (including its atomic energy) multiplied by the dilation of time through which it falls. This being true from any perspective. This being true, in my opinion, for acceleration generated by a magnetic or electric field also. This being true also for resonance within an oscillating em field and how excellently well this simplifies our explanations, if only the reader can accept that time be complex to the extent that light speed truly is infinite.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 08/29/2017 05:25 am
Thingiverse post is up. Anyone with a 3D printer can now download and print the parts for a 2.404GHz TE013 EmDrive.

https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2505612 (https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2505612)
Put into the global commons. Simplification and repetition.
Jamie, you have what it takes. And then some...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 08/29/2017 05:28 am
Thingiverse post is up. Anyone with a 3D printer can now download and print the parts for a 2.404GHz TE013 EmDrive.

https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2505612 (https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2505612)
Put into the global commons. Simplification and repetition.
Jamie, you have what it takes. And then some...

I just wish we could use one to make a hole in someone's ceiling.  ;D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 08/29/2017 05:46 am
Thingiverse post is up. Anyone with a 3D printer can now download and print the parts for a 2.404GHz TE013 EmDrive.

https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2505612

Great post Monomorphic. Lets hope it inspires some other scientists (even on the critical side - it can start interesting debate on the results) and engineers to test the device. Please include the warning about building and testing the EmDrive too as we all know it is very dangerous.

Your work here makes it possible and much easier now for wider scientific audience to test this. It can also help to produce much more needed data this community longs for.

When do you plan to test the device please?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mark7777777 on 08/29/2017 07:26 am

...Please include the warning about building and testing the EmDrive too as we all know it is very dangerous...

Yes, I'd second that.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Flyby on 08/29/2017 09:37 am
Thingiverse post is up. Anyone with a 3D printer can now download and print the parts for a 2.404GHz TE013 EmDrive.

https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2505612
Jamie, although I'm all in favor for "open research", I think it might have been wiser to wait with the posting on thingyverse till after some extensive testing...

What if a catastrophic meltdown happens due to the use of PLA and overheating ? (low glass transition temperature). That is a part that worries me a lot when thinking about 3d printed EMdrives...

I would have waited for some repeated tests to see how the PLA 3dprint holds up to make sure it cant do any immidiate harm to over enthusiastic DIY's...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 08/29/2017 12:59 pm
Please include the warning about building and testing the EmDrive too as we all know it is very dangerous.

When do you plan to test the device please?

I hope to begin tests again very soon. I'm attaching the new frustum to the torsional pendulum now and then working on adding the 30W amplifier to the electronics.  The electronics are being almost completely reworked - and that takes a little time. Another week or two. 

I've included the following warning:

Safety:
Microwave amplifiers are radiation-emitting devices which pose a health threat.  Therefore, extreme caution and proper procedures are highly encouraged.  Amateur experiments are discouraged unless you have gained educated and/or professional advice for safety reasons. In addition, because of the materials used and thermal dissipation concerns, it is not recommended to use amplifiers with more than 30W of output power.


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: moreno7798 on 08/29/2017 02:15 pm
Thingiverse post is up. Anyone with a 3D printer can now download and print the parts for a 2.404GHz TE013 EmDrive.

https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2505612
Jamie, although I'm all in favor for "open research", I think it might have been wiser to wait with the posting on thingyverse till after some extensive testing...

What if a catastrophic meltdown happens due to the use of PLA and overheating ? (low glass transition temperature). That is a part that worries me a lot when thinking about 3d printed EMdrives...

I would have waited for some repeated tests to see how the PLA 3dprint holds up to make sure it cant do any immidiate harm to over enthusiastic DIY's...

First, thank you Monomorphic.

My view: Giving it to the community and allowing many to build and test the device is the best thing to do. The sooner the better. A very clear warning and non-responsibility disclosure should be sufficient. Also, perhaps a "Safety Guide" to the "over enthusiastic DIY's . . ." may help mitigate concerns.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: rhubley on 08/29/2017 04:54 pm
Thingiverse post is up. Anyone with a 3D printer can now download and print the parts for a 2.404GHz TE013 EmDrive.

https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2505612

You are one of the individuals who make this forum great.   Thanks!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/29/2017 04:57 pm
I have to add that I have no problem with discussions about scientifically controversial topics, like the respect of COE/COM or lack thereof of any new physics applied to the subject of space propulsion.

I'm not sure I understood this correctly, but how is the respect of COE/COM considered controversial?  Isn't this one of the least controversial topics in the scientific community?

The emdrive has asymmetric Lorentzian forces within its asymmetric frustum due to the resonance of electron motion on its inside surface. We are then at an impasse when we try to use this to explain its acceleration because the frustum is also a Faraday cage. We must take care not to grasp at wild ideas in attempting a resolution but we can consider alternatives which fit the rest of the evidence we have.




I mentioned a few days ago that net Lorentzian forces could be generated and showed support from the literature. No wild physics necessary. I suspect that is inadvertently the cause of the small thrust reported in classic EMDrive cavities. If devices were designed with Lorentz forces in mind, much greater forces may be achievable. Consider the forces involved in an electric motor. They are huge. Think of the thrust if these forces added instead of canceling. I hope more people look in that direction. Also, a Faraday cage doesn't block magnetic fields. Mu metal will block magnetic fields.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ChrML on 08/29/2017 06:56 pm
As much as I want this engine to work, I find it very suspect that there is no video of any recent experiment of significance. Despite claims of being able to hover a 3.2 metric ton car using just 1kW effect.

I would not get hopes up too much until something actually is shown. But if it actually is real, we live in a really interesting time. Would solve flying cars, electric planes, electric spacetravel etc..
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 08/29/2017 07:44 pm
I have to add that I have no problem with discussions about scientifically controversial topics, like the respect of COE/COM or lack thereof of any new physics applied to the subject of space propulsion.

I'm not sure I understood this correctly, but how is the respect of COE/COM considered controversial?  Isn't this one of the least controversial topics in the scientific community?

The emdrive has asymmetric Lorentzian forces within its asymmetric frustum due to the resonance of electron motion on its inside surface. We are then at an impasse when we try to use this to explain its acceleration because the frustum is also a Faraday cage. We must take care not to grasp at wild ideas in attempting a resolution but we can consider alternatives which fit the rest of the evidence we have.




I mentioned a few days ago that net Lorentzian forces could be generated and showed support from the literature. No wild physics necessary. I suspect that is inadvertently the cause of the small thrust reported in classic EMDrive cavities. If devices were designed with Lorentz forces in mind, much greater forces may be achievable. Consider the forces involved in an electric motor. They are huge. Think of the thrust if these forces added instead of canceling. I hope more people look in that direction. Also, a Faraday cage doesn't block magnetic fields. Mu metal will block magnetic fields.

What you're asking about will simply result in EM waves moving off in one direction, and the 1/4-wave broadcasting antenna being pushed in the opposite direction. Theoretically, this should not have any more thrust in vacuum than a photon rocket.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: wicoe on 08/29/2017 10:36 pm
I mentioned a few days ago that net Lorentzian forces could be generated and showed support from the literature. No wild physics necessary. I suspect that is inadvertently the cause of the small thrust reported in classic EMDrive cavities. If devices were designed with Lorentz forces in mind, much greater forces may be achievable. Consider the forces involved in an electric motor. They are huge. Think of the thrust if these forces added instead of canceling. I hope more people look in that direction. Also, a Faraday cage doesn't block magnetic fields. Mu metal will block magnetic fields.

Any force (including Lorentz forces) acts in two opposing directions between the source(s) of the field(s) and the object (action and reaction), so the resulting momentum will be equally distributed between the source and the target and will cancel out due to opposing directions.  If the source of the field and the object you're looking at are co-moving, the center of mass will get zero momentum change.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 08/30/2017 07:11 am
I have to add that I have no problem with discussions about scientifically controversial topics, like the respect of COE/COM or lack thereof of any new physics applied to the subject of space propulsion.

I'm not sure I understood this correctly, but how is the respect of COE/COM considered controversial?  Isn't this one of the least controversial topics in the scientific community?

The emdrive has asymmetric Lorentzian forces within its asymmetric frustum due to the resonance of electron motion on its inside surface. We are then at an impasse when we try to use this to explain its acceleration because the frustum is also a Faraday cage. We must take care not to grasp at wild ideas in attempting a resolution but we can consider alternatives which fit the rest of the evidence we have.




I mentioned a few days ago that net Lorentzian forces could be generated and showed support from the literature. No wild physics necessary. I suspect that is inadvertently the cause of the small thrust reported in classic EMDrive cavities. If devices were designed with Lorentz forces in mind, much greater forces may be achievable. Consider the forces involved in an electric motor. They are huge. Think of the thrust if these forces added instead of canceling. I hope more people look in that direction. Also, a Faraday cage doesn't block magnetic fields. Mu metal will block magnetic fields.

There is a concept I was playing with that I thought maybe you were referring to... possibly.  It was a modified phased array that I was calling a reverse magnetic phased array.  It was based on the fact that in a phased array that projects light in one direction the time retarded magnetic force opposes the static electric force.  The static electric force does change in time but I am talking about charge separation electric fields which are different than magnetic fields.  They work against each other.  If you flip the magnetic signature you can make them work together.  I have wondered if the force would be greater if they work together instead of against each other but I had my doubts it applied to the EM drive. 

It could apply to the EM drive possibly if for some reason there was a proper phase delay between currents (above and below) separated by distance such that it acted as a phased array but with no charge separation.  No charge separation occurs in the transverse electric mode of the EM Drive but I have no idea what would cause the phased delay between the currents.  With no charge separation with a TE (Transverse Electric Mode) and a phased delay there would be no static electric force to work against the magnetic force.  "if" it did work it would probably have to work on something other than light projection - possibly quadruple radiation or magnetic dipole radiation?  (grav waves)

With out a plausible explanation for such a phase delay in the EM drive I had to put it on the shelf as an explanation. 

However, I still want to test the reverse magnetic phased array some day and see if it behaves differently than a normal phased array.  Here is the link to it. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.40   see image "Reverse mag phased array.png" uploaded imaga again because of image clarity - very small file

I was also pondering if for some reason phase delayed transverse currents in two separate cavities could possibly give similar behavior.  Seen below that post I referred to. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 08/30/2017 09:29 am
I have to add that I have no problem with discussions about scientifically controversial topics, like the respect of COE/COM or lack thereof of any new physics applied to the subject of space propulsion.

I'm not sure I understood this correctly, but how is the respect of COE/COM considered controversial?  Isn't this one of the least controversial topics in the scientific community?

The emdrive has asymmetric Lorentzian forces within its asymmetric frustum due to the resonance of electron motion on its inside surface. We are then at an impasse when we try to use this to explain its acceleration because the frustum is also a Faraday cage. We must take care not to grasp at wild ideas in attempting a resolution but we can consider alternatives which fit the rest of the evidence we have.




I mentioned a few days ago that net Lorentzian forces could be generated and showed support from the literature. No wild physics necessary. I suspect that is inadvertently the cause of the small thrust reported in classic EMDrive cavities. If devices were designed with Lorentz forces in mind, much greater forces may be achievable. Consider the forces involved in an electric motor. They are huge. Think of the thrust if these forces added instead of canceling. I hope more people look in that direction. Also, a Faraday cage doesn't block magnetic fields. Mu metal will block magnetic fields.
OK Bob012345,
must confess I was just assuming that a Faraday cage blocked em radiation by containing both electric and magnetic fields. Can someone confirm this?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: vladimirph on 08/30/2017 12:57 pm
I saw turn of installation on a corner, smaller 180 degrees of https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=OmY9JnXtnw0, but I didn't see turn of installation on a corner, bigger 360 degrees. Somebody can tell whether such results are received?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 08/30/2017 01:06 pm
I have to add that I have no problem with discussions about scientifically controversial topics, like the respect of COE/COM or lack thereof of any new physics applied to the subject of space propulsion.

I'm not sure I understood this correctly, but how is the respect of COE/COM considered controversial?  Isn't this one of the least controversial topics in the scientific community?

The emdrive has asymmetric Lorentzian forces within its asymmetric frustum due to the resonance of electron motion on its inside surface. We are then at an impasse when we try to use this to explain its acceleration because the frustum is also a Faraday cage. We must take care not to grasp at wild ideas in attempting a resolution but we can consider alternatives which fit the rest of the evidence we have.




I mentioned a few days ago that net Lorentzian forces could be generated and showed support from the literature. No wild physics necessary. I suspect that is inadvertently the cause of the small thrust reported in classic EMDrive cavities. If devices were designed with Lorentz forces in mind, much greater forces may be achievable. Consider the forces involved in an electric motor. They are huge. Think of the thrust if these forces added instead of canceling. I hope more people look in that direction. Also, a Faraday cage doesn't block magnetic fields. Mu metal will block magnetic fields.
OK Bob012345,
must confess I was just assuming that a Faraday cage blocked em radiation by containing both electric and magnetic fields. Can someone confirm this?
A strong magnetostatic field is different, and will barely be affected by the Faraday cage. (The cage may have some magnetic properties, but that's not what makes it a Faraday cage, and it's unlikely to have a significant impact.) If you want to block a magnetic field, a faraday cage made of mesh is a bad choice.Sep 30, 2012
electromagnetism - Does Faraday cage block magnetic field ...
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/.../does-faraday-cage-block-magnetic-field
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 08/30/2017 01:43 pm
I have to add that I have no problem with discussions about scientifically controversial topics, like the respect of COE/COM or lack thereof of any new physics applied to the subject of space propulsion.

I'm not sure I understood this correctly, but how is the respect of COE/COM considered controversial?  Isn't this one of the least controversial topics in the scientific community?

The emdrive has asymmetric Lorentzian forces within its asymmetric frustum due to the resonance of electron motion on its inside surface. We are then at an impasse when we try to use this to explain its acceleration because the frustum is also a Faraday cage. We must take care not to grasp at wild ideas in attempting a resolution but we can consider alternatives which fit the rest of the evidence we have.




I mentioned a few days ago that net Lorentzian forces could be generated and showed support from the literature. No wild physics necessary. I suspect that is inadvertently the cause of the small thrust reported in classic EMDrive cavities. If devices were designed with Lorentz forces in mind, much greater forces may be achievable. Consider the forces involved in an electric motor. They are huge. Think of the thrust if these forces added instead of canceling. I hope more people look in that direction. Also, a Faraday cage doesn't block magnetic fields. Mu metal will block magnetic fields.
OK Bob012345,
must confess I was just assuming that a Faraday cage blocked em radiation by containing both electric and magnetic fields. Can someone confirm this?
A strong magnetostatic field is different, and will barely be affected by the Faraday cage. (The cage may have some magnetic properties, but that's not what makes it a Faraday cage, and it's unlikely to have a significant impact.) If you want to block a magnetic field, a faraday cage made of mesh is a bad choice.Sep 30, 2012
electromagnetism - Does Faraday cage block magnetic field ...
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/.../does-faraday-cage-block-magnetic-field

Sorry just noticed this question.  The rapid change in a magnetic field, "light" can induce counter currents but there is resistance to current so there is a depth in how far light penetrates before it is fully reflected.  Poorly constructed metalic surfaces may improperly or not completely reflect light via resistance to current induced. 

The lower the frequency the more important the resistance is.  A static magnetic field should completely penetrate copper or aluminum because the current can not exist indefinitely.  A super conductor on the other hand can block a (static) permanent change in a magnetic field. 

Mu metal can also be used to shield a static magnetic field.  (not changing in time).

If light was escaping the cavity you should be able to detect it with the proper instruments.   Maybe one side of the cavity being bombarded by light that keeps going out of phase with its currents till complete penetration?  Not sure why that would happen. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Flyby on 08/30/2017 03:46 pm
I saw turn of installation on a corner, smaller 180 degrees of https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=OmY9JnXtnw0, but I didn't see turn of installation on a corner, bigger 360 degrees. Somebody can tell whether such results are received?
That is the test run done by ir R.Shawyer. On his website there is a larger version, with voice comments on frequency ranges.
http://emdrive.com/dynamictests.html

The problem with that demonstration is that it can have many reasons to why it turns : fans blowing, gyroscopic effect of the water circulation pump, vibrations in the air-bearing causing motion, Lorentz forces, thermal forces and ofc the elusive EMdrive force... Impossible to really identify the cause of the rotation and sadly, all those remarks ere never publicly addressed, so the doubt remains...

A second rotating rig originates from the NASA Eagleworks laboratory, which shows a rig that supposedly turned at a speed of 8.3 turns/hr. Although great care has been taken to eliminate some forms of possible causes (fe Lorentz forces), it still had several possible explanations beyond the EMdrive hypothesis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pv4VNkmBP0

Then there is TT, who claims "fantastic results", but doesn't show anything. In essence , impossible to tell if he's just a  fantasist or if he really has something going. Without visual proof/confirmation his words/claims carry little meaning at this moment...

further down the list, there are at least  3-4 other DIY builders (with good engineering credentials) preparing for further testing.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/30/2017 04:59 pm
I have to add that I have no problem with discussions about scientifically controversial topics, like the respect of COE/COM or lack thereof of any new physics applied to the subject of space propulsion.

I'm not sure I understood this correctly, but how is the respect of COE/COM considered controversial?  Isn't this one of the least controversial topics in the scientific community?

The emdrive has asymmetric Lorentzian forces within its asymmetric frustum due to the resonance of electron motion on its inside surface. We are then at an impasse when we try to use this to explain its acceleration because the frustum is also a Faraday cage. We must take care not to grasp at wild ideas in attempting a resolution but we can consider alternatives which fit the rest of the evidence we have.




I mentioned a few days ago that net Lorentzian forces could be generated and showed support from the literature. No wild physics necessary. I suspect that is inadvertently the cause of the small thrust reported in classic EMDrive cavities. If devices were designed with Lorentz forces in mind, much greater forces may be achievable. Consider the forces involved in an electric motor. They are huge. Think of the thrust if these forces added instead of canceling. I hope more people look in that direction. Also, a Faraday cage doesn't block magnetic fields. Mu metal will block magnetic fields.

What you're asking about will simply result in EM waves moving off in one direction, and the 1/4-wave broadcasting antenna being pushed in the opposite direction. Theoretically, this should not have any more thrust in vacuum than a photon rocket.

If you read the paper I referenced, you will see it's not as simple as assuming the usual assumptions.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/30/2017 05:13 pm
I mentioned a few days ago that net Lorentzian forces could be generated and showed support from the literature. No wild physics necessary. I suspect that is inadvertently the cause of the small thrust reported in classic EMDrive cavities. If devices were designed with Lorentz forces in mind, much greater forces may be achievable. Consider the forces involved in an electric motor. They are huge. Think of the thrust if these forces added instead of canceling. I hope more people look in that direction. Also, a Faraday cage doesn't block magnetic fields. Mu metal will block magnetic fields.

Any force (including Lorentz forces) acts in two opposing directions between the source(s) of the field(s) and the object (action and reaction), so the resulting momentum will be equally distributed between the source and the target and will cancel out due to opposing directions.  If the source of the field and the object you're looking at are co-moving, the center of mass will get zero momentum change.

Under the usual assumptions, yes, but the Third Law can break down in specific circumstances precisely because the speed of light is finite as the paper I referenced showed. Then you can have a net force on the system.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/30/2017 05:27 pm
What you're asking about will simply result in EM waves moving off in one direction, and the 1/4-wave broadcasting antenna being pushed in the opposite direction. Theoretically, this should not have any more thrust in vacuum than a photon rocket.

If you read the paper I referenced, you will see it's not as simple as assuming the usual assumptions.
If you read conclusions of the paper you referenced:
Quote
Still momentum is conserved if one takes the field momentum into account.
The field momentum is the EM waves. This can result in nothing better than a photon rocket.
There is no violation of momentum conservation in special relativity.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/30/2017 05:40 pm
What you're asking about will simply result in EM waves moving off in one direction, and the 1/4-wave broadcasting antenna being pushed in the opposite direction. Theoretically, this should not have any more thrust in vacuum than a photon rocket.

If you read the paper I referenced, you will see it's not as simple as assuming the usual assumptions.
If you read conclusions of the paper you referenced:
Quote
Still momentum is conserved if one takes the field momentum into account.
The field momentum is the EM waves. This can result in nothing better than a photon rocket.
There is no violation of momentum conservation in special relativity.

I never stated it was a violation. But if you read all their works you will see that the momentum of the field matches the momentum gained by the object under the Lorentz force, I.e. the forces are large and there is no mechanism which necessarily reduces the action of the force to the low level of the photon rocket. So, the assumption it can be no better than a photon rocket may be challenged as the fields are not simple plane waves. But the issue really isn't their model of momentum conservation but their model of Lorentz force generation. They might  be right about that and wrong about how the momentum is conserved. I believe they indirectly argue the field momentum is much larger than a photon rocket equivalent but all I really care about is if a net Lorentz force can be generated and thus accelerate the system and if that effect has any bearing on the EMdrive because it seems to me that generating such forces directly may be more practical than indirectly using microwave cavities.

p.s. One of the authors, Yahalom,  is affiliated with the Isaac Newton Institute at Cambridge so he might be considered somewhat of an expert on the Third Law and momentum conservation. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: vladimirph on 08/30/2017 05:50 pm
The problem with that demonstration is that it can have many reasons to why it turns : ...

Thank you very much.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/30/2017 06:09 pm
I never stated it was a violation. But if you read all their works you will see that the momentum of the field matches the momentum gained by the object under the Lorentz force, I.e. the forces are large and there is no mechanism which necessarily reduces the action of the force to the low level of the photon rocket.
Actually, I saw no calculation of the energy required, so this statement is baseless.

So, the assumption it can be no better than a photon rocket may be challenged as the fields are not simple plane waves.
No, the energy/momentum relation is general, not strictly for plain waves. In addition to being something directly in electrodynamics, energy/momentum relations for massless particles are enforced by special relativity as well.

But the issue really isn't their model of momentum conservation but their model of Lorentz force generation. They might  be right about that and wrong about how the momentum is conserved.
...
p.s. One of the authors, Yahalom,  is affiliated with the Isaac Newton Institute at Cambridge so he might be considered somewhat of an expert on the Third Law and momentum conservation
Do you like countering your own points?

I believe they indirectly argue the field momentum is much larger than a photon rocket equivalent
I do not see them claiming this.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/30/2017 06:20 pm
I never stated it was a violation. But if you read all their works you will see that the momentum of the field matches the momentum gained by the object under the Lorentz force, I.e. the forces are large and there is no mechanism which necessarily reduces the action of the force to the low level of the photon rocket.
Actually, I saw no calculation of the energy required, so this statement is baseless.

So, the assumption it can be no better than a photon rocket may be challenged as the fields are not simple plane waves.
No, the energy/momentum relation is general, not strictly for plain waves. In addition to being something directly in electrodynamics, energy/momentum relations for massless particles are enforced by special relativity as well.

But the issue really isn't their model of momentum conservation but their model of Lorentz force generation. They might  be right about that and wrong about how the momentum is conserved.
...
p.s. One of the authors, Yahalom,  is affiliated with the Isaac Newton Institute at Cambridge so he might be considered somewhat of an expert on the Third Law and momentum conservation
Do you like countering your own points?

I believe they indirectly argue the field momentum is much larger than a photon rocket equivalent
I do not see them claiming this.

In the paper they calculate the force as around 2 Newtons, not 2 micro Newtons which isn't consistent with being supported by the field momentum at the energy levels they give which are implied by the currents they use. That implies they believe the fields can carry that large amount of momentum away. Perhaps a better argument would be to just claim that if Newton's Third Law is violated, the net force by definition is an external force and thus they don't need to discuss momentum conservation at all.  ;D

Yes, I did seem to counter my own point but I'm not trying to win an argument or debate but just to discuss this interesting topic.  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 08/30/2017 06:36 pm

Any force (including Lorentz forces) acts in two opposing directions between the source(s) of the field(s) and the object (action and reaction), so the resulting momentum will be equally distributed between the source and the target and will cancel out due to opposing directions.  If the source of the field and the object you're looking at are co-moving, the center of mass will get zero momentum change.

Under the usual assumptions, yes, but the Third Law can break down in specific circumstances precisely because the speed of light is finite as the paper I referenced showed. Then you can have a net force on the system.

No you don't have a net force on the (closed) system. Even though force can not propagate faster than light, people are smart enough to figure out that the force carrying messenger (light in the case of electric or magnetic forces) itself carries momentum. So momentum is still conserved. If your system is closed, that light later on is interacted with other parts of your system to create the counter force. So you merely moved the mass center of your system. If your system is open, you have a light rocket.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/30/2017 06:47 pm

Any force (including Lorentz forces) acts in two opposing directions between the source(s) of the field(s) and the object (action and reaction), so the resulting momentum will be equally distributed between the source and the target and will cancel out due to opposing directions.  If the source of the field and the object you're looking at are co-moving, the center of mass will get zero momentum change.

Under the usual assumptions, yes, but the Third Law can break down in specific circumstances precisely because the speed of light is finite as the paper I referenced showed. Then you can have a net force on the system.

No you don't have a net force on the (closed) system. Even though force can not propagate faster than light, people are smart enough to figure out that the force carrying messenger (light in the case of electric or magnetic forces) itself carries momentum. So momentum is still conserved. If your system is closed, that light later on is interacted with other parts of your system to create the counter force. So you merely moved the mass center of your system. If your system is open, you have a light rocket.

It is not usually thought that the Third Law applies instantaneously at the point of interaction between field and object rather than at the two parts of the system interacting. But if you do, you have to admit that the photon momentum change must be capable of providing the large internal forces since you are saying its conserved instantaneously. That makes the authors point that large forces are possible and it's not limited to a photon rocket.

In the case of two current carrying wires interacting in space, you are conserving momentum both at each wire immediately and at the delayed response with the other wire. Both sets cancel. But both are equal so that would show the field carries much more momentum that E/c if it's true. So if two wires are spacelike events, and if momentum is conserved immediately while the forces are significant, the field must be carrying more momentum than we think, of the forces must be smaller than the texts say.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/30/2017 07:10 pm
In the paper they calculate the force as around 2 Newtons, not 2 micro Newtons which isn't consistent with being supported by the field momentum at the energy levels they give which are implied by the currents they use.
Power depends on voltage, not just current, so your claim still has no basis. They do not give energy levels.

That implies they believe the fields can carry that large amount of momentum away. Perhaps a better argument would be to just claim that if Newton's Third Law is violated, the net force by definition is an external force and thus they don't need to discuss momentum conservation at all.  ;D
Newton's third law is not being violated. The balancing part of the force is felt by the fields (photons)

Quote
In this paper we make a detailed calculation and show that any momentum gained by the material part of the system is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to the momentum gained by the electromagnetic field. Hence the total momentum of the system is conserved.
Will you please stop trying to twist these scientists' work to say the exact opposite of what they say?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 08/30/2017 07:26 pm

No you don't have a net force on the (closed) system. Even though force can not propagate faster than light, people are smart enough to figure out that the force carrying messenger (light in the case of electric or magnetic forces) itself carries momentum. So momentum is still conserved. If your system is closed, that light later on is interacted with other parts of your system to create the counter force. So you merely moved the mass center of your system. If your system is open, you have a light rocket.

It is not usually thought that the Third Law applies instantaneously at the point of interaction between field and object rather than at the two parts of the system interacting. But if you do, you have to admit that the photon momentum change must be capable of providing the large internal forces since you are saying its conserved instantaneously. That makes the authors point that large forces are possible and it's not limited to a photon rocket.

In the case of two current carrying wires interacting in space, you are conserving momentum both at each wire immediately and at the delayed response with the other wire. Both sets cancel. But both are equal so that would show the field carries much more momentum that E/c if it's true. So if two wires are spacelike events, and if momentum is conserved immediately while the forces are significant, the field must be carrying more momentum than we think, of the forces must be smaller than the texts say.

My QED knowledge is not enough to comment on your thoughts. It is interesting. I am generally interested in how an electrons know how much photons it needs to "transmit" to generate the correct amount of force, but I decide not to dig deeper (meaning: to read more) with my limited time.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 08/30/2017 07:54 pm
I never stated it was a violation. But if you read all their works you will see that the momentum of the field matches the momentum gained by the object under the Lorentz force, I.e. the forces are large and there is no mechanism which necessarily reduces the action of the force to the low level of the photon rocket.
Actually, I saw no calculation of the energy required, so this statement is baseless.

So, the assumption it can be no better than a photon rocket may be challenged as the fields are not simple plane waves.
No, the energy/momentum relation is general, not strictly for plain waves. In addition to being something directly in electrodynamics, energy/momentum relations for massless particles are enforced by special relativity as well.

But the issue really isn't their model of momentum conservation but their model of Lorentz force generation. They might  be right about that and wrong about how the momentum is conserved.
...
p.s. One of the authors, Yahalom,  is affiliated with the Isaac Newton Institute at Cambridge so he might be considered somewhat of an expert on the Third Law and momentum conservation
Do you like countering your own points?

I believe they indirectly argue the field momentum is much larger than a photon rocket equivalent
I do not see them claiming this.

In the paper they calculate the force as around 2 Newtons, not 2 micro Newtons which isn't consistent with being supported by the field momentum at the energy levels they give which are implied by the currents they use. That implies they believe the fields can carry that large amount of momentum away. Perhaps a better argument would be to just claim that if Newton's Third Law is violated, the net force by definition is an external force and thus they don't need to discuss momentum conservation at all.  ;D

Yes, I did seem to counter my own point but I'm not trying to win an argument or debate but just to discuss this interesting topic.  :)

I worked all this out for myself using MathCAD about 20 years ago. Based on this sheet, they are only considering the current in the pair of wires "I1I2". What is not shown is the voltage, capacitance, charge and electric field at the ends of those wires when the current goes to zero. The force due to charges and electric fields will oppose the force due to currents and magnetic fields. When both are included, the 2N of force is suddenly < 2uN and we are back to the thrust of a photon rocket. If the system is large, it could oscillate back and force at a relatively low frequency with much greater force, but the CM will not move except for the asymmetry in the EM radiation, (aka photon rocket).





Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 08/31/2017 02:07 am
I never stated it was a violation. But if you read all their works you will see that the momentum of the field matches the momentum gained by the object under the Lorentz force, I.e. the forces are large and there is no mechanism which necessarily reduces the action of the force to the low level of the photon rocket.
Actually, I saw no calculation of the energy required, so this statement is baseless.

So, the assumption it can be no better than a photon rocket may be challenged as the fields are not simple plane waves.
No, the energy/momentum relation is general, not strictly for plain waves. In addition to being something directly in electrodynamics, energy/momentum relations for massless particles are enforced by special relativity as well.

But the issue really isn't their model of momentum conservation but their model of Lorentz force generation. They might  be right about that and wrong about how the momentum is conserved.
...
p.s. One of the authors, Yahalom,  is affiliated with the Isaac Newton Institute at Cambridge so he might be considered somewhat of an expert on the Third Law and momentum conservation
Do you like countering your own points?

I believe they indirectly argue the field momentum is much larger than a photon rocket equivalent
I do not see them claiming this.

In the paper they calculate the force as around 2 Newtons, not 2 micro Newtons which isn't consistent with being supported by the field momentum at the energy levels they give which are implied by the currents they use. That implies they believe the fields can carry that large amount of momentum away. Perhaps a better argument would be to just claim that if Newton's Third Law is violated, the net force by definition is an external force and thus they don't need to discuss momentum conservation at all.  ;D

Yes, I did seem to counter my own point but I'm not trying to win an argument or debate but just to discuss this interesting topic.  :)

I worked all this out for myself using MathCAD about 20 years ago. Based on this sheet, they are only considering the current in the pair of wires "I1I2". What is not shown is the voltage, capacitance, charge and electric field at the ends of those wires when the current goes to zero. The force due to charges and electric fields will oppose the force due to currents and magnetic fields. When both are included, the 2N of force is suddenly < 2uN and we are back to the thrust of a photon rocket. If the system is large, it could oscillate back and force at a relatively low frequency with much greater force, but the CM will not move except for the asymmetry in the EM radiation, (aka photon rocket).

Yes, this is the reason for my suggesting this post here https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1717650#msg1717650 which isn't necessarily a unique concept on my part.  If you follow to the tread I started on this link i cite a patent that even seems to possibly suggest a reverse magnetic phased array of sorts and WarpTech shared with me he had a friend who's drawings in a youtube video, I realized later indirectly suggested a similar arrangement (magnetic works with the electric) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqC3AVcuFaE WaiteDavidMSPhysics.  I just want to see what happens when one of those forces that oppose the other is eliminated or they both work together.  Would we see forces greater than photon propulsion? 

I actually prefer something more along this nature here that totally avoids charge separation and part of my interest in the transverse electroc modes in the EM drive.  https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1460370#msg1460370
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThinkerX on 08/31/2017 02:54 am
I saw turn of installation on a corner, smaller 180 degrees of https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=OmY9JnXtnw0, but I didn't see turn of installation on a corner, bigger 360 degrees. Somebody can tell whether such results are received?
That is the test run done by ir R.Shawyer. On his website there is a larger version, with voice comments on frequency ranges.
http://emdrive.com/dynamictests.html

The problem with that demonstration is that it can have many reasons to why it turns : fans blowing, gyroscopic effect of the water circulation pump, vibrations in the air-bearing causing motion, Lorentz forces, thermal forces and ofc the elusive EMdrive force... Impossible to really identify the cause of the rotation and sadly, all those remarks ere never publicly addressed, so the doubt remains...

A second rotating rig originates from the NASA Eagleworks laboratory, which shows a rig that supposedly turned at a speed of 8.3 turns/hr. Although great care has been taken to eliminate some forms of possible causes (fe Lorentz forces), it still had several possible explanations beyond the EMdrive hypothesis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pv4VNkmBP0

Then there is TT, who claims "fantastic results", but doesn't show anything. In essence , impossible to tell if he's just a  fantasist or if he really has something going. Without visual proof/confirmation his words/claims carry little meaning at this moment...

further down the list, there are at least  3-4 other DIY builders (with good engineering credentials) preparing for further testing.

With respect, and no small amount of reluctance:

At least two members here (whose ID's escape me at the moment) did analysis of the full Shawyer rotary test video.  The first few minutes of the video showed no movement until after 'magnetron on,' then ever so slowly the device began to rotate.  However, the speed of rotation increased after 'magnetron off.'

Their conclusion was that the various pumps, fans, and whatnot were not responsible for the devices movement - all that was active before 'magnetron on.'  They also conclude the air bearing was...not in good shape, which accounted for the increase in speed after 'magnetron off.'  They were reluctant to specify, what, exactly, caused the movement after 'magnetron on.'

A flawed but interesting experiment.   

I also understand there were severe issues with the Eagleworks rotary test. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: vladimirph on 08/31/2017 04:22 am

With respect, and no small amount of reluctance:

At least two members here (whose ID's escape me at the moment) did analysis of the full Shawyer rotary test video.  The first few minutes of the video showed no movement until after 'magnetron on,' then ever so slowly the device began to rotate.  However, the speed of rotation increased after 'magnetron off.'

Their conclusion was that the various pumps, fans, and whatnot were not responsible for the devices movement - all that was active before 'magnetron on.'  They also conclude the air bearing was...not in good shape, which accounted for the increase in speed after 'magnetron off.'  They were reluctant to specify, what, exactly, caused the movement after 'magnetron on.'

A flawed but interesting experiment.   

I also understand there were severe issues with the Eagleworks rotary test.
Thanks.
Only the fact of the strict proof of isotropy of effect will allow to speak about jet draft. It turns out, there is no such proof yet?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 08/31/2017 05:58 am
(...)
If you read the paper I referenced, you will see it's not as simple as assuming the usual assumptions.
Bob012345,
thankyou for not assuming the 'usual assumptions' but, when you continue to think for yourself you radically increase the chance of coming up with an explanation of your own. If you want it to fit the evidence then you are obliged to wade through as much of that evidence as you can. If, like me, this eventually leads you to make assumptions about what that evidence might be, you still have the problem of devising and successfully building the experiment which proves it  :)
Good luck!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/31/2017 04:22 pm
 ;D
In the paper they calculate the force as around 2 Newtons, not 2 micro Newtons which isn't consistent with being supported by the field momentum at the energy levels they give which are implied by the currents they use.
Power depends on voltage, not just current, so your claim still has no basis. They do not give energy levels.

That implies they believe the fields can carry that large amount of momentum away. Perhaps a better argument would be to just claim that if Newton's Third Law is violated, the net force by definition is an external force and thus they don't need to discuss momentum conservation at all.  ;D
Newton's third law is not being violated. The balancing part of the force is felt by the fields (photons)

Quote
In this paper we make a detailed calculation and show that any momentum gained by the material part of the system is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to the momentum gained by the electromagnetic field. Hence the total momentum of the system is conserved.
Will you please stop trying to twist these scientists' work to say the exact opposite of what they say?

The authors themselves state Netwon's Third Law is violated.

Quote
We have shown in this paper that in general Newton’s third law is not compatible with the principles of special relativity and the total force on a two current loop system is not zero.

From another related paper the same authors state;

Quote
We conclude that in general Newton’s third law is not satisfied

Feynman showed an electrodynamic case where the Third Law breaks down (Feynman Lectures on Physics Volume 2 26-5).

Quote
The forces between two moving charges are not always equal and opposite. It appears that “action” is not equal to “reaction.”


The Third Law and momentum conservation are not identical so when they argue momentum is conserved, they are not also claiming the Third Law is obeyed, which is against the thesis of their paper.

It's true they don't give energy levels per se but as an engineer, you should notice the currents, switching times, and the statement suggesting superconducting wires. Also note that if the force came purely from a photon rocket effect, then the force would have to be ~Power/c and the required power in the loops would be on the order of 2 Newtons times 3E8 or about 600 million watts. So ask yourself as an engineer, do you think they are really thinking about 600 megawatts when they discuss 100 amps in superconducting wires!


Another paper describes a device supposedly able to lift itself against Earth's gravity;

Quote
Finally we would like to address the question of the possibility of the device to lift from the ground for this the force generated by the device should be larger or equal to the gravitational force

They compute a device with 5 Amps at 10 GHZ frequency. My point is that they seem to believe and suggest a practical device could even lift itself and it's unreasonable they would ignore power astronomical requirements but sure, I could be wrong. Perhaps I'll email the author and ask.

Having said all that, I'm not necessarily completely agreeing with the authors anyway. I'm just interested in the Lorentz force angle which may play a part in the EMDrive explanation. Thanks for the discussions.  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/31/2017 04:34 pm
(...)
If you read the paper I referenced, you will see it's not as simple as assuming the usual assumptions.
Bob012345,
thankyou for not assuming the 'usual assumptions' but, when you continue to think for yourself you radically increase the chance of coming up with an explanation of your own. If you want it to fit the evidence then you are obliged to wade through as much of that evidence as you can. If, like me, this eventually leads you to make assumptions about what that evidence might be, you still have the problem of devising and successfully building the experiment which proves it  :)
Good luck!

Thanks but let me assure you, I'm not looking to invent my own rules. In this case, when I mentioned the 'usual assumptions" I just meant all the usual textbook examples which assume forces act instantly. And under those assumptions everything written is correct. But only studying certain situations can make it harder to see other possibilities well within the known laws. Another example is Keith Wanser's paper I recently mentioned. It's completely within Newton's laws of motion yet shows very surprising results for center of mass motion if masses fluctuate by the Mach effect. New results from old established physics. I suspect the same for the Lorentz force but I don't have a dogmatic position and any new concepts must be tested.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/31/2017 04:49 pm
The authors themselves state Netwon's Third Law is violated.
Only when they ignore the electrodynamic portions of the system. It's like saying cars violate conservation of momentum if your ignore the change of momentum of the Earth itself.

Feynman showed an electrodynamic case where the Third Law breaks down (Feynman Lectures on Physics Volume 2 26-5).

Quote
The forces between two moving charges are not always equal and opposite. It appears that “action” is not equal to “reaction.”
Note the use of the word "appears". It is not true, it only appears to be true because you are ignoring the fields.

The Third Law and momentum conservation are not identical so when they argue momentum is conserved, they are not also claiming the Third Law is obeyed, which is against the thesis of their paper.[/quote]
Conservation of momentum and Newton's third law are equivalent, because force is defined as rate of change of momentum.

It's true they don't give energy levels per se but as an engineer, you should notice the currents, switching times, and the statement suggesting superconducting wires. Also note that if the force came purely from a photon rocket effect, then the force would have to be ~Power/c and the required power in the loops would be on the order of 2 Newtons times 3E8 or about 600 million watts. So ask yourself as an engineer, do you think they are really thinking about 600 megawatts when they discuss 100 amps in superconducting wires!
Things don't become true just because you wish it. It would take enormous power to accelerate charges at the frequencies and current levels they are discussing. This is by nature of the properties of accelerating changes, so it does not matter if their is no resistance in the wires.

Having said all that, I'm not necessarily completely agreeing with the authors anyway. I'm just interested in the Lorentz force angle which may play a part in the EMDrive explanation. Thanks for the discussions.  :)
The Lorentz force is well understood and has been proven in general to never be able to do what you want it to.
Thanks but let me assure you, I'm not looking to invent my own rules. In this case, when I mentioned the 'usual assumptions" I just meant all the usual textbook examples which assume forces act instantly.
You need to get a new textbook. A good EM textbook covers that forces are non-instantaneous. See Griffith's as an example. Non-instantaneous does not get around any of the limits that have been stated.

It's completely within Newton's laws of motion yet shows very surprising results for center of mass motion if masses fluctuate by the Mach effect. New results from old established physics. I suspect the same for the Lorentz force but I don't have a dogmatic position and any new concepts must be tested.
"Mach effect" is not "old established physics."  Your entire argument is "Maybe the Lorentz force operates different than any experiment or theory suggests." Unless you provide a new experiment or theory that shows this modified Lorentz force, this is simply a useless statement.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 08/31/2017 05:05 pm
....

The Third Law and momentum conservation are not identical so when they argue momentum is conserved, they are not also claiming the Third Law is obeyed, which is against the thesis of their paper.

It's true they don't give energy levels per se but as an engineer, you should notice the currents, switching times, and the statement suggesting superconducting wires. Also note that if the force came purely from a photon rocket effect, then the force would have to be ~Power/c and the required power in the loops would be on the order of 2 Newtons times 3E8 or about 600 million watts. So ask yourself as an engineer, do you think they are really thinking about 600 megawatts when they discuss 100 amps in superconducting wires!

....

The interaction between the currents in the two wires are mutual. I think if we think one sends out large amount of (virtual?) photons, it also receives large amount of (virtual?) photons from the other party. So it is sending out 600 million watts but at the same time it receives 600 million watts so there is no net watts that we can observe if the two wires are fixed (no mutual movement). So the power of 600 million watts may be just a tool for thinking, to separate two virtual factors (the received force and the transmitted force) from on entity (the interaction itself). If we consider the entity as a whole, there is no 600 million watts. It may be like at any moment, air on one side of an imagined plane that separates a body of air into two parts sends large watts of kinetic power into the other side (by sending large amount of air molecules across the plane), but at the same time it also receives large amount of kinetic power from the other side.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/31/2017 05:19 pm
I never stated it was a violation. But if you read all their works you will see that the momentum of the field matches the momentum gained by the object under the Lorentz force, I.e. the forces are large and there is no mechanism which necessarily reduces the action of the force to the low level of the photon rocket.
Actually, I saw no calculation of the energy required, so this statement is baseless.

So, the assumption it can be no better than a photon rocket may be challenged as the fields are not simple plane waves.
No, the energy/momentum relation is general, not strictly for plain waves. In addition to being something directly in electrodynamics, energy/momentum relations for massless particles are enforced by special relativity as well.

But the issue really isn't their model of momentum conservation but their model of Lorentz force generation. They might  be right about that and wrong about how the momentum is conserved.
...
p.s. One of the authors, Yahalom,  is affiliated with the Isaac Newton Institute at Cambridge so he might be considered somewhat of an expert on the Third Law and momentum conservation
Do you like countering your own points?

I believe they indirectly argue the field momentum is much larger than a photon rocket equivalent
I do not see them claiming this.

In the paper they calculate the force as around 2 Newtons, not 2 micro Newtons which isn't consistent with being supported by the field momentum at the energy levels they give which are implied by the currents they use. That implies they believe the fields can carry that large amount of momentum away. Perhaps a better argument would be to just claim that if Newton's Third Law is violated, the net force by definition is an external force and thus they don't need to discuss momentum conservation at all.  ;D

Yes, I did seem to counter my own point but I'm not trying to win an argument or debate but just to discuss this interesting topic.  :)

I worked all this out for myself using MathCAD about 20 years ago. Based on this sheet, they are only considering the current in the pair of wires "I1I2". What is not shown is the voltage, capacitance, charge and electric field at the ends of those wires when the current goes to zero. The force due to charges and electric fields will oppose the force due to currents and magnetic fields. When both are included, the 2N of force is suddenly < 2uN and we are back to the thrust of a photon rocket. If the system is large, it could oscillate back and force at a relatively low frequency with much greater force, but the CM will not move except for the asymmetry in the EM radiation, (aka photon rocket).

I don't know your setup  and your assumptions for that calculation but if you are trying to say anytime you switch it off it exactly must cancel out the well known Lorentz force, and under any conceivable configuration of times and currents and geometries, I'm very dubious and would have to see the details. I'm not saying your calculation didn't do that but were you specifically messing with conditions to make the events in each wire spacelike wrt each other?

Specifically, the Third Law can break down in specific circumstances precisely because the speed of light is finite and events can have a spacelike separation even while they are being independently controlled faster than light can mediate between the interaction between them. Pulses can be independently designed and arranged that compliment the net forces and counter unwanted forces. For example, the field from pulse in one wire might cause a force in a distant wire in such a way that there is no ability for a counter force to even exist on the first wire. That spacelike separation and control could include unwanted electrical effects through proper design. Though technically challenging, that breaks the symmetry and opens up new possibilities.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 08/31/2017 05:41 pm
I agree with the above interpretation. The authors take some care to show that a time varying network of currents can experience a non-zero net force. They nod to momentum conservation, but don't calculate the field momentum, leaving the reader to scratch their head over the massive photon rocket implied...

FWIW, if you look at their power series expansion for the net force, it becomes somewhat singular where the dimension/ time delays are the same as the frequency of oscillation of the currents.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/31/2017 05:55 pm
The authors themselves state Netwon's Third Law is violated.
Only when they ignore the electrodynamic portions of the system. It's like saying cars violate conservation of momentum if your ignore the change of momentum of the Earth itself.

Feynman showed an electrodynamic case where the Third Law breaks down (Feynman Lectures on Physics Volume 2 26-5).

Quote
The forces between two moving charges are not always equal and opposite. It appears that “action” is not equal to “reaction.”
Note the use of the word "appears". It is not true, it only appears to be true because you are ignoring the fields.

The Third Law and momentum conservation are not identical so when they argue momentum is conserved, they are not also claiming the Third Law is obeyed, which is against the thesis of their paper.
Conservation of momentum and Newton's third law are equivalent, because force is defined as rate of change of momentum.

It's true they don't give energy levels per se but as an engineer, you should notice the currents, switching times, and the statement suggesting superconducting wires. Also note that if the force came purely from a photon rocket effect, then the force would have to be ~Power/c and the required power in the loops would be on the order of 2 Newtons times 3E8 or about 600 million watts. So ask yourself as an engineer, do you think they are really thinking about 600 megawatts when they discuss 100 amps in superconducting wires!
Things don't become true just because you wish it. It would take enormous power to accelerate charges at the frequencies and current levels they are discussing. This is by nature of the properties of accelerating changes, so it does not matter if their is no resistance in the wires.

Having said all that, I'm not necessarily completely agreeing with the authors anyway. I'm just interested in the Lorentz force angle which may play a part in the EMDrive explanation. Thanks for the discussions.  :)
The Lorentz force is well understood and has been proven in general to never be able to do what you want it to.
Thanks but let me assure you, I'm not looking to invent my own rules. In this case, when I mentioned the 'usual assumptions" I just meant all the usual textbook examples which assume forces act instantly.
You need to get a new textbook. A good EM textbook covers that forces are non-instantaneous. See Griffith's as an example. Non-instantaneous does not get around any of the limits that have been stated.

It's completely within Newton's laws of motion yet shows very surprising results for center of mass motion if masses fluctuate by the Mach effect. New results from old established physics. I suspect the same for the Lorentz force but I don't have a dogmatic position and any new concepts must be tested.
"Mach effect" is not "old established physics."  Your entire argument is "Maybe the Lorentz force operates different than any experiment or theory suggests." Unless you provide a new experiment or theory that shows this modified Lorentz force, this is simply a useless statement.

It's fine if you assert that the authors are flat wrong, I can then make a rational decision whether I trust your technical arguments or theirs. I keep saying, I just am interested in discussing it, not that my mind is made up. Thanks for your points. If it's impossible under any conceivable circumstances  to take advantage the finite speed of light please point me to a proof or an experiment that tried independently to control events with spacelike separate faster that light could mediate between them since you say it's been forever proven to be impossible.

Also, I'm skeptical GHZ switching of amp level currents takes megawatts or gigawatts. Such switches are built in silicon.  Please show me a calculation that it must be so.

BYW, I didn't say the Mach effect was old established physics, I specifically referred to the treatment of CM motion under the Second Law if the Mach effect mass fluctuations existed.


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/31/2017 06:20 pm
It's fine if you assert that the authors are flat wrong, I can then make a rational decision whether I trust your technical arguments or theirs. I keep saying, I just am interested in discussing it, not that my mind is made up. Thanks for your points. If it's impossible under any conceivable circumstances  to take advantage the finite speed of light please point me to a proof or an experiment that tried independently to control events with spacelike separate faster that light could mediate between them since you say it's been forever proven to be impossible.
I am not saying the authors are wrong, I am saying you don't understand their results, and are making unsupported claims about the required power levels. We control timing of spacelike separate antennas all the time. It is called a phased array antenna.

Also, I'm skeptical GHZ switching of amp level currents takes megawatts or gigawatts. Such switches are built in silicon.  Please show me a calculation that it must be so.
The easy way to do the calculation is to look at the radiated power. The momentum in electrodynamic fields is directly proportional to the pointing vector, which also defines the energy flux. Therefore, any electrodynamic fields with the momentum claimed here would require massive amounts of energy to produce. These are mathematical relationships found in any decent textbook. So far you have been trying to counter this with your intuition.

BYW, I didn't say the Mach effect was old established physics, I specifically referred to the treatment of CM motion under the Second Law if the Mach effect mass fluctuations existed.
Yes, you gave an example using the Mach effect and then said "new results from old established physics." I can find no other way to interpret that than calling the Mach effect "old established physics." What you really gave an example of is new results from new physics.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 08/31/2017 06:41 pm
It's fine if you assert that the authors are flat wrong, I can then make a rational decision whether I trust your technical arguments or theirs. I keep saying, I just am interested in discussing it, not that my mind is made up. Thanks for your points. If it's impossible under any conceivable circumstances  to take advantage the finite speed of light please point me to a proof or an experiment that tried independently to control events with spacelike separate faster that light could mediate between them since you say it's been forever proven to be impossible.
I am not saying the authors are wrong, I am saying you don't understand their results, and are making unsupported claims about the required power levels. We control timing of spacelike separate antennas all the time. It is called a phased array antenna.

Also, I'm skeptical GHZ switching of amp level currents takes megawatts or gigawatts. Such switches are built in silicon.  Please show me a calculation that it must be so.
The easy way to do the calculation is to look at the radiated power. The momentum in electrodynamic fields is directly proportional to the pointing vector, which also defines the energy flux. Therefore, any electrodynamic fields with the momentum claimed here would require massive amounts of energy to produce. These are mathematical relationships found in any decent textbook. So far you have been trying to counter this with your intuition.

BYW, I didn't say the Mach effect was old established physics, I specifically referred to the treatment of CM motion under the Second Law if the Mach effect mass fluctuations existed.
Yes, you gave an example using the Mach effect and then said "new results from old established physics." I can find no other way to interpret that than calling the Mach effect "old established physics." What you really gave an example of is new results from new physics.

 You say I don't understand them and am going off half (maybe all) cocked. Do you really think they would write all those papers if all they were saying is "Hey, here's an interesting way to make a propellent-less propulsion device that works far far less efficiently than a simple photon rocket and is entirely useless!!!!!"? Or maybe, "Hey, this would work but you need gigawatts of power!!!! Maybe that's the academic world but somehow, I doubt that. So, I'm going to paraphrase Feynman's question what do you think they are really trying to say with these papers?

Can you realistically imagine proposing gigawatt levels of power in meter sized coils carrying 100 amps of current? Wouldn't they just melt? As an engineer, what power do you think is in their device?

I think others here can reasonable understand my point about Wanser's CM motion paper. Thanks for the stimulating discussion.  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 08/31/2017 06:59 pm
You say I don't understand them and am going off half (maybe all) cocked. Do you really think they would write all those papers if all they were saying is "Hey, here's an interesting way to make a propellent-less propulsion device that works far far less efficiently than a simple photon rocket and is entirely useless!!!!!"? Or maybe, "Hey, this would work but you need gigawatts of power!!!! Maybe that's the academic world but somehow, I doubt that. So, what do you think they are really trying to say with these papers?

Can you realistically imagine proposing gigawatt levels of power in meter sized coils carrying 100 amps of current? Wouldn't they just melt?
I have no idea why they haven't calculated the power requirements, especially since there is an easy way to do so since the energy flux is equal to c times the momentum flux. Them not calculating it in no way changes the fact that this is a ton of power, and yes it probably would melt something if you tried to build such a device.

It does not matter why they aren't discussing the power numbers, because the power numbers are what they are. Do you have anything to add that is actually based on math or physics?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: kamill85 on 08/31/2017 08:12 pm
Hello, I have a question. Excuse this layman example, but I'm new to EMdrive and the math behind it.

I understood there are issues with CoE and CoM. Lets imagine the following scenario:

1. "EMDrive" is enclosed in a box, blocking 100% of any energy from leaking out from inside of it.
2. There is a battery on board, 10kWh worth, enough for the engine to operate few minutes.
3. We have a race track, where the box can move freely, without any friction, from point A to B
4. At point B, we have a 100%-efficient kinetic energy recovery mechanism.

Now, assuming EMDrive somehow works, could it be that the 10kWh energy spent on the A-B travel, gets fully recovered (without any net) at point B, and the box arrives a little bit lighter at point B?

Yes, I'm saying there has been no exhaust at all, just a pure conversion of 10kWh from battery, into kinetic energy, does that break anything? Or is it the most plausible case (assuming it works)?

That being said, would that equal to a photon rocket? I mean, if we converted 10kWh energy into photons, shoot them out from the back of the box, would point B recover 10kWh?

Thank you.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 08/31/2017 08:53 pm
...

That being said, would that equal to a photon rocket? I mean, if we converted 10kWh energy into photons, shoot them out from the back of the box, would point B recover 10kWh?

Thank you.

There is no way you can recover 10 kWh at point B with a photon rocket. This is because photon rocket is very inefficient. Most energy is carried away by the photon. You can recover tiny-tiny-tiny portion of that 10 kWh.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: wicoe on 08/31/2017 09:11 pm
Yes, I'm saying there has been no exhaust at all, just a pure conversion of 10kWh from battery, into kinetic energy, does that break anything? Or is it the most plausible case (assuming it works)?

Conversion of potential (battery) energy into kinetic energy of a body without any exhaust (i.e. without giving the exact but opposite momentum to some other body/bodies) breaks both the CoM and CoE.

CoM: obvious in any inertial frame.  Pick the ref frame in which the box is initially at rest, total momentum = 0.  After switching it on and off, total momentum is non-zero.  If the box is not interacting with the surroundings, CoM is broken.

CoE: pick two ref frames (inertial), moving relative to each other (with a constant velocity U).  In the first frame (let's use one in which the box is initially at rest, and where its final velocity is V), the battery energy is converted into kinetic energy (m*V^2)/2.  In the second reference frame, the same amount of battery energy is converted into kinetic energy [(m*(V+U)^2)/2 - (m*U^2)/2], which is larger than (M*V^2)/2.  This is a general problem with converting potential energy into kinetic energy.  Kinetic energy is frame-dependent, while potential energy is not.  When you add an exhaust, this discrepancy goes away.  You can't get rid of it without adding exhaust.

Note that CoM/CoE must hold in any inertial reference frame.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: kamill85 on 08/31/2017 11:26 pm
Yes, I'm saying there has been no exhaust at all, just a pure conversion of 10kWh from battery, into kinetic energy, does that break anything? Or is it the most plausible case (assuming it works)?

Conversion of potential (battery) energy into kinetic energy of a body without any exhaust (i.e. without giving the exact but opposite momentum to some other body/bodies) breaks both the CoM and CoE.

CoM: obvious in any inertial frame.  Pick the ref frame in which the box is initially at rest, total momentum = 0.  After switching it on and off, total momentum is non-zero.  If the box is not interacting with the surroundings, CoM is broken.

CoE: pick two ref frames (inertial), moving relative to each other (with a constant velocity U).  In the first frame (let's use one in which the box is initially at rest, and where its final velocity is V), the battery energy is converted into kinetic energy (m*V^2)/2.  In the second reference frame, the same amount of battery energy is converted into kinetic energy [(m*(V+U)^2)/2 - (m*U^2)/2], which is larger than (M*V^2)/2.  This is a general problem with converting potential energy into kinetic energy.  Kinetic energy is frame-dependent, while potential energy is not.  When you add an exhaust, this discrepancy goes away.  You can't get rid of it without adding exhaust.

Note that CoM/CoE must hold in any inertial reference frame.

Thank you. Now, just to clear this a bit, I did say the box is a little bit lighter at B, to account for the tiny 10kWh missing. Shouldn't there be a way to convert mass directly into momentum? Cause this is what the box would be doing I think. If photon rocket is inefficient, and out of 10kWh, only tiny fraction is used to generate momentum, and rest is "lost" along with the missing photon, shouldn't there be a way to make a system where only momentum is generated, and the photon is recovered? On the bigger picture, 10kWh was lost in mass, turned into kinetic energy, where at B 100% was recovered and lets say turned back into missing mass. Object is at momentum=0 again, with equal mass & energy?

PS: I don't quite get your CoE example, could you elaborate via PM? (or here) Basically if here are 2 boxes and one has added relative velocity U to begin with, then of course at B the kinetic energy will be different for both boxes, or am I missing something?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: wicoe on 09/01/2017 12:10 am
Thank you. Now, just to clear this a bit, I did say the box is a little bit lighter at B, to account for the tiny 10kWh missing. Shouldn't there be a way to convert mass directly into momentum? Cause this is what the box would be doing I think. If photon rocket is inefficient, and out of 10kWh, only tiny fraction is used to generate momentum, and rest is "lost" along with the missing photon, shouldn't there be a way to make a system where only momentum is generated, and the photon is recovered? On the bigger picture, 10kWh was lost in mass, turned into kinetic energy, where at B 100% was recovered and lets say turned back into missing mass. Object is at momentum=0 again, with equal mass & energy?

PS: I don't quite get your CoE example, could you elaborate via PM? (or here) Basically if here are 2 boxes and one has added relative velocity U to begin with, then of course at B the kinetic energy will be different for both boxes, or am I missing something?

A photon rocket is "inefficient" not because of energy losses.  Even if you consider the most idealistic scenario where all the energy is converted into photons emitted in one direction, you get very small thrust because of the nature of photons.  Specifically, even very high energy photons have very small momentum, compared to what you'd get using a different type of exhaust (mass).  You spend a large amount of energy to generate them, but you get pushed back just a little (same momentum as the photons but in the opposite direction).  Note that you convert energy into energy, not into momentum.

Regarding the CoE example, I was referring to the energy difference (before and after).  It is obvious that the actual kinetic energy is different in different ref frames.  What I'm saying is that if you convert some potential energy into kinetic energy, the amount of potential energy lost should equal the total gain in kinetic energy of participating objects (except for "non-directional" losses, such as thermal losses), and this equivalence should be observed in all inertial reference frames.  If you consider a scenario where only one object gets kinetic energy, this equivalence breaks down (i.e. you get different KE gains in different ref frames while the amount of expended fuel energy is the same).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/01/2017 12:50 am
Thank you. Now, just to clear this a bit, I did say the box is a little bit lighter at B, to account for the tiny 10kWh missing. Shouldn't there be a way to convert mass directly into momentum? Cause this is what the box would be doing I think. If photon rocket is inefficient, and out of 10kWh, only tiny fraction is used to generate momentum, and rest is "lost" along with the missing photon, shouldn't there be a way to make a system where only momentum is generated, and the photon is recovered? On the bigger picture, 10kWh was lost in mass, turned into kinetic energy, where at B 100% was recovered and lets say turned back into missing mass. Object is at momentum=0 again, with equal mass & energy?

PS: I don't quite get your CoE example, could you elaborate via PM? (or here) Basically if here are 2 boxes and one has added relative velocity U to begin with, then of course at B the kinetic energy will be different for both boxes, or am I missing something?

A photon rocket is "inefficient" not because of energy losses.  Even if you consider the most idealistic scenario where all the energy is converted into photons emitted in one direction, you get very small thrust because of the nature of photons.  Specifically, even very high energy photons have very small momentum, compared to what you'd get using a different type of exhaust (mass).  You spend a large amount of energy to generate them, but you get pushed back just a little (same momentum as the photons but in the opposite direction).  Note that you convert energy into energy, not into momentum.

Regarding the CoE example, I was referring to the energy difference (before and after).  It is obvious that the actual kinetic energy is different in different ref frames.  What I'm saying is that if you convert some potential energy into kinetic energy, the amount of potential energy lost should equal the total gain in kinetic energy of participating objects (except for "non-directional" losses, such as thermal losses), and this equivalence should be observed in all inertial reference frames.  If you consider a scenario where only one object gets kinetic energy, this equivalence breaks down (i.e. you get different KE gains in different ref frames while the amount of expended fuel energy is the same).

Hi Wicoe,

The example of a photon rocket, while inefficient, carries no propellant as such to exhaust but instead on demand converts electrical energy into photons with both energy and momentum due to the mass equivalence of the photon energy and when emitted always travel at c.

For a 1 second, 1kW burst of photons from a laser on a 1,000kg spacecraft we have

t = 1 second
Kg = 1,000
E = 1kW
Force = E / c = 3.3x10-6 N,
Work = (N^2 * t^2) / 2 * kg, assuming zero initial velocity from last rest frame of the 1t mass before acceleration starts = 5.45x10-15 j, so not a lot of energy lost from the 1,000 j in the 1 sec laser burst.

Which also shows virtually all the initial photon energy and momentum is still there because the force was so small, the energy used to do work, moving the mass was also so very tiny.

However both CofM and CofE are conserved because the momentum and KE gained by the ship's 1t mass are lost from the emitted photon stream.

That same 1kW by 1 sec long pulse of photon energy could next hit a totally reflective solar sail, which would experience a 6.6uN momentum transfer and 1.1x10-14 j KE gain, one 3.3uN photon absorb event, followed rapidly by another 3.3uN photon emit event, at the expense of reduced photon energy and momentum. Here again the solar sails gained momentum and KE is sourced from lost photon energy and momentum. No propellant is exhausted, but instead energy and momentum are transferred from photon created from electrical energy to mass.

Of course as the 1 sec long photon stream losses energy and momentum, at each absord or emit event, the wavelength of all the photons increases at each inelastic emit event.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 09/01/2017 01:25 am

Any force (including Lorentz forces) acts in two opposing directions between the source(s) of the field(s) and the object (action and reaction), so the resulting momentum will be equally distributed between the source and the target and will cancel out due to opposing directions.  If the source of the field and the object you're looking at are co-moving, the center of mass will get zero momentum change.

Under the usual assumptions, yes, but the Third Law can break down in specific circumstances precisely because the speed of light is finite as the paper I referenced showed. Then you can have a net force on the system.

No you don't have a net force on the (closed) system. Even though force can not propagate faster than light, people are smart enough to figure out that the force carrying messenger (light in the case of electric or magnetic forces) itself carries momentum. So momentum is still conserved. If your system is closed, that light later on is interacted with other parts of your system to create the counter force. So you merely moved the mass center of your system. If your system is open, you have a light rocket.

It is not usually thought that the Third Law applies instantaneously at the point of interaction between field and object rather than at the two parts of the system interacting. But if you do, you have to admit that the photon momentum change must be capable of providing the large internal forces since you are saying its conserved instantaneously. That makes the authors point that large forces are possible and it's not limited to a photon rocket.

In the case of two current carrying wires interacting in space, you are conserving momentum both at each wire immediately and at the delayed response with the other wire. Both sets cancel. But both are equal so that would show the field carries much more momentum that E/c if it's true. So if two wires are spacelike events, and if momentum is conserved immediately while the forces are significant, the field must be carrying more momentum than we think, of the forces must be smaller than the texts say.

I don't think I'm going to get a chance any time soon to test this idea out, though I would like to, so I'll just share it with you here.  This is what I would like to test some time in the future.  It is a hybrid of the patent I cited on the link I shared https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.0 .  I substituted iron in the center of the coil.  The capacitors make it an LC circuit.  Resistors can be introduced if needed.  Power is fed in through a side inductor.  The pure magnetic signal must travel through a dielectric slab that slows the signal such that the wavelength of the signal through the dielectric slab and space between the coils is exactly 1/4 lambda.  The current in the top coil is out of phase with the bottom coil by 90 degrees or pi/2.

There should be no charge separation interaction as long as the charge nodes remain at the capacitors.  There will be magnetic interaction between the coils.  This way there is no static electric force opposing the magnetic. 

I was pondering if this could be happening in the EM drive.  If you continuously advance a phase of a signal injected you pretty much just change the frequency.  Resonance in a cavity can be off the main frequency by a small amount so its possible to have resonance at a bit too high of a frequency.  Because the signal frequency is too high light should keep penetrating a bit deeper into the metal till it meets electrons that are free to move out of phase with the light and reflect the light but more light keeps being fed in that is too high of a frequency.  This might suggest a phase problem.  For a waveguide the light is fed in from one side.  If fed in through the bottom or top could feeding a frequency slightly too high suggest inducing a semi traveling wave?  Also feeding in a slightly off signal reduces Q.  I don't think we necessarily want a high Q anyways so this is intriguing to me.  No charge separation happens in a cavity with a Transverse Electric mode.  This suggest feeding in too low of a frequency signal might reverse the effect.

attached below is my suggestion to test for magnetic propulsion "Pure magnetic phased propulsion.png"
An illustration of a reverse magnetic phased array.  "Reverse magnetic phased array.png"
The last file is the patent I was talking about here:
, ---->> "Phased array propulsion US20140345251A1.pdf  (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1445560;sess=47536)"<<---- see file below or click this link - please check this out if you want to know the details.

the patent really already has it all except they don't use ferrous material in the center.  Possibly on purpose. The patent drawings are the best.  They really illustrate some of the concepts  
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: mwvp on 09/01/2017 06:11 am
During continual acceleration, as KE increases, the energy to support increasing Work and KE is sourced from cavity energy, increasing energy loss per cycle, dropping Q and dropping N.

Why is this so hard to accept?
Because it makes no sense, it implies that an emdrive that has been accelerating for 10 minutes will produce less force than one that has been accelerating for 10 seconds, when there is nothing physically different between them. There is no mechanism by which it can tell the difference, the RF is from a co-moving source, so there will not be Doppler problems, and you have claimed that simply turning it back off and then back on will reset the magic tracking how long it was running for by some additional magic.


There is a physical difference between the drives accelerating for different times. You can tell the difference between them from the RF spectra. There is a Doppler "problem" in an accelerating drive with a co-moving source (frustrum injector antenna) though not in a constant velocity frustrum.

If this were not so, we'd have no Sagnac fiber-optic gyros.

There is a finite propogation delay in the frustrum, between the antenna, the sidewalls, and the end reflectors. If the frustrum accelerates, the frequency is Doppler shifted. Also the dissipation of the frustrum loss phase shifts and attenuates, and does so frequency-selectively according to tuning.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: mwvp on 09/01/2017 06:21 am
...
Also, I can accept that there would be a relationship between the force and acceleration but that could result from loss mechanisms due to Doppler shifts or other phenomenon and not from imparting kinetic energy to the device. If static tests show all the input Rf becomes heat, I suspect dynamic tests would show that too but that will eventually be testable. In fact, if the Rf energy is the source of the kinetic energy, then the cavity should be self-cooling under greater acceleration becoming even more efficient. There would be measurable less heat dissipated if the EMdrive is undergoing a constant acceleration than in a static test.

That's exactly what I expect to find from an opto-mechanical, / laser heating-cooling perspective analysis. If the frustrum preferentially dissipates the lower sideband, and the cavity/system is designed for lower-sideband excitation, it accelerates. If mounted on a spring, it would oscillate.

Unless you've damped the livin h*ll out of your test setup. But that doesn't matter so much with a non-superconducting cavity because the the oscillations of Q's around 10^4 are going to be around kilohertz. Perhaps you could make a glass or ceramic frustrum sing.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: mwvp on 09/01/2017 06:38 am
...
Momentum is conserved and Energy is conserved.
Momentum is obviously not conserved. Start with an emDrive at rest, it has 0 momentum. Run it for a while, and then turn it off. It now has momentum, but nothing has left the cavity, and there is nothing inside the cavity moving the opposite direction. The only thing that could possible leave the cavity is IR radiation, but that would at best have the momentum of a photon thruster. Obviously nothing in the cavity is moving the opposite direction, because if it was it would soon hit the back of the cavity and make the cavity stop moving forward.

Heat has left the cavity, heat came from RF energy; and more Doppler down-shifted, lower frequency energy than up-shifted higher frequency energy; and the down-shifting happened at the apex where the up-shifting happens at the base (sidewalls too); and that means more radiation-reaction momentum was imparted in the forward direction whereas radiation-reaction momentum in the reverse wasn't imparted since it was absorbed then radiated as heat.

Imagine a hollow sphere, an isotropic laser in the center, one hemisphere is reflective, the opposite hemisphere has a high-Q frequency-selective absorbent dye over a reflective coating. Laser is tuned a hair down the dye's absorption spectral line. Accelerate the very light, rigid sphere at an unreal rate, so the Doppler downshifted radiation from the forward-moving hemisphere is now absorbed and radiated as heat.

The radiation pressure is then anisotropic, unsymmetrical for an accelerating cavity with unsymmetrical spectral absorption.

This trick only works in the Lorentz-invariant vacuum. Because, as the Sagnac Effect proves, you don't accelerate the spacetime inside a cavity. You accelerate the cavity shell through spacetime. You don't accelerate (Doppler shift) photons in a hollow cavity until they reflect off the cavity shell.

If you fill the waveguide with a material, then you must account for the Fresnel-Drag, and consider the Abraham-Minkowski stuff.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/01/2017 03:40 pm
During continual acceleration, as KE increases, the energy to support increasing Work and KE is sourced from cavity energy, increasing energy loss per cycle, dropping Q and dropping N.

Why is this so hard to accept?
Because it makes no sense, it implies that an emdrive that has been accelerating for 10 minutes will produce less force than one that has been accelerating for 10 seconds, when there is nothing physically different between them. There is no mechanism by which it can tell the difference, the RF is from a co-moving source, so there will not be Doppler problems, and you have claimed that simply turning it back off and then back on will reset the magic tracking how long it was running for by some additional magic.


There is a physical difference between the drives accelerating for different times. You can tell the difference between them from the RF spectra. There is a Doppler "problem" in an accelerating drive with a co-moving source (frustrum injector antenna) though not in a constant velocity frustrum.

If this were not so, we'd have no Sagnac fiber-optic gyros.

There is a finite propogation delay in the frustrum, between the antenna, the sidewalls, and the end reflectors. If the frustrum accelerates, the frequency is Doppler shifted. Also the dissipation of the frustrum loss phase shifts and attenuates, and does so frequency-selectively according to tuning.
This all comes to steady state in comparable to the cavity fill time constant. After that it should stay constant, and there is no difference between 1 minute or 10 minutes of operation.

...
Momentum is conserved and Energy is conserved.
Momentum is obviously not conserved. Start with an emDrive at rest, it has 0 momentum. Run it for a while, and then turn it off. It now has momentum, but nothing has left the cavity, and there is nothing inside the cavity moving the opposite direction. The only thing that could possible leave the cavity is IR radiation, but that would at best have the momentum of a photon thruster. Obviously nothing in the cavity is moving the opposite direction, because if it was it would soon hit the back of the cavity and make the cavity stop moving forward.

Heat has left the cavity, heat came from RF energy; and more Doppler down-shifted, lower frequency energy than up-shifted higher frequency energy; and the down-shifting happened at the apex where the up-shifting happens at the base (sidewalls too); and that means more radiation-reaction momentum was imparted in the forward direction whereas radiation-reaction momentum in the reverse wasn't imparted since it was absorbed then radiated as heat.
What is "heat"? Radiated as heat means radiated as IR radiation, which I already stated. This has same energy/momentum relation as a photon rocket, because that is what it is. (worse actually, because it is not very directional.

Therefore momentum, really, truly not conserved whatsoever. There simply by definition is not enough energy dissipated to equal the momentum the cavity is supposed to gain, and if there was, you would just have a photon rocket.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/01/2017 05:10 pm
Hello, I have a question. Excuse this layman example, but I'm new to EMdrive and the math behind it.

I understood there are issues with CoE and CoM. Lets imagine the following scenario:

1. "EMDrive" is enclosed in a box, blocking 100% of any energy from leaking out from inside of it.
2. There is a battery on board, 10kWh worth, enough for the engine to operate few minutes.
3. We have a race track, where the box can move freely, without any friction, from point A to B
4. At point B, we have a 100%-efficient kinetic energy recovery mechanism.

Now, assuming EMDrive somehow works, could it be that the 10kWh energy spent on the A-B travel, gets fully recovered (without any net) at point B, and the box arrives a little bit lighter at point B?

Yes, I'm saying there has been no exhaust at all, just a pure conversion of 10kWh from battery, into kinetic energy, does that break anything? Or is it the most plausible case (assuming it works)?

That being said, would that equal to a photon rocket? I mean, if we converted 10kWh energy into photons, shoot them out from the back of the box, would point B recover 10kWh?

Thank you.

Some of us have concluded or admitted that the EMDrive or Mega drive or any such propellent-less propulsion device would have to amount to and allow for an energy generation machine.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/01/2017 05:27 pm
You say I don't understand them and am going off half (maybe all) cocked. Do you really think they would write all those papers if all they were saying is "Hey, here's an interesting way to make a propellent-less propulsion device that works far far less efficiently than a simple photon rocket and is entirely useless!!!!!"? Or maybe, "Hey, this would work but you need gigawatts of power!!!! Maybe that's the academic world but somehow, I doubt that. So, what do you think they are really trying to say with these papers?

Can you realistically imagine proposing gigawatt levels of power in meter sized coils carrying 100 amps of current? Wouldn't they just melt?
I have no idea why they haven't calculated the power requirements, especially since there is an easy way to do so since the energy flux is equal to c times the momentum flux. Them not calculating it in no way changes the fact that this is a ton of power, and yes it probably would melt something if you tried to build such a device.

It does not matter why they aren't discussing the power numbers, because the power numbers are what they are. Do you have anything to add that is actually based on math or physics?

I emailed one of the authors, professor Yahalom, about the power levels for that 2.74N force and I'll let you know if he answers.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/01/2017 08:45 pm
Had a neat idea connected with studying EMdrive. I'm thinking that dark matter might just be the center of mass of counterpropagating photons happening on a massive scale.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/02/2017 02:38 am
I rebuilt the torsional pendulum support in preparation for the new 30W amplifier and electronics. The structure is now entirely 3"x3"x1/8" aluminum square tube and 1/4" stainless steel bolts. It is also 10 inches shorter.  With the center of gravity lower, and the more robust materials, it is the most stable it has ever been by far. The dampening paddle was also improved.

All electronics and batteries will be mounted on the left side of the pendulum center, the same side the frustum is mounted. I will get started on that tomorrow.  ;D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 09/02/2017 04:20 am
I rebuilt the torsional pendulum support in preparation for the new 30W amplifier and electronics. The structure is now entirely 3"x3"x1/8" aluminum square tube and 1/4" stainless steel bolts. It is also 10 inches shorter.  With the center of gravity lower, and the more robust materials, it is the most stable it has ever been by far. The dampening paddle was also improved.

All electronics and batteries will be mounted on the left side of the pendulum center, the same side the frustum is mounted. I will get started on that tomorrow.  ;D

Thank you. Looks like a solid build. However, There is a potential problem. The frustum is likely grounded to the beam from those two bolts. If so, an extra DC return path is potentially introduced (through the beam) which may introduce Lorentz force if the DC in this extra return path interacts with stray or Earth magnetic field. Better not to have it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 09/02/2017 05:31 am
I rebuilt the torsional pendulum support in preparation for the new 30W amplifier and electronics. The structure is now entirely 3"x3"x1/8" aluminum square tube and 1/4" stainless steel bolts. It is also 10 inches shorter.  With the center of gravity lower, and the more robust materials, it is the most stable it has ever been by far. The dampening paddle was also improved.

All electronics and batteries will be mounted on the left side of the pendulum center, the same side the frustum is mounted. I will get started on that tomorrow.  ;D

Thank you. Looks like a solid build. However, There is a potential problem. The frustum is likely grounded to the beam from those two bolts. If so, an extra DC return path is potentially introduced (through the beam) which may introduce Lorentz force if the DC in this extra return path interacts with stray or Earth magnetic field. Better not to have it.

Should not all power to the frustum in Monomorphic's design be in ghz, rather than DC? He is not mounting a magnetron on the frustum. So all DC power currents should be between the battery(s), signal generator and maybe amp, but from there microwave frequency by coax to the antenna, inside the frustum. Even induced currents in the frustum walls would be mirroring the AC profile of the resonanting microwaves. Wouldn't that even make any current flow between the frustum and any ground, again an AC mirror of the resonating microwaves?

But I may just be naive about it all, as I have always been more interested in, on and over the edge theory, rather than the nuts and bolts of RF.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 09/02/2017 06:20 am
I rebuilt the torsional pendulum support in preparation for the new 30W amplifier and electronics. The structure is now entirely 3"x3"x1/8" aluminum square tube and 1/4" stainless steel bolts. It is also 10 inches shorter.  With the center of gravity lower, and the more robust materials, it is the most stable it has ever been by far. The dampening paddle was also improved.

All electronics and batteries will be mounted on the left side of the pendulum center, the same side the frustum is mounted. I will get started on that tomorrow.  ;D

Thank you. Looks like a solid build. However, There is a potential problem. The frustum is likely grounded to the beam from those two bolts. If so, an extra DC return path is potentially introduced (through the beam) which may introduce Lorentz force if the DC in this extra return path interacts with stray or Earth magnetic field. Better not to have it.

Should not all power to the frustum in Monomorphic's design be in ghz, rather than DC? He is not mounting a magnetron on the frustum. So all DC power currents should be between the battery(s), signal generator and maybe amp, but from there microwave frequency by coax to the antenna, inside the frustum. Even induced currents in the frustum walls would be mirroring the AC profile of the resonanting microwaves. Wouldn't that even make any current flow between the frustum and any ground, again an AC mirror of the resonating microwaves?

But I may just be naive about it all, as I have always been more interested in, on and over the edge theory, rather than the nuts and bolts of RF.

You have DC supply to the signal generator and the Amp. The DC needs to go back to the battery after it leaves the amp. Of cause there is the negative lead for DC to return. But if Amp is grounded to the beam, and if battery is grounded to the beam too, there is another path for DC to return. If the frustum is grounded too, there is the third path for DC to return. NASA's 2014 experiment had this problem. Better not to allow those extra return paths to exist. Even if the battery is not ground, if the signal generator is grounded, AMP negative lead->RF cable shield->frustum->beam->signal generator grounding->battery is still a likely return path. Many people do not pay attention to this problem, including experienced electrical engineers. I am aware of it only because I make DIY tube amplifiers and I was stung once by ground loops picking up noise.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: chongma on 09/02/2017 08:15 am
I rebuilt the torsional pendulum support in preparation for the new 30W amplifier and electronics. The structure is now entirely 3"x3"x1/8" aluminum square tube and 1/4" stainless steel bolts. It is also 10 inches shorter.  With the center of gravity lower, and the more robust materials, it is the most stable it has ever been by far. The dampening paddle was also improved.

All electronics and batteries will be mounted on the left side of the pendulum center, the same side the frustum is mounted. I will get started on that tomorrow.  ;D

Good job Monomorphic.  I am sure a lot of people can't wait to see the results of your new build.  There is always excitement when you post new progress. It is great that you are sharing the details of your work with the community.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Eusa on 09/02/2017 08:41 am
I rebuilt the torsional pendulum support in preparation for the new 30W amplifier and electronics. The structure is now entirely 3"x3"x1/8" aluminum square tube and 1/4" stainless steel bolts. It is also 10 inches shorter.  With the center of gravity lower, and the more robust materials, it is the most stable it has ever been by far. The dampening paddle was also improved.

All electronics and batteries will be mounted on the left side of the pendulum center, the same side the frustum is mounted. I will get started on that tomorrow.  ;D
Fine!

Let's see the results with good-quality spherical ends. I think the inertial-gravitational phenomenon were optical (due to radiation rays), if real, and the Q could have been little biased, you remember, but let's see...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 09/02/2017 10:51 am
I rebuilt the torsional pendulum support in preparation for the new 30W amplifier and electronics. The structure is now entirely 3"x3"x1/8" aluminum square tube and 1/4" stainless steel bolts. It is also 10 inches shorter.  With the center of gravity lower, and the more robust materials, it is the most stable it has ever been by far. The dampening paddle was also improved.

All electronics and batteries will be mounted on the left side of the pendulum center, the same side the frustum is mounted. I will get started on that tomorrow.  ;D

Fantastic Jamie - Outstanding Build!!!

One question - and I may  have missed this in speed reading the last month or so of threads, if I did my apologies - are you planning on opening the thruster up and inspecting the copper coating between power levels as you go through your test program.   I am hoping your approach for coating the inside of the printed frustum is successful but if it does have problems it will be useful to know the power level where said problems appeared. 

Good Luck with your tests !!!  Can't wait to see the results.

graybeardsyseng
Herman


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 09/02/2017 11:28 am
I rebuilt the torsional pendulum support in preparation for the new 30W amplifier and electronics. The structure is now entirely 3"x3"x1/8" aluminum square tube and 1/4" stainless steel bolts. It is also 10 inches shorter.  With the center of gravity lower, and the more robust materials, it is the most stable it has ever been by far. The dampening paddle was also improved.

All electronics and batteries will be mounted on the left side of the pendulum center, the same side the frustum is mounted. I will get started on that tomorrow.  ;D

Thank you. Looks like a solid build. However, There is a potential problem. The frustum is likely grounded to the beam from those two bolts. If so, an extra DC return path is potentially introduced (through the beam) which may introduce Lorentz force if the DC in this extra return path interacts with stray or Earth magnetic field. Better not to have it.

Should not all power to the frustum in Monomorphic's design be in ghz, rather than DC? He is not mounting a magnetron on the frustum. So all DC power currents should be between the battery(s), signal generator and maybe amp, but from there microwave frequency by coax to the antenna, inside the frustum. Even induced currents in the frustum walls would be mirroring the AC profile of the resonanting microwaves. Wouldn't that even make any current flow between the frustum and any ground, again an AC mirror of the resonating microwaves?

But I may just be naive about it all, as I have always been more interested in, on and over the edge theory, rather than the nuts and bolts of RF.

You have DC supply to the signal generator and the Amp. The DC needs to go back to the battery after it leaves the amp. Of cause there is the negative lead for DC to return. But if Amp is grounded to the beam, and if battery is grounded to the beam too, there is another path for DC to return. If the frustum is grounded too, there is the third path for DC to return. NASA's 2014 experiment had this problem. Better not to allow those extra return paths to exist. Even if the battery is not ground, if the signal generator is grounded, AMP negative lead->RF cable shield->frustum->beam->signal generator grounding->battery is still a likely return path. Many people do not pay attention to this problem, including experienced electrical engineers. I am aware of it only because I make DIY tube amplifiers and I was stung once by ground loops picking up noise.



Ground loops are often very challenging to find and eliminate. I fight noise and hum in audio and rf systems all the time.   Here are a few links with some  data which has been helpful to me -

http://web.mit.edu/jhawk/tmp/p/EST016_Ground_Loops_handout.pdf (http://web.mit.edu/jhawk/tmp/p/EST016_Ground_Loops_handout.pdf)
http://arrakis-systems.com/pdfs/installgroundloops.pdf (http://arrakis-systems.com/pdfs/installgroundloops.pdf)
some of my favorites
http://kc.flexradio.com/knowledgebasearticle50426.aspx (http://kc.flexradio.com/knowledgebasearticle50426.aspx)
https://hackaday.com/2017/03/09/wtf-are-ground-loops/ (https://hackaday.com/2017/03/09/wtf-are-ground-loops/)
http://www.epanorama.net/documents/groundloop/ (http://www.epanorama.net/documents/groundloop/)

BTW - LED lights are frequently a BAD source of electrical noise. . . not a specific ground loop problem but often impress noise that is hard to eliminate or which will camouflage other noise sources.   I love LED lights but in some situations I have to retrograde to old fashioned (but quiet) inky (incandescent) light sources.

graybeardsyseng
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/02/2017 01:04 pm
The frustum is likely grounded to the beam from those two bolts. If so, an extra DC return path is potentially introduced (through the beam) which may introduce Lorentz force if the DC in this extra return path interacts with stray or Earth magnetic field. Better not to have it.

That is a very easy fix. Simple to use non-conductive bolts or to remove the tiny portion of the copper foil that is touching the current brass bolts.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/02/2017 01:12 pm
One question - and I may  have missed this in speed reading the last month or so of threads, if I did my apologies - are you planning on opening the thruster up and inspecting the copper coating between power levels as you go through your test program.   I am hoping your approach for coating the inside of the printed frustum is successful but if it does have problems it will be useful to know the power level where said problems appeared. 

I will definitely open up the cavity for inspections. That is a pretty simple task since the end-plates are bolted on, not soldered. In fact, I did open up the flat end-plate frustum recently and noticed some strange markings on the large end-plate copper. First thought was arcing, but I have so far only put 5W into that cavity. Second thought is a splatter of some liquid chemical that etched the pattern. I'm not sure how to tell the difference.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 09/02/2017 01:49 pm
I rebuilt the torsional pendulum support in preparation for the new 30W amplifier and electronics. The structure is now entirely 3"x3"x1/8" aluminum square tube and 1/4" stainless steel bolts. It is also 10 inches shorter.  With the center of gravity lower, and the more robust materials, it is the most stable it has ever been by far. The dampening paddle was also improved.

All electronics and batteries will be mounted on the left side of the pendulum center, the same side the frustum is mounted. I will get started on that tomorrow.  ;D

Thank you. Looks like a solid build. However, There is a potential problem. The frustum is likely grounded to the beam from those two bolts. If so, an extra DC return path is potentially introduced (through the beam) which may introduce Lorentz force if the DC in this extra return path interacts with stray or Earth magnetic field. Better not to have it.

Should not all power to the frustum in Monomorphic's design be in ghz, rather than DC? He is not mounting a magnetron on the frustum. So all DC power currents should be between the battery(s), signal generator and maybe amp, but from there microwave frequency by coax to the antenna, inside the frustum. Even induced currents in the frustum walls would be mirroring the AC profile of the resonanting microwaves. Wouldn't that even make any current flow between the frustum and any ground, again an AC mirror of the resonating microwaves?

But I may just be naive about it all, as I have always been more interested in, on and over the edge theory, rather than the nuts and bolts of RF.

You have DC supply to the signal generator and the Amp. The DC needs to go back to the battery after it leaves the amp. Of cause there is the negative lead for DC to return. But if Amp is grounded to the beam, and if battery is grounded to the beam too, there is another path for DC to return. If the frustum is grounded too, there is the third path for DC to return. NASA's 2014 experiment had this problem. Better not to allow those extra return paths to exist. Even if the battery is not ground, if the signal generator is grounded, AMP negative lead->RF cable shield->frustum->beam->signal generator grounding->battery is still a likely return path. Many people do not pay attention to this problem, including experienced electrical engineers. I am aware of it only because I make DIY tube amplifiers and I was stung once by ground loops picking up noise.

I was only questioning what kind of ground loop might exist between the frustum and ground. The comment I was responding to suggested problems with a DC ground loop and it seemed(s) to me that any grounded current from the frustum in Monomorphic's build would be an AC current. Am I wrong in assuming that even though that might result in some noise, it would not creat the same issues that a DC current ground might.

In any case, once again Monomorphic has already addressed a fix.

There is another random thought that since we (meaning those actually doing the work) haven't yet confirmed thrust in a reproducible and controlled build, there is no way to know whether grounding the frustum might be necessary to achieve thrust. No matter what the mechanism of thrust turns out to be.

If it is easy to isolate the frustum from ground in Monomorphic's build, maybe it would be best to run the tests first with a ground and then without.

Am I wrong in assuming that an AC current to ground would not create the same issue that a DC ground current would?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: chazemz on 09/02/2017 02:25 pm
I have to ask a question here since I have been locked out.
With reference to the Newton's cradle, if I have a five ball Newton's cradle and I lift two balls and then let them go, what will happen when the two balls collide with the three remaining balls?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/02/2017 03:27 pm
I have to ask a question here since I have been locked out.
With reference to the Newton's cradle, if I have a five ball Newton's cradle and I lift two balls and then let them go, what will happen when the two balls collide with the three remaining balls?

If the balls are two on a side, it will go three-two-three-two until it stops and the energy is converted to heat and other losses. If the balls are on each end, they will each bounce while the three stand still until the energy is lost.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/02/2017 03:46 pm
I never stated it was a violation. But if you read all their works you will see that the momentum of the field matches the momentum gained by the object under the Lorentz force, I.e. the forces are large and there is no mechanism which necessarily reduces the action of the force to the low level of the photon rocket.
Actually, I saw no calculation of the energy required, so this statement is baseless.

So, the assumption it can be no better than a photon rocket may be challenged as the fields are not simple plane waves.
No, the energy/momentum relation is general, not strictly for plain waves. In addition to being something directly in electrodynamics, energy/momentum relations for massless particles are enforced by special relativity as well.

But the issue really isn't their model of momentum conservation but their model of Lorentz force generation. They might  be right about that and wrong about how the momentum is conserved.
...
p.s. One of the authors, Yahalom,  is affiliated with the Isaac Newton Institute at Cambridge so he might be considered somewhat of an expert on the Third Law and momentum conservation
Do you like countering your own points?

I believe they indirectly argue the field momentum is much larger than a photon rocket equivalent
I do not see them claiming this.

In the paper they calculate the force as around 2 Newtons, not 2 micro Newtons which isn't consistent with being supported by the field momentum at the energy levels they give which are implied by the currents they use. That implies they believe the fields can carry that large amount of momentum away. Perhaps a better argument would be to just claim that if Newton's Third Law is violated, the net force by definition is an external force and thus they don't need to discuss momentum conservation at all.  ;D

Yes, I did seem to counter my own point but I'm not trying to win an argument or debate but just to discuss this interesting topic.  :)

I worked all this out for myself using MathCAD about 20 years ago. Based on this sheet, they are only considering the current in the pair of wires "I1I2". What is not shown is the voltage, capacitance, charge and electric field at the ends of those wires when the current goes to zero. The force due to charges and electric fields will oppose the force due to currents and magnetic fields. When both are included, the 2N of force is suddenly < 2uN and we are back to the thrust of a photon rocket. If the system is large, it could oscillate back and force at a relatively low frequency with much greater force, but the CM will not move except for the asymmetry in the EM radiation, (aka photon rocket).

I don't know your setup  and your assumptions for that calculation but if you are trying to say anytime you switch it off it exactly must cancel out the well known Lorentz force, and under any conceivable configuration of times and currents and geometries, I'm very dubious and would have to see the details. I'm not saying your calculation didn't do that but were you specifically messing with conditions to make the events in each wire spacelike wrt each other?

Specifically, the Third Law can break down in specific circumstances precisely because the speed of light is finite and events can have a spacelike separation even while they are being independently controlled faster than light can mediate between the interaction between them. Pulses can be independently designed and arranged that compliment the net forces and counter unwanted forces. For example, the field from pulse in one wire might cause a force in a distant wire in such a way that there is no ability for a counter force to even exist on the first wire. That spacelike separation and control could include unwanted electrical effects through proper design. Though technically challenging, that breaks the symmetry and opens up new possibilities.

A couple more points. The wires here are loops so they have no ends.  If you are saying switching on and off counters the Lorentz force, I believe the switching times can be engineered much smaller than the steady pulse times where the Lorentz force acts to mitigate those forces while preserving the criteria suggested above.

I have my own configuration in mind which I would like to simulate with a 3D dynamic simulator that has the full Maxwell equations. It should be able to handle picosecond resolution in a volume of a few cubic cm. Do you have any thoughts about that? Thanks.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: chazemz on 09/02/2017 04:15 pm
I have to ask a question here since I have been locked out.
With reference to the Newton's cradle, if I have a five ball Newton's cradle and I lift two balls and then let them go, what will happen when the two balls collide with the three remaining balls?

If the balls are two on a side, it will go three-two-three-two until it stops and the energy is converted to heat and other losses. If the balls are on each end, they will each bounce while the three stand still until the energy is lost.

Exactly, two balls must come out. If one ball comes out at twice the velocity then we conserve momentum but not kinetic energy.
So next question: Is conservation of energy the stronger law or does nature treat momentum and energy as the same?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 09/02/2017 04:21 pm
I have to ask a question here since I have been locked out.
With reference to the Newton's cradle, if I have a five ball Newton's cradle and I lift two balls and then let them go, what will happen when the two balls collide with the three remaining balls?

If the balls are two on a side, it will go three-two-three-two until it stops and the energy is converted to heat and other losses. If the balls are on each end, they will each bounce while the three stand still until the energy is lost.

Exactly, two balls must come out. If one ball comes out at twice the velocity then we conserve momentum but not kinetic energy.
So next question: Is conservation of energy the stronger law or does nature treat momentum and energy as the same?

http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/symmetry.html

"The conservation of momentum is related to the homogeneity of space. Invariance under translation in time means that the law of conservation of energy is valid. Such statements come from Noether's theorem..."

Seems it depends on which of space or time is more homogeneous.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.LeBel on 09/02/2017 04:28 pm
There is a lot of talk about a perfectly insulated cavity i.e “sealed” or as in a Faraday cage... The thing is that, if you release an object inside the cavity, it will fall to the bottom. We can’t insulate against earth’s gravity. Similarly, what we are trying to achieve inside the cavity will be essentially of the same nature as gravity. So, while the cavity will most likely contains/keep inside the electro-magnetic processes we use, the resulting gravity like field will effectively be permeating easily through any barrier or material making the cavity. Then, the question is about whether this resulting and permeating gravity like field will simply radiate away (useless) or whether it will remain attached to the E and M source/process confined inside the cavity. The latter possibility could allow for the shaping as an inertia wave attached to the cavity and in which the cavity would be “falling” into, i.e. move.

Food for thought,
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/02/2017 04:29 pm
I have to ask a question here since I have been locked out.
With reference to the Newton's cradle, if I have a five ball Newton's cradle and I lift two balls and then let them go, what will happen when the two balls collide with the three remaining balls?

If the balls are two on a side, it will go three-two-three-two until it stops and the energy is converted to heat and other losses. If the balls are on each end, they will each bounce while the three stand still until the energy is lost.

Exactly, two balls must come out. If one ball comes out at twice the velocity then we conserve momentum but not kinetic energy.
So next question: Is conservation of energy the stronger law or does nature treat momentum and energy as the same?

All the laws of nature are equally valid so one is not stronger than the other. Energy is conserved in a single reference frame or separately in each frame. Kinetic energy is not a conserved quantity. We debated this exhaustively before regarding the gain in kinetic energy of a rocket doing a burn when it's already moving fast. An example which has real value is the Oberth maneuver or the gravity assist fly-by for space probes. Doing the burn at maximum velocity while zipping around a planet gives the probe multiple times the kinetic energy just doing the same burn in free space but the energy comes from the planet.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberth_effect
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 09/02/2017 04:46 pm

Exactly, two balls must come out. If one ball comes out at twice the velocity then we conserve momentum but not kinetic energy.
So next question: Is conservation of energy the stronger law or does nature treat momentum and energy as the same?

All the laws of nature are equally valid so one is not stronger than the other. Energy is conserved in a single reference frame or separately in each frame. Kinetic energy is not a conserved quantity. We debated this exhaustively before regarding the gain in kinetic energy of a rocket doing a burn when it's already moving fast. An example which has real value is the Oberth maneuver or the gravity assist fly-by for space probes. Doing the burn at maximum velocity while zipping around a planet gives the probe multiple times the kinetic energy just doing the same burn in free space but the energy comes from the planet.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberth_effect

Mostly agree but the extra kinetic energy does not come from the planet. More kinetic energy gain or less, depends on how chemical energy is distributed between the spaceship and the exhaust (propellant).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: chazemz on 09/02/2017 04:57 pm

Exactly, two balls must come out. If one ball comes out at twice the velocity then we conserve momentum but not kinetic energy.
So next question: Is conservation of energy the stronger law or does nature treat momentum and energy as the same?

All the laws of nature are equally valid so one is not stronger than the other. Energy is conserved in a single reference frame or separately in each frame. Kinetic energy is not a conserved quantity. We debated this exhaustively before regarding the gain in kinetic energy of a rocket doing a burn when it's already moving fast. An example which has real value is the Oberth maneuver or the gravity assist fly-by for space probes. Doing the burn at maximum velocity while zipping around a planet gives the probe multiple times the kinetic energy just doing the same burn in free space but the energy comes from the planet.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberth_effect

Mostly agree but the extra kinetic energy does not come from the planet. More kinetic energy gain or less, depends on how chemical energy is distributed between the spaceship and the exhaust (propellant).

Ok, so is it reasonable to say that when nature conserves, "it accounts for"
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/02/2017 05:10 pm

Exactly, two balls must come out. If one ball comes out at twice the velocity then we conserve momentum but not kinetic energy.
So next question: Is conservation of energy the stronger law or does nature treat momentum and energy as the same?

All the laws of nature are equally valid so one is not stronger than the other. Energy is conserved in a single reference frame or separately in each frame. Kinetic energy is not a conserved quantity. We debated this exhaustively before regarding the gain in kinetic energy of a rocket doing a burn when it's already moving fast. An example which has real value is the Oberth maneuver or the gravity assist fly-by for space probes. Doing the burn at maximum velocity while zipping around a planet gives the probe multiple times the kinetic energy just doing the same burn in free space but the energy comes from the planet.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberth_effect

Mostly agree but the extra kinetic energy does not come from the planet. More kinetic energy gain or less, depends on how chemical energy is distributed between the spaceship and the exhaust (propellant).

If a probe going a certain speed v falls into a gravity well and gains a delta v, without burning any fuel, there is a gain in kinetic energy which cannot be explained by borrowing kinetic energy from the fuel since no fuel was burned and kinetic energy is based on the total velocity squared. Essentially, the planet dumped energy into the probes reference frame which was already in motion. In this case, that occurs before our problem starts but we might consider some of the gain must come from the planet since two velocities contribute to the gain term. One is the total velocity it has before the burn which does partly depend on the planet, and the second which depends on the burn. So the gain cannot completely be explained by the fuel exhaust.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 09/02/2017 06:06 pm
I worked all this out for myself using MathCAD about 20 years ago. Based on this sheet, they are only considering the current in the pair of wires "I1I2". What is not shown is the voltage, capacitance, charge and electric field at the ends of those wires when the current goes to zero. The force due to charges and electric fields will oppose the force due to currents and magnetic fields. When both are included, the 2N of force is suddenly < 2uN and we are back to the thrust of a photon rocket. If the system is large, it could oscillate back and force at a relatively low frequency with much greater force, but the CM will not move except for the asymmetry in the EM radiation, (aka photon rocket).

I don't know your setup  and your assumptions for that calculation but if you are trying to say anytime you switch it off it exactly must cancel out the well known Lorentz force, and under any conceivable configuration of times and currents and geometries, I'm very dubious and would have to see the details. I'm not saying your calculation didn't do that but were you specifically messing with conditions to make the events in each wire spacelike wrt each other?

Specifically, the Third Law can break down in specific circumstances precisely because the speed of light is finite and events can have a spacelike separation even while they are being independently controlled faster than light can mediate between the interaction between them. Pulses can be independently designed and arranged that compliment the net forces and counter unwanted forces. For example, the field from pulse in one wire might cause a force in a distant wire in such a way that there is no ability for a counter force to even exist on the first wire. That spacelike separation and control could include unwanted electrical effects through proper design. Though technically challenging, that breaks the symmetry and opens up new possibilities.

A couple more points. The wires here are loops so they have no ends.  If you are saying switching on and off counters the Lorentz force, I believe the switching times can be engineered much smaller than the steady pulse times where the Lorentz force acts to mitigate those forces while preserving the criteria suggested above.

I have my own configuration in mind which I would like to simulate with a 3D dynamic simulator that has the full Maxwell equations. It should be able to handle picosecond resolution in a volume of a few cubic cm. Do you have any thoughts about that? Thanks.

The current in the wire will depend on the time duration the voltage is applied.

dI/dt = V/L, where V is voltage and L is the inductance which depends on the dimensions of the loop. The smaller we make the switching time, the less current gain we will get in that time for a given size loop.

In the case of the resonant frequency of the loops, even if it has no ends, there will be at least 2 nodes in the current, where the voltage is at a maximum/minimum. This represents the charge density at these locations, which radiate an electric field which must be accounted for.

If there were constant current in the loops, we still need to break the loop to stop the current. Charge has to be dumped into some capacitor and that will take time. To reduce the time, we use a smaller capacitor, which results in a much higher peak voltage. Before we know it, realistic N size forces require 100's of MV on the capacitor, resulting in MW -> GW of power being radiated at relatively low currents and high frequency.

I estimated, to lift it's own weight without dielectric breakdown using today's technology, it would need to be at least the size of a football stadium. Like the alien ships in Independence day, covering Manhattan island. At the end of the day, it's just a photon rocket and we underestimate the actual power that is required to make it go when we go down this path, and there are more efficient methods of creating a photon rocket.


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 09/02/2017 06:07 pm
One question - and I may  have missed this in speed reading the last month or so of threads, if I did my apologies - are you planning on opening the thruster up and inspecting the copper coating between power levels as you go through your test program.   I am hoping your approach for coating the inside of the printed frustum is successful but if it does have problems it will be useful to know the power level where said problems appeared. 

I will definitely open up the cavity for inspections. That is a pretty simple task since the end-plates are bolted on, not soldered. In fact, I did open up the flat end-plate frustum recently and noticed some strange markings on the large end-plate copper. First thought was arcing, but I have so far only put 5W into that cavity. Second thought is a splatter of some liquid chemical that etched the pattern. I'm not sure how to tell the difference.
It could be some splatter from something you used, or oxidation to cuprous oxide. There is also the point that in working with the foil you are continually exhaling micro particles of liquid from your breath, a cough, sneeze or even house flies that may have landed on the parts and left a calling card. You have a wide dispersion of very small spots that seem roughly uniform with the much bigger ones that do look like droplets spreading.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 09/02/2017 06:10 pm
One question - and I may  have missed this in speed reading the last month or so of threads, if I did my apologies - are you planning on opening the thruster up and inspecting the copper coating between power levels as you go through your test program.   I am hoping your approach for coating the inside of the printed frustum is successful but if it does have problems it will be useful to know the power level where said problems appeared. 

I will definitely open up the cavity for inspections. That is a pretty simple task since the end-plates are bolted on, not soldered. In fact, I did open up the flat end-plate frustum recently and noticed some strange markings on the large end-plate copper. First thought was arcing, but I have so far only put 5W into that cavity. Second thought is a splatter of some liquid chemical that etched the pattern. I'm not sure how to tell the difference.
It could be some splatter from something you used, or oxidation to cuprous oxide. There is also the point that in working with the foil you are continually exhaling micro particles of liquid from your breath, a cough, sneeze or even house flies that may have landed on the parts and left a calling card. You have a wide dispersion of very small spots that seem roughly uniform with the much bigger ones that do look like droplets spreading.

That's right. It is another mechanism at work parallel to the chemical one. It is like a ball being hit by a bat and gaining kinetic energy as the result.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 09/02/2017 09:47 pm
I worked all this out for myself using MathCAD about 20 years ago. Based on this sheet, they are only considering the current in the pair of wires "I1I2". What is not shown is the voltage, capacitance, charge and electric field at the ends of those wires when the current goes to zero. The force due to charges and electric fields will oppose the force due to currents and magnetic fields. When both are included, the 2N of force is suddenly < 2uN and we are back to the thrust of a photon rocket. If the system is large, it could oscillate back and force at a relatively low frequency with much greater force, but the CM will not move except for the asymmetry in the EM radiation, (aka photon rocket).

I don't know your setup  and your assumptions for that calculation but if you are trying to say anytime you switch it off it exactly must cancel out the well known Lorentz force, and under any conceivable configuration of times and currents and geometries, I'm very dubious and would have to see the details. I'm not saying your calculation didn't do that but were you specifically messing with conditions to make the events in each wire spacelike wrt each other?

Specifically, the Third Law can break down in specific circumstances precisely because the speed of light is finite and events can have a spacelike separation even while they are being independently controlled faster than light can mediate between the interaction between them. Pulses can be independently designed and arranged that compliment the net forces and counter unwanted forces. For example, the field from pulse in one wire might cause a force in a distant wire in such a way that there is no ability for a counter force to even exist on the first wire. That spacelike separation and control could include unwanted electrical effects through proper design. Though technically challenging, that breaks the symmetry and opens up new possibilities.

A couple more points. The wires here are loops so they have no ends.  If you are saying switching on and off counters the Lorentz force, I believe the switching times can be engineered much smaller than the steady pulse times where the Lorentz force acts to mitigate those forces while preserving the criteria suggested above.

I have my own configuration in mind which I would like to simulate with a 3D dynamic simulator that has the full Maxwell equations. It should be able to handle picosecond resolution in a volume of a few cubic cm. Do you have any thoughts about that? Thanks.

The current in the wire will depend on the time duration the voltage is applied.

dI/dt = V/L, where V is voltage and L is the inductance which depends on the dimensions of the loop. The smaller we make the switching time, the less current gain we will get in that time for a given size loop.

In the case of the resonant frequency of the loops, even if it has no ends, there will be at least 2 nodes in the current, where the voltage is at a maximum/minimum. This represents the charge density at these locations, which radiate an electric field which must be accounted for.

If there were constant current in the loops, we still need to break the loop to stop the current. Charge has to be dumped into some capacitor and that will take time. To reduce the time, we use a smaller capacitor, which results in a much higher peak voltage. Before we know it, realistic N size forces require 100's of MV on the capacitor, resulting in MW -> GW of power being radiated at relatively low currents and high frequency.
You don't want high frequency.  You want low frequency.  This maximizes the current.  Problem is the wavelength increases.  This is why in the patent they use the barium titanate or meta material which slows the propagation speed of the magnetic field at a set frequency and shortens the wavelength.  I am not convinced the time retarded magnetic field passing through the dielectric would significantly cancel any propulsion benefits but am curious if anything else will be stirred up to move other than the magentic field (what else could carry such momentum). 

Quote
I estimated, to lift it's own weight without dielectric breakdown using today's technology, it would need to be at least the size of a football stadium. Like the alien ships in Independence day, covering Manhattan island. At the end of the day, it's just a photon rocket and we underestimate the actual power that is required to make it go when we go down this path, and there are more efficient methods of creating a photon rocket. 

A photon generator or phased array uses the time retarded magnetic field competing against the time retarded electric field.  These forces work against each other.  In the patent they flip the forces so they work together or if you eliminate the static electric force by putting the static electric nodes in the LC circuit capacitor then the static electric force is not allowed to work against the time retarded magnetic forces. 

I am not convinced when the forces work together or you eliminate one of the opposing forces that the force is exactly the same as a photon rocket.  This is why I propose a test of it. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: mwvp on 09/02/2017 09:53 pm
...
I will definitely open up the cavity for inspections. That is a pretty simple task since the end-plates are bolted on, not soldered. In fact, I did open up the flat end-plate frustum recently and noticed some strange markings on the large end-plate copper. First thought was arcing, but I have so far only put 5W into that cavity. Second thought is a splatter of some liquid chemical that etched the pattern. I'm not sure how to tell the difference.

If its not too much bother, perhaps you could keep a dated log with photos of the Q or return loss over time? It may be helpful to know how quickly oxidation degrades tuned cavities.

Anyone have any literature references on this?

What would be more of a bother but perhaps worthwhile would be minimal sealing around connections with silicone/RTV, and when not testing, slowly (very slowly) letting freon (duster spray) bleed through the frustrum at low pressure just to keep out oxygen. That could help keep the Q higher over time by preventing oxidation.

Maybe a desiccant packet (as found in pill bottles, electronics) by reducing humidity would slow oxidation of copper too? I don't know.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 09/02/2017 10:01 pm

Exactly, two balls must come out. If one ball comes out at twice the velocity then we conserve momentum but not kinetic energy.
So next question: Is conservation of energy the stronger law or does nature treat momentum and energy as the same?

All the laws of nature are equally valid so one is not stronger than the other. Energy is conserved in a single reference frame or separately in each frame. Kinetic energy is not a conserved quantity. We debated this exhaustively before regarding the gain in kinetic energy of a rocket doing a burn when it's already moving fast. An example which has real value is the Oberth maneuver or the gravity assist fly-by for space probes. Doing the burn at maximum velocity while zipping around a planet gives the probe multiple times the kinetic energy just doing the same burn in free space but the energy comes from the planet.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberth_effect

Mostly agree but the extra kinetic energy does not come from the planet. More kinetic energy gain or less, depends on how chemical energy is distributed between the spaceship and the exhaust (propellant).

If a probe going a certain speed v falls into a gravity well and gains a delta v, without burning any fuel, there is a gain in kinetic energy which cannot be explained by borrowing kinetic energy from the fuel since no fuel was burned and kinetic energy is based on the total velocity squared. Essentially, the planet dumped energy into the probes reference frame which was already in motion. In this case, that occurs before our problem starts but we might consider some of the gain must come from the planet since two velocities contribute to the gain term. One is the total velocity it has before the burn which does partly depend on the planet, and the second which depends on the burn. So the gain cannot completely be explained by the fuel exhaust.

There are two types of gravity sling shots.

#1 is passing the ship by a planets gravitational well such that the ships mutual attraction slows the planet down and as a result the space ship speeds up.  In this case the planet is the ships propellant. 

#2 is using a ship engines in a gravitational well.  In this case by falling into the gravitational well you reduce the ships propellants potential energy.  If you fire off propellant far away you leave the propellant with a lot of potential energy to fall into the planet.  For maximum efficiency you fire off the propellant at your exact velocity such that the exiting propellant comes to an exact stop.  This way the propellant loses all kinetic energy and gains no potential energy upon exiting the engines.  This may not always be ideal however.  So falling into a gravitational well to use your ships engines increases how much energy you can get from them w.r.t. the grav source. 

Two separate mechanisms. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 09/02/2017 10:16 pm
The current in the wire will depend on the time duration the voltage is applied.

dI/dt = V/L, where V is voltage and L is the inductance which depends on the dimensions of the loop. The smaller we make the switching time, the less current gain we will get in that time for a given size loop.

In the case of the resonant frequency of the loops, even if it has no ends, there will be at least 2 nodes in the current, where the voltage is at a maximum/minimum. This represents the charge density at these locations, which radiate an electric field which must be accounted for.

If there were constant current in the loops, we still need to break the loop to stop the current. Charge has to be dumped into some capacitor and that will take time. To reduce the time, we use a smaller capacitor, which results in a much higher peak voltage. Before we know it, realistic N size forces require 100's of MV on the capacitor, resulting in MW -> GW of power being radiated at relatively low currents and high frequency.
You don't want high frequency.  You want low frequency.  This maximizes the current.  Problem is the wavelength increases.  This is why in the patent they use the barium titanate or meta material which slows the propagation speed of the magnetic field at a set frequency and shortens the wavelength.  I am not convinced the time retarded magnetic field passing through the dielectric would significantly cancel any propulsion benefits but am curious if anything else will be stirred up to move other than the magentic field (what else could carry such momentum). 

Quote
I estimated, to lift it's own weight without dielectric breakdown using today's technology, it would need to be at least the size of a football stadium. Like the alien ships in Independence day, covering Manhattan island. At the end of the day, it's just a photon rocket and we underestimate the actual power that is required to make it go when we go down this path, and there are more efficient methods of creating a photon rocket. 

A photon generator or phased array uses the time retarded magnetic field competing against the time retarded electric field.  These forces work against each other.  In the patent they flip the forces so they work together or if you eliminate the static electric force by putting the static electric nodes in the LC circuit capacitor then the static electric force is not allowed to work against the time retarded magnetic forces. 

I am not convinced when the forces work together or you eliminate one of the opposing forces that the force is exactly the same as a photon rocket.  This is why I propose a test of it. 

How could it be otherwise? There is an asymmetrical EM field around the device, describable as photons. There's nothing else in the equation coming out the back to conserve momentum.

To make it something more, a gravitational potential must be added. There are configurations where the intensity of the oscillating field of an antenna array is very asymmetrical. If the energy density differential were large enough, it could create a gravitational dipole (Gravitoelectric field) across the device, but that requires an enormous amount of "stored" energy to warp space-time. There are still only photons in the field.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 09/02/2017 10:47 pm
The current in the wire will depend on the time duration the voltage is applied.

dI/dt = V/L, where V is voltage and L is the inductance which depends on the dimensions of the loop. The smaller we make the switching time, the less current gain we will get in that time for a given size loop.

In the case of the resonant frequency of the loops, even if it has no ends, there will be at least 2 nodes in the current, where the voltage is at a maximum/minimum. This represents the charge density at these locations, which radiate an electric field which must be accounted for.

If there were constant current in the loops, we still need to break the loop to stop the current. Charge has to be dumped into some capacitor and that will take time. To reduce the time, we use a smaller capacitor, which results in a much higher peak voltage. Before we know it, realistic N size forces require 100's of MV on the capacitor, resulting in MW -> GW of power being radiated at relatively low currents and high frequency.
You don't want high frequency.  You want low frequency.  This maximizes the current.  Problem is the wavelength increases.  This is why in the patent they use the barium titanate or meta material which slows the propagation speed of the magnetic field at a set frequency and shortens the wavelength.  I am not convinced the time retarded magnetic field passing through the dielectric would significantly cancel any propulsion benefits but am curious if anything else will be stirred up to move other than the magentic field (what else could carry such momentum). 

Quote
I estimated, to lift it's own weight without dielectric breakdown using today's technology, it would need to be at least the size of a football stadium. Like the alien ships in Independence day, covering Manhattan island. At the end of the day, it's just a photon rocket and we underestimate the actual power that is required to make it go when we go down this path, and there are more efficient methods of creating a photon rocket. 

A photon generator or phased array uses the time retarded magnetic field competing against the time retarded electric field.  These forces work against each other.  In the patent they flip the forces so they work together or if you eliminate the static electric force by putting the static electric nodes in the LC circuit capacitor then the static electric force is not allowed to work against the time retarded magnetic forces. 

I am not convinced when the forces work together or you eliminate one of the opposing forces that the force is exactly the same as a photon rocket.  This is why I propose a test of it. 

How could it be otherwise? There is an asymmetrical EM field around the device, describable as photons. There's nothing else in the equation coming out the back to conserve momentum.

To make it something more, a gravitational potential must be added. There are configurations where the intensity of the oscillating field of an antenna array is very asymmetrical. If the energy density differential were large enough, it could create a gravitational dipole (Gravitoelectric field) across the device, but that requires an enormous amount of "stored" energy to warp space-time. There are still only photons in the field.

But then how do you explain where two forces that were working against each other, are now working with each other, and you still have a photon rocket?  What mechanism makes them both photon rockets? 

With the opposing forces at least we have time retarded E and M fields propagating through space that oppose each other but when the propagating fields that propagate no longer oppose each other, that is a different kind of propagating field isn't it? 

I am curious about a quadrupole phased array compared to a magnetic dipole phased array but need to look into it.  A quadrupole phased array to me seems like using the time retarded electric field.  I think there is some dipole magnetic parallel to using a quadrupole electric field.  I thought I read some where there were some connections to quadropule electric radiation and and dipole magnetic radiation and pondered if they both were related to gravitational radiation.  Need to look more into it.  Quadrupole radiation being Something Dr. Rodal suggested a while back I think.

Here is something connecting dipole magnetic radiation and gravity waves I think.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=798782300321139015&hl=en&as_sdt=0,26
Gravitational waves from pulsars: emission by the magnetic field induced distortion
by S. Bonazzola, E. Gourgoulhon (DARC, CNRS, Observatoire de Paris)
Quote
The gravitational wave emission by a distorted rotating fluid star is computed. ...
It is found that the distortion at fixed magnetic dipole moment is very dependent of the magnetic field distribution; ...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/03/2017 09:20 pm
I've managed to squeeze all the electronics, plus batteries onto one side of the torsional pendulum center of gravity.  I still need to add the second 12.6V battery for the on-board PC and a breadboard to get the 30W amplifier working.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/03/2017 10:39 pm
I've managed to squeeze all the electronics, plus batteries onto one side of the torsional pendulum center of gravity.  I still need to add the second 12.6V battery for the on-board PC and a breadboard to get the 30W amplifier working.
Where is your optical probe displacement measurement?  Your optical probe measurement of displacement vs. time should also be performed looking at the same location as the EM Drive.  Do not place it on the other side of the torsional pendulum arm (which would imply an assumption of rigidity and lack of thermal deformation of the pendulum arm that may be unwarranted at this scale of displacement measurement).

------------

By the way, last week I was discussing another experiment requiring a torsional pendulum involving microNewton forces (it was for a micro-thruster using classical physics, nothing to do with EM Drive or MEGA drives): a thorough study of noise sources showed that the number one source of noise was found to be people walking and moving near the experiment.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 09/03/2017 10:44 pm
The current in the wire will depend on the time duration the voltage is applied.

dI/dt = V/L, where V is voltage and L is the inductance which depends on the dimensions of the loop. The smaller we make the switching time, the less current gain we will get in that time for a given size loop.

In the case of the resonant frequency of the loops, even if it has no ends, there will be at least 2 nodes in the current, where the voltage is at a maximum/minimum. This represents the charge density at these locations, which radiate an electric field which must be accounted for.

If there were constant current in the loops, we still need to break the loop to stop the current. Charge has to be dumped into some capacitor and that will take time. To reduce the time, we use a smaller capacitor, which results in a much higher peak voltage. Before we know it, realistic N size forces require 100's of MV on the capacitor, resulting in MW -> GW of power being radiated at relatively low currents and high frequency.
You don't want high frequency.  You want low frequency.  This maximizes the current.  Problem is the wavelength increases.  This is why in the patent they use the barium titanate or meta material which slows the propagation speed of the magnetic field at a set frequency and shortens the wavelength.  I am not convinced the time retarded magnetic field passing through the dielectric would significantly cancel any propulsion benefits but am curious if anything else will be stirred up to move other than the magentic field (what else could carry such momentum). 

Quote
I estimated, to lift it's own weight without dielectric breakdown using today's technology, it would need to be at least the size of a football stadium. Like the alien ships in Independence day, covering Manhattan island. At the end of the day, it's just a photon rocket and we underestimate the actual power that is required to make it go when we go down this path, and there are more efficient methods of creating a photon rocket. 

A photon generator or phased array uses the time retarded magnetic field competing against the time retarded electric field.  These forces work against each other.  In the patent they flip the forces so they work together or if you eliminate the static electric force by putting the static electric nodes in the LC circuit capacitor then the static electric force is not allowed to work against the time retarded magnetic forces. 

I am not convinced when the forces work together or you eliminate one of the opposing forces that the force is exactly the same as a photon rocket.  This is why I propose a test of it. 

How could it be otherwise? There is an asymmetrical EM field around the device, describable as photons. There's nothing else in the equation coming out the back to conserve momentum.

To make it something more, a gravitational potential must be added. There are configurations where the intensity of the oscillating field of an antenna array is very asymmetrical. If the energy density differential were large enough, it could create a gravitational dipole (Gravitoelectric field) across the device, but that requires an enormous amount of "stored" energy to warp space-time. There are still only photons in the field.

But then how do you explain where two forces that were working against each other, are now working with each other, or not working against each other and you still have a photon rocket?  What mechanism makes them both photon rockets? 

With the opposing forces at least we have time retarded E and M fields propagating through space that oppose each other but when the propagating fields that propagate no longer oppose each other, that is a different kind of propagating field isn't it? 

I am curious about a quadrupole phased array compared to a magnetic dipole phased array but need to look into it.  A quadrupole phased array to me seems like using the time retarded electric field.  I think there is some dipole magnetic parallel to using a quadrupole electric field.  I thought I read some where there were some connections to quadropule electric radiation and and dipole magnetic radiation and pondered if they both were related to gravitational radiation.  Need to look more into it.  Quadrupole radiation being Something Dr. Rodal suggested a while back I think.

Here is something connecting dipole magnetic radiation and gravity waves I think.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=798782300321139015&hl=en&as_sdt=0,26
Gravitational waves from pulsars: emission by the magnetic field induced distortion
by S. Bonazzola, E. Gourgoulhon (DARC, CNRS, Observatoire de Paris)
Quote
The gravitational wave emission by a distorted rotating fluid star is computed. ...
It is found that the distortion at fixed magnetic dipole moment is very dependent of the magnetic field distribution; ...

You must prove asymmetric boundary conditions between endplates and consistent phase shift.

Napkin note regarding arcing:
flows balance w internal oscillating field however impurities and anomalous shapes may tangle waves or divert them. Arcing then occurs across discontinuity in otherwise congruous and internal field coherent metallic lattice.

As coherency increases and resonance locks, discontinuities will hinder charge distribution along sidewall creating conflicting field lines among B field lateral component. So E field and B field lines diverge in walls increasing stress and shearing if at micro level. This will encourage arc from all closed path waves impacting both points of shearing. It is the kinetic impact of plasma arc and the higher absorption which can occur more often (more discontinuities in bigger surface area) which determines direction of thrust perhaps?

If true as said is a plasma globe shaped like a tapered cylinder. Higher flux tube density in the discontinuity region in the skin is important since it alters boundary conditions!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/03/2017 10:47 pm
Where is your optical probe displacement measurement?  Your optical probe measurement of displacement vs. time should also be performed looking at the same location as the EM Drive.  Do not place it on the other side of the torsional pendulum arm (which would imply an assumption of rigidity and lack of thermal deformation of the pendulum arm that may be unwarranted at this scale of displacement measurement)

Both laser displacement sensors are located on the opposite side of the DUT, just like the USC/ARC style thrust balance. 

But at a quick glance, it would be fairly easy to make this change with the current design.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/03/2017 11:33 pm
Where is your optical probe displacement measurement?  Your optical probe measurement of displacement vs. time should also be performed looking at the same location as the EM Drive.  Do not place it on the other side of the torsional pendulum arm (which would imply an assumption of rigidity and lack of thermal deformation of the pendulum arm that may be unwarranted at this scale of displacement measurement)

Both laser displacement sensors are located on the opposite side of the DUT, just like the USC/ARC style thrust balance. 

But at a quick glance, it would be fairly easy to make this change with the current design.
I think that either you should put the optical displacement measurement in the same location as the EM Drive, or if you can afford it, it would be interesting to have measurements at both ends of the torsional pendulum arms and compare the two measurements.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 09/04/2017 12:59 am
I've managed to squeeze all the electronics, plus batteries onto one side of the torsional pendulum center of gravity.  I still need to add the second 12.6V battery for the on-board PC and a breadboard to get the 30W amplifier working.

Thanks. Are circulator and signal generator grounded? If so, the grounding should be labeled on the schematic.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: otlski on 09/04/2017 01:14 am
By the way, last week I was discussing another experiment requiring a torsional pendulum involving microNewton forces (it was for a micro-thruster using classical physics, nothing to do with EM Drive or MEGA drives): a thorough study of noise sources showed that the number one source of noise was found to be people walking and moving near the experiment.

Would you provide a link to the discussion?  I'd like to read it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 09/04/2017 01:48 am


You must prove asymmetric boundary conditions between endplates and consistent phase shift.

Napkin note regarding arcing:
flows balance w internal oscillating field however impurities and anomalous shapes may tangle waves or divert them. Arcing then occurs across discontinuity in otherwise congruous and internal field coherent metallic lattice.

As coherency increases and resonance locks, discontinuities will hinder charge distribution along sidewall creating conflicting field lines among B field lateral component. So E field and B field lines diverge in walls increasing stress and shearing if at micro level. This will encourage arc from all closed path waves impacting both points of shearing. It is the kinetic impact of plasma arc and the higher absorption which can occur more often (more discontinuities in bigger surface area) which determines direction of thrust perhaps?

If true as said is a plasma globe shaped like a tapered cylinder. Higher flux tube density in the discontinuity region in the skin is important since it alters boundary conditions!

I'm not sure what your getting at.  I'm talking about a phased array not a cavity necessarily (trying to keep it simple to begin with).  Now its possible to extend this to a cavity but I wasn't going there.  Here is an image of a time retarded phased array field and the forces induced on the phased array when the field was created.  Notice how in a normal phased array the time retarded creation of the "charge separation fields" and "magnetic fields" create opposite forces on the phased array.  Obviously magnetic or charge separation fields are stronger and the difference probably gives us the photon force. 

Now the pure magnetic phased array no longer has this opposing electric force from charge separation.  What happens? 

If image of why such forces are induced in a phased array are needed I can link those.  They are in my previous posts.  https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1459290#msg1459290

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36911.0;attach=1087630;image)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 09/04/2017 03:26 am
There is a lot of talk about a perfectly insulated cavity i.e “sealed” or as in a Faraday cage... The thing is that, if you release an object inside the cavity, it will fall to the bottom. We can’t insulate against earth’s gravity. Similarly, what we are trying to achieve inside the cavity will be essentially of the same nature as gravity. So, while the cavity will most likely contains/keep inside the electro-magnetic processes we use, the resulting gravity like field will effectively be permeating easily through any barrier or material making the cavity. Then, the question is about whether this resulting and permeating gravity like field will simply radiate away (useless) or whether it will remain attached to the E and M source/process confined inside the cavity. The latter possibility could allow for the shaping as an inertia wave attached to the cavity and in which the cavity would be “falling” into, i.e. move.

Food for thought,
Marcel,
       when I used the term 'sealed' it was in the virtual sense used in thermodynamics whereby a boundary is defined for the purposes of specifying and measuring energy flow.

Attempting to further define complex time...

       The notion of complex time may enable us to visualize what occurs within the emdrive frustum. It may also provide clues as to how the motion of charges within the frustum can cause its acceleration relative to the wider universe. We know that,

       c = 3 x 10^8 [m/s] = infinity

for any point travelling at the speed of light because clock time is infinitely dilated at that velocity. It is only from a remote perspective, not travelling at the speed of light, that that point appears to have a finite velocity.

       Maybe it is not our concept of velocity which is at fault when we struggle to imagine that 3 x 10^8 m/s as an infinite speed, maybe it is our concept of distance which is at fault. The speed of light is infinite because that is the velocity at which all distances are equal and equal to zero, in complex time.

       From a point perspective time ceases to pass when it reaches the speed of light but from the covariant (diverse) perspective, light speed is a single location in complex time within which displacement can only be measured by its clock time component.

Complex time,

       t + ict

is the reality necessitated by relativity. Emission and absorption of a photon is the occasional interaction between a pair of charges across an instant of complex time but all charges may constantly interact by the mechanisms of gravity and inertia.

       This being so, there exists a mechanism by which the force imposed upon all charges by the presence of a charge conducting current at the inside surface of the emdrive frustum, constitutes a connection between that charge and the remote universe. If charges are retained longer at the large end of the frustum, during the process of reflection, then there is a simple explanation for the emdrive thrust apparent.

       Recall that current emits radiation when diverted and that the frequency which appears to excite an emdrive frustum to acceleration is a similar wavelength to the dimensions of its endplates. Could the asymmetry of the endplates be all that is required to produce acceleration when the contained radiation becomes resonant?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/04/2017 03:27 am
By the way, last week I was discussing another experiment requiring a torsional pendulum involving microNewton forces (it was for a micro-thruster using classical physics, nothing to do with EM Drive or MEGA drives): a thorough study of noise sources showed that the number one source of noise was found to be people walking and moving near the experiment.

Would you provide a link to the discussion?  I'd like to read it.
It was a face to face discussion, but you can see this published document:  http://erps.spacegrant.org/uploads/images/2015Presentations/IEPC-2015-261_ISTS-2015-b-261.pdf

See Fig. 1 on page 2 for placement of optical sensor and Table 1 on page 6 for a discussion of the sources of noise.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: chongma on 09/04/2017 08:20 am
By the way, last week I was discussing another experiment requiring a torsional pendulum involving microNewton forces (it was for a micro-thruster using classical physics, nothing to do with EM Drive or MEGA drives): a thorough study of noise sources showed that the number one source of noise was found to be people walking and moving near the experiment.

does this mean people travelling inside an EMDrive driven spacecraft will have to sit still for the whole journey  ;D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 09/04/2017 08:25 am
Round of applause for the suggestion from Dr.Rodal of more measurement points. The balance has 5 degrees of freedom, even if the beam is completely rigid. Two measurements are not comprehensive.

To be more specific, you can construct a better estimate of the torsional motion from a lever-weighted average of (signed) differences of horizontal displacements at each end, factoring out non-torsional motion of the CoG.

So, if horizontal displacements are A and B, distances a and b on opposite sides of the pivot wire, the estimate for the torsional angular displacement of the beam is (A-B)/(a+b) for small angles. The estimate for the non-torsional horizontal displacement of the pivot point is (bA+aB)/(a+b).

Estimating with one horizontal measurement, you are using A/a for the angle. But if B=A there is actually no torsion at all, the beam is just displaced horizontally (picture rocking side to side).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/04/2017 12:52 pm
Round of applause for the suggestion from Dr.Rodal of more measurement points. The balance has 5 degrees of freedom, even if the beam is completely rigid. Two measurements are not comprehensive.

To be more specific, you can construct a better estimate of the torsional motion from a lever-weighted average of (signed) differences of horizontal displacements at each end, factoring out non-torsional motion of the CoG.

So, if horizontal displacements are A and B, distances a and b on opposite sides of the pivot wire, the estimate for the torsional angular displacement of the beam is (A-B)/(a+b) for small angles. The estimate for the non-torsional horizontal displacement of the pivot point is (bA+aB)/(a+b).

Estimating with one horizontal measurement, you are using A/a for the angle. But if B=A there is actually no torsion at all, the beam is just displaced horizontally (picture rocking side to side).

I only have two laser displacement sensors (LDS) at the moment - one to measure horizontal displacement and one to measure vertical displacement. I suppose the vertical measurement is not critical for our purposes, but I have been using it to detect any thermal "balloon-like" lifting. I could move that LDS to the same side as the frustum and take measurements from both sides, but then I would lose the ability to detect thermal lift.

I could add another LDS. Ideally I would purchase a Philtec LDS with higher resolution and use the current Omron LDS as back-up. But the Philtec LDS I want is very pricey!

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/04/2017 01:05 pm
It may also provide clues as to how the motion of charges within the frustum can cause its acceleration relative to the wider universe.
{…}
Emission and absorption of a photon is the occasional interaction between a pair of charges across an instant of complex time but all charges may constantly interact by the mechanisms of gravity and inertia.

       This being so, there exists a mechanism by which the force imposed upon all charges by the presence of a charge conducting current at the inside surface of the emdrive frustum, constitutes a connection between that charge and the remote universe. If charges are retained longer at the large end of the frustum, during the process of reflection, then there is a simple explanation for the emdrive thrust apparent.

       Recall that current emits radiation when diverted and that the frequency which appears to excite an emdrive frustum to acceleration is a similar wavelength to the dimensions of its endplates. Could the asymmetry of the endplates be all that is required to produce acceleration when the contained radiation becomes resonant?

You have the same (more or less) line of thought as an engineer who said on TT's own google group, July 22, 2017:

Quote from: Hauke Hein
Asuming the H field moves the free elektron mass in the skindept available space between bigplate and smallplate my impression is it would generate a higher energy density around the smallplate area and a slightly lower around the big plate area just looking at the available space for the free elektrons in those spaces. Could this result in an inertia difference causing the Mach effect by shuttling those elektrons back and forth a tiny amount parallel to the z-axis in the conical walls of the frustum, causing a current between the capacitor plates?

This also seems connected to the ideas presented in Jean-Philippe Montillet's Estes Park paper.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 09/04/2017 02:54 pm
Round of applause for the suggestion from Dr.Rodal of more measurement points. The balance has 5 degrees of freedom, even if the beam is completely rigid. Two measurements are not comprehensive.

To be more specific, you can construct a better estimate of the torsional motion from a lever-weighted average of (signed) differences of horizontal displacements at each end, factoring out non-torsional motion of the CoG.

So, if horizontal displacements are A and B, distances a and b on opposite sides of the pivot wire, the estimate for the torsional angular displacement of the beam is (A-B)/(a+b) for small angles. The estimate for the non-torsional horizontal displacement of the pivot point is (bA+aB)/(a+b).

Estimating with one horizontal measurement, you are using A/a for the angle. But if B=A there is actually no torsion at all, the beam is just displaced horizontally (picture rocking side to side).

I only have two laser displacement sensors (LDS) at the moment - one to measure horizontal displacement and one to measure vertical displacement. I suppose the vertical measurement is not critical for our purposes, but I have been using it to detect any thermal "balloon-like" lifting. I could move that LDS to the same side as the frustum and take measurements from both sides, but then I would lose the ability to detect thermal lift.

I could add another LDS. Ideally I would purchase a Philtec LDS with higher resolution and use the current Omron LDS as back-up. But the Philtec LDS I want is very pricey!

Do you have a gofundme page or similar set up - I, for one, would love to contribute to making sure you have the instrumentation etc that you need.  Your setup is outstanding and it deserves first rate data collection and recording. 

  I'm sure others would like to contribute as well. 

graybeardsyseng

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 09/04/2017 03:01 pm
It may also provide clues as to how the motion of charges within the frustum can cause its acceleration relative to the wider universe.
{…}
Emission and absorption of a photon is the occasional interaction between a pair of charges across an instant of complex time but all charges may constantly interact by the mechanisms of gravity and inertia.

       This being so, there exists a mechanism by which the force imposed upon all charges by the presence of a charge conducting current at the inside surface of the emdrive frustum, constitutes a connection between that charge and the remote universe. If charges are retained longer at the large end of the frustum, during the process of reflection, then there is a simple explanation for the emdrive thrust apparent.

       Recall that current emits radiation when diverted and that the frequency which appears to excite an emdrive frustum to acceleration is a similar wavelength to the dimensions of its endplates. Could the asymmetry of the endplates be all that is required to produce acceleration when the contained radiation becomes resonant?

You have the same (more or less) line of thought as an engineer who said on TT's own google group, July 22, 2017:

Quote from: Hauke Hein
Asuming the H field moves the free elektron mass in the skindept available space between bigplate and smallplate my impression is it would generate a higher energy density around the smallplate area and a slightly lower around the big plate area just looking at the available space for the free elektrons in those spaces. Could this result in an inertia difference causing the Mach effect by shuttling those elektrons back and forth a tiny amount parallel to the z-axis in the conical walls of the frustum, causing a current between the capacitor plates?

This also seems connected to the ideas presented in Jean-Philippe Montillet's Estes Park paper.

Thrust towards large end: If the electron becomes heavier at the narrow end because of increased current then the electron would receive less impulse from photons or energy exchanged because of the relative mass ratio.  Photons having effective mass and in this case remaining constant.  If this were the case the force would be towards the big end because the big end electrons (smaller effective mass) would recieve more energy from photons than the narrow end of the EM drive.

Thrust towards small end: On the other hand if photons effective mass some how change with respect to the electric charge changing in mass as if they are one unit (possibly by scattering away of virtual particles?) then it's possible the ratio of energy exchanged is always the same between the photon and electron.  However, upon the heavier electron receiving the same impulse, it's now heavier, so it conveys more kinetic energy to the frustum.  In this case the frustum would absorb more kinetic energy exchange from the heavier electrons at the front of the frustum.  Could back scatter of virtual particles from those excited electrons increase both electron and photon effective mass?

Assuming this equation at low velocity: h*df/(h*f) = 2*c^2*[m_p] / ([m_e]*(c+v_e)^3) where h=planck's constant, f=photon frequency, c=speed of light, [m_p]=effective mass of photon=hf/c^2, m_e=total mass and effective mass of electron, and v_e=radial velocity of electron away from photon, effectively zero in this case. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: bmcgaffey20 on 09/04/2017 05:11 pm
It may also provide clues as to how the motion of charges within the frustum can cause its acceleration relative to the wider universe.
{…}
Emission and absorption of a photon is the occasional interaction between a pair of charges across an instant of complex time but all charges may constantly interact by the mechanisms of gravity and inertia.

       This being so, there exists a mechanism by which the force imposed upon all charges by the presence of a charge conducting current at the inside surface of the emdrive frustum, constitutes a connection between that charge and the remote universe. If charges are retained longer at the large end of the frustum, during the process of reflection, then there is a simple explanation for the emdrive thrust apparent.

       Recall that current emits radiation when diverted and that the frequency which appears to excite an emdrive frustum to acceleration is a similar wavelength to the dimensions of its endplates. Could the asymmetry of the endplates be all that is required to produce acceleration when the contained radiation becomes resonant?

You have the same (more or less) line of thought as an engineer who said on TT's own google group, July 22, 2017:

Quote from: Hauke Hein
Asuming the H field moves the free elektron mass in the skindept available space between bigplate and smallplate my impression is it would generate a higher energy density around the smallplate area and a slightly lower around the big plate area just looking at the available space for the free elektrons in those spaces. Could this result in an inertia difference causing the Mach effect by shuttling those elektrons back and forth a tiny amount parallel to the z-axis in the conical walls of the frustum, causing a current between the capacitor plates?

This also seems connected to the ideas presented in Jean-Philippe Montillet's Estes Park paper.

Thrust towards large end: If the electron becomes heavier at the narrow end because of increased current then the electron would receive less impulse from photons or energy exchanged because of the relative mass ratio.  Photons having effective mass and in this case remaining constant.  If this were the case the force would be towards the big end because the big end electrons (smaller effective mass) would recieve more energy from photons than the narrow end of the EM drive.

Thrust towards small end: On the other hand if photons effective mass some how change with respect to the electric charge changing in mass as if they are one unit (possibly by scattering away of virtual particles?) then it's possible the ratio of energy exchanged is always the same between the photon and electron.  However, upon the heavier electron receiving the same impulse, it's now heavier, so it conveys more kinetic energy to the frustum.  In this case the frustum would absorb more kinetic energy exchange from the heavier electrons at the front of the frustum.  Could back scatter of virtual particles from those excited electrons increase both electron and photon effective mass?

Assuming this equation at low velocity: h*df/(h*f) = 2*c^2*[m_p] / ([m_e]*(c+v_e)^3) where h=planck's constant, f=photon frequency, c=speed of light, [m_p]=effective mass of photon=hf/c^2, m_e=total mass and effective mass of electron, and v_e=radial velocity of electron away from photon, effectively zero in this case.

Just wanted to add, a year or so back I had made a post suggesting something similar. I suggested redshifted photons accumulated on either side, and more energetic photons are separated to the opposite side... causing an "effective heavier mass" on the side with more energy. Causing it to "Freefall through space". Basically my idea was mocked and I was told to define "effective mass" because they had no idea what this meant. At the time I got all excited about the idea, because I felt that it had potential to address the CoE or OU of the EmDrive, as well as the thrust/noise experimental measurements. How? Terminal Velocity. I felt the effective mass of the accumulated photons is actually very small and in result the terminal velocity of the current engineering and design of EmDrive is very low. Perhaps a much larger EmDrive engineered to have a much larger differential in the mass of the accumulated / Doppler effected photons.

According to the responses I got, way off.

Disclaimer: Obviously I am not a physicist, nor a mathematician. Terminology maybe flawed in the idea, but I feel its possible to understand the idea based on what I said.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/04/2017 05:20 pm
Do you have a gofundme page or similar set up - I, for one, would love to contribute to making sure you have the instrumentation etc that you need.  Your setup is outstanding and it deserves first rate data collection and recording. 

No, nothing like a gofundme page. I've been fortunate enough to be able to afford all the materials so far. But my understanding is the Philtec D63 LDS is ~$3,500. Excluding the 3D printer as it can be used for other things, thus far the most expensive component has been the $600 Windfreak signal generator, so that would be a huge increase and take some "explaining to do." Let me get things working again with the 30W amplifier and see where we are.  My biggest problem has been noise reduction, not necessarily LDS resolution. The Omron LDS I have currently has a resolution of 3um, while the Philtec D63 LDS is 0.5um so its resolution is 6 times better than what I currently have, but my torsional pendulum arm is several times longer so it has an advantage there since the LDS is further from the center pivot than on the smaller mach effect thrust balances (more displacement per radian at detection point). The Omron LDS are very expensive when purchased new, but I was able to find two never used ones on ebay for about $300 each.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 09/04/2017 07:07 pm
Do you have a gofundme page or similar set up - I, for one, would love to contribute to making sure you have the instrumentation etc that you need.  Your setup is outstanding and it deserves first rate data collection and recording. 

No, nothing like a gofundme page. I've been fortunate enough to be able to afford all the materials so far. But my understanding is the Philtec D63 LDS is ~$3,500. Excluding the 3D printer as it can be used for other things, thus far the most expensive component has been the $600 Windfreak signal generator, so that would be a huge increase and take some "explaining to do." Let me get things working again with the 30W amplifier and see where we are.  My biggest problem has been noise reduction, not necessarily LDS resolution. The Omron LDS I have currently has a resolution of 3um, while the Philtec D63 LDS is 0.5um so its resolution is 6 times better than what I currently have, but my torsional pendulum arm is several times longer so it has an advantage there since the LDS is further from the center pivot than on the smaller mach effect thrust balances. The Omron LDS are very expensive when purchased new, but I was able to find two never used ones on ebay for about $300 each.

Monomorphic, I believe that the following is your own best advice at present, "Let me get things working again with the 30W amplifier and see where we are.".

It is almost certain that there will always be something that can be improved and perhaps will be needed somewhere down the line. Right now your build seems more than sufficient to run the 30W tests you have planned. After which you will have a far better idea of what, where and if additions or changes to your test bed and build (frustum) are needed... And where any further investment might best fit the needs of further refinement and/or discovery.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/04/2017 07:11 pm
I worked all this out for myself using MathCAD about 20 years ago. Based on this sheet, they are only considering the current in the pair of wires "I1I2". What is not shown is the voltage, capacitance, charge and electric field at the ends of those wires when the current goes to zero. The force due to charges and electric fields will oppose the force due to currents and magnetic fields. When both are included, the 2N of force is suddenly < 2uN and we are back to the thrust of a photon rocket. If the system is large, it could oscillate back and force at a relatively low frequency with much greater force, but the CM will not move except for the asymmetry in the EM radiation, (aka photon rocket).

I don't know your setup  and your assumptions for that calculation but if you are trying to say anytime you switch it off it exactly must cancel out the well known Lorentz force, and under any conceivable configuration of times and currents and geometries, I'm very dubious and would have to see the details. I'm not saying your calculation didn't do that but were you specifically messing with conditions to make the events in each wire spacelike wrt each other?

Specifically, the Third Law can break down in specific circumstances precisely because the speed of light is finite and events can have a spacelike separation even while they are being independently controlled faster than light can mediate between the interaction between them. Pulses can be independently designed and arranged that compliment the net forces and counter unwanted forces. For example, the field from pulse in one wire might cause a force in a distant wire in such a way that there is no ability for a counter force to even exist on the first wire. That spacelike separation and control could include unwanted electrical effects through proper design. Though technically challenging, that breaks the symmetry and opens up new possibilities.

A couple more points. The wires here are loops so they have no ends.  If you are saying switching on and off counters the Lorentz force, I believe the switching times can be engineered much smaller than the steady pulse times where the Lorentz force acts to mitigate those forces while preserving the criteria suggested above.

I have my own configuration in mind which I would like to simulate with a 3D dynamic simulator that has the full Maxwell equations. It should be able to handle picosecond resolution in a volume of a few cubic cm. Do you have any thoughts about that? Thanks.

The current in the wire will depend on the time duration the voltage is applied.

dI/dt = V/L, where V is voltage and L is the inductance which depends on the dimensions of the loop. The smaller we make the switching time, the less current gain we will get in that time for a given size loop.

In the case of the resonant frequency of the loops, even if it has no ends, there will be at least 2 nodes in the current, where the voltage is at a maximum/minimum. This represents the charge density at these locations, which radiate an electric field which must be accounted for.

If there were constant current in the loops, we still need to break the loop to stop the current. Charge has to be dumped into some capacitor and that will take time. To reduce the time, we use a smaller capacitor, which results in a much higher peak voltage. Before we know it, realistic N size forces require 100's of MV on the capacitor, resulting in MW -> GW of power being radiated at relatively low currents and high frequency.

I estimated, to lift it's own weight without dielectric breakdown using today's technology, it would need to be at least the size of a football stadium. Like the alien ships in Independence day, covering Manhattan island. At the end of the day, it's just a photon rocket and we underestimate the actual power that is required to make it go when we go down this path, and there are more efficient methods of creating a photon rocket.


It seems you have convinced yourself that there is absolutely no possible configuration whereby a useful net Lorentz force can be generated in any system at least without almost planetary scale engineering. Fine, I'm not convinced as GHz circuits exist with enormous charge derivatives already which combined with silicon wafer technology and clever delaying waveguides may produce suitable forces.

But I still want to know about full 3D simulation tools. Thanks.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThinkerX on 09/04/2017 07:14 pm
Quote
This also seems connected to the ideas presented in Jean-Philippe Montillet's Estes Park paper.


This paper keeps cropping up in both EM Drive and Woodward/Mach Drive discussions. 

Probably way past time some of the math types here took a serious, in depth look at it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/04/2017 07:22 pm
You say I don't understand them and am going off half (maybe all) cocked. Do you really think they would write all those papers if all they were saying is "Hey, here's an interesting way to make a propellent-less propulsion device that works far far less efficiently than a simple photon rocket and is entirely useless!!!!!"? Or maybe, "Hey, this would work but you need gigawatts of power!!!! Maybe that's the academic world but somehow, I doubt that. So, what do you think they are really trying to say with these papers?

Can you realistically imagine proposing gigawatt levels of power in meter sized coils carrying 100 amps of current? Wouldn't they just melt?
I have no idea why they haven't calculated the power requirements, especially since there is an easy way to do so since the energy flux is equal to c times the momentum flux. Them not calculating it in no way changes the fact that this is a ton of power, and yes it probably would melt something if you tried to build such a device.

It does not matter why they aren't discussing the power numbers, because the power numbers are what they are. Do you have anything to add that is actually based on math or physics?

I emailed one of the authors, professor Yahalom, about the power levels for that 2.74N force and I'll let you know if he answers.

I got an answer. He said using his concept a 100 kg device should get to a speed of 1m/s with 50 Joules where a photon rocket requires 3E10 Joules to do the same. So he thinks it's not just in effect a photon rocket. But I did ask for further clarification that he specifically state the fields carry away more momentum than a simple photon rocket if that's what he believes.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/04/2017 09:58 pm
You say I don't understand them and am going off half (maybe all) cocked. Do you really think they would write all those papers if all they were saying is "Hey, here's an interesting way to make a propellent-less propulsion device that works far far less efficiently than a simple photon rocket and is entirely useless!!!!!"? Or maybe, "Hey, this would work but you need gigawatts of power!!!! Maybe that's the academic world but somehow, I doubt that. So, what do you think they are really trying to say with these papers?

Can you realistically imagine proposing gigawatt levels of power in meter sized coils carrying 100 amps of current? Wouldn't they just melt?
I have no idea why they haven't calculated the power requirements, especially since there is an easy way to do so since the energy flux is equal to c times the momentum flux. Them not calculating it in no way changes the fact that this is a ton of power, and yes it probably would melt something if you tried to build such a device.

It does not matter why they aren't discussing the power numbers, because the power numbers are what they are. Do you have anything to add that is actually based on math or physics?

I emailed one of the authors, professor Yahalom, about the power levels for that 2.74N force and I'll let you know if he answers.

I got an answer. He said using his concept a 100 kg device should get to a speed of 1m/s with 50 Joules where a photon rocket requires 3E10 Joules to do the same. So he thinks it's not just in effect a photon rocket. But I did ask for further clarification that he specifically state the fields carry away more momentum than a simple photon rocket if that's what he believes.
Belief is irrelevant, and the math says he is very wrong. Clearly he just calculated the kinetic energy of the device and did not account for any of the energy in the fields.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 09/05/2017 12:14 am
You say I don't understand them and am going off half (maybe all) cocked. Do you really think they would write all those papers if all they were saying is "Hey, here's an interesting way to make a propellent-less propulsion device that works far far less efficiently than a simple photon rocket and is entirely useless!!!!!"? Or maybe, "Hey, this would work but you need gigawatts of power!!!! Maybe that's the academic world but somehow, I doubt that. So, what do you think they are really trying to say with these papers?

Can you realistically imagine proposing gigawatt levels of power in meter sized coils carrying 100 amps of current? Wouldn't they just melt?
I have no idea why they haven't calculated the power requirements, especially since there is an easy way to do so since the energy flux is equal to c times the momentum flux. Them not calculating it in no way changes the fact that this is a ton of power, and yes it probably would melt something if you tried to build such a device.

It does not matter why they aren't discussing the power numbers, because the power numbers are what they are. Do you have anything to add that is actually based on math or physics?

I emailed one of the authors, professor Yahalom, about the power levels for that 2.74N force and I'll let you know if he answers.

I got an answer. He said using his concept a 100 kg device should get to a speed of 1m/s with 50 Joules where a photon rocket requires 3E10 Joules to do the same. So he thinks it's not just in effect a photon rocket. But I did ask for further clarification that he specifically state the fields carry away more momentum than a simple photon rocket if that's what he believes.
Belief is irrelevant, and the math says he is very wrong. Clearly he just calculated the kinetic energy of the device and did not account for any of the energy in the fields.

Properly implemented, unlike a normal phased array, there is a lack of an opposing force (charge separation forces vs magnetic).  https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1719074#msg1719074 
Just because we can't explain away the momentum in the fields that propagate away doesn't mean it's not worth finding out what the difference is between the two.

We are trying to track down some invisible source of momentum with the EM drive.  Belief that something might be possible for some reason is one reason there are those willing to experiment.   I am reluctant to say that the momentum would be carried away by that particular field so I don't necessarily disagree, but am curious about what might happen in a properly conducted experiment. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/05/2017 12:48 am
Properly implemented, unlike a normal phased array, there is a lack of an opposing force (charge separation forces vs magnetic).  https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1719074#msg1719074 
Just because we can't explain away the momentum in the fields that propagate away doesn't mean it's not worth finding out what the difference is between the two.

We are trying to track down some invisible source of momentum with the EM drive.  Belief that something might be possible for some reason is one reason there are those willing to experiment.   I am reluctant to say that the momentum would be carried away by that particular field so I don't necessarily disagree, but am curious about what might happen in a properly conducted experiment.
Difference between what 2? Your linked post seems to talk about electric versus just magnetic, but most of the phased array concepts people have proposed here have been all magnetic. This doesn't change that they can't get extra force/power. The equations of electrodynamics are fully consistent. There are general proofs regarding the energy/momentum relationships, forces, and momentum carried away by the fields. If the claim is that the forces are larger than the rate momentum is carried away by the fields, either the math was done wrong, (or simply not done as Bob012345 has been referencing researchers who simply didn't calculate energy or power), or a new theory of electrodynamics was used. I have not seen anyone proposing a whole new theory of electrodynamics, and if they did, they would have to show their theory can explain countless other known electrodynamic results.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 09/05/2017 02:23 am
It may also provide clues as to how the motion of charges within the frustum can cause its acceleration relative to the wider universe.
{…}
Emission and absorption of a photon is the occasional interaction between a pair of charges across an instant of complex time but all charges may constantly interact by the mechanisms of gravity and inertia.

       This being so, there exists a mechanism by which the force imposed upon all charges by the presence of a charge conducting current at the inside surface of the emdrive frustum, constitutes a connection between that charge and the remote universe. If charges are retained longer at the large end of the frustum, during the process of reflection, then there is a simple explanation for the emdrive thrust apparent.

       Recall that current emits radiation when diverted and that the frequency which appears to excite an emdrive frustum to acceleration is a similar wavelength to the dimensions of its endplates. Could the asymmetry of the endplates be all that is required to produce acceleration when the contained radiation becomes resonant?

You have the same (more or less) line of thought as an engineer who said on TT's own google group, July 22, 2017:

Quote from: Hauke Hein
Asuming the H field moves the free elektron mass in the skindept available space between bigplate and smallplate my impression is it would generate a higher energy density around the smallplate area and a slightly lower around the big plate area just looking at the available space for the free elektrons in those spaces. Could this result in an inertia difference causing the Mach effect by shuttling those elektrons back and forth a tiny amount parallel to the z-axis in the conical walls of the frustum, causing a current between the capacitor plates?

This also seems connected to the ideas presented in Jean-Philippe Montillet's Estes Park paper.
flux_capacitor & dustinthewind
       radiation pressure is the inevitable consequence of absorption at any frequency. It is our understanding of the mechanism of reflection which seems to me to be incomplete. If emission occurs during absorption, as appears to be the case with reflection of light from a mirror, then I have nothing. But if emission occurs as a consequence of the current engendered in the reflecting surface by absorption, encountering an edge or discontinuity within that surface, such as appears to be the case when RADAR is reflected from a convoluted conducting shape, then the retention of the current between absorption and emission also requires that the inertia engendered by the radiation pressure is also retained.
       If that inertia is retained for longer in the larger surface, and is compounded by resonance, then we may have a mechanism for acceleration of the whole device IF and only if, all charges interact all the time. That can only be the case if photons are a special case of interaction involving just one pair of charges.
       It surprises me not at all that my attempts to communicate this complex set of maybes have so far been indecipherable but I am convinced there is something worth considering here. Something which fits completely within a classical description of charge interactions.
       Yes, I will have a read of Jean-Philippe's paper  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 09/05/2017 02:32 am
Round of applause for the suggestion from Dr.Rodal of more measurement points. The balance has 5 degrees of freedom, even if the beam is completely rigid. Two measurements are not comprehensive.

To be more specific, you can construct a better estimate of the torsional motion from a lever-weighted average of (signed) differences of horizontal displacements at each end, factoring out non-torsional motion of the CoG.

So, if horizontal displacements are A and B, distances a and b on opposite sides of the pivot wire, the estimate for the torsional angular displacement of the beam is (A-B)/(a+b) for small angles. The estimate for the non-torsional horizontal displacement of the pivot point is (bA+aB)/(a+b).

Estimating with one horizontal measurement, you are using A/a for the angle. But if B=A there is actually no torsion at all, the beam is just displaced horizontally (picture rocking side to side).
RERT,
if this is worth doing then would it not be worth taking data from three points and recording the motion of the beam completely.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 09/05/2017 02:45 am
Properly implemented, unlike a normal phased array, there is a lack of an opposing force (charge separation forces vs magnetic).  https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1719074#msg1719074 
Just because we can't explain away the momentum in the fields that propagate away doesn't mean it's not worth finding out what the difference is between the two.

We are trying to track down some invisible source of momentum with the EM drive.  Belief that something might be possible for some reason is one reason there are those willing to experiment.   I am reluctant to say that the momentum would be carried away by that particular field so I don't necessarily disagree, but am curious about what might happen in a properly conducted experiment.
Difference between what 2? Your linked post seems to talk about electric versus just magnetic, but most of the phased array concepts people have proposed here have been all magnetic. This doesn't change that they can't get extra force/power. The equations of electrodynamics are fully consistent. There are general proofs regarding the energy/momentum relationships, forces, and momentum carried away by the fields. If the claim is that the forces are larger than the rate momentum is carried away by the fields, either the math was done wrong, (or simply not done as Bob012345 has been referencing researchers who simply didn't calculate energy or power), or a new theory of electrodynamics was used. I have not seen anyone proposing a whole new theory of electrodynamics, and if they did, they would have to show their theory can explain countless other known electrodynamic results.

That's right.  Were looking for new physics.  Something that hasn't been noticed before.  Bringing up an existing experiment (even unintentional) and its results would be paramount to proving such a thing does/doesn't exist, or if it hasn't been done then it is an experiment that hasn't been done yet.

Maybe my diagrams are not clearly indicating how a normal phased array opposes it self.  Let us say the time retarded fields from charge separation create a force on a straight antenna phased array.  Charge separation is a different animal than magnetic currents it turns out.  When analyzing the magnetic force on the same phased array this force happens to act in the opposite direction.  Apparently time retarded magnetic force opposes the time retarded charge separation forces. 

This is strange but maybe it could indicate the very small force we get from a phased array if the magnetic force were smaller than the electric.  So what happens when we eliminate one of these (time retarded charge separation or magnetic).  Does the force become larger?  Looking at it one way seems to indicate it should experience a larger force but looking at the light seems to contradict that. 

This paper, they only analyzes the magnetic, which is why it is interesting.  The patent I have cited focuses on both (charge separation and magnetic) and makes them work together to improve efficiency, which may be possible but, I can't see that kind of momentum being carried away by light.  If not light, what else could carry away such momentum?  It seems to beg an experiment.  But aren't we wondering the same thing about the EM drive cavity?  (How could so much momentum be carried away and from a cavity.)

It's another approach from a different angle. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 09/05/2017 04:09 am
It may also provide clues as to how the motion of charges within the frustum can cause its acceleration relative to the wider universe.
{…}
Emission and absorption of a photon is the occasional interaction between a pair of charges across an instant of complex time but all charges may constantly interact by the mechanisms of gravity and inertia.

       This being so, there exists a mechanism by which the force imposed upon all charges by the presence of a charge conducting current at the inside surface of the emdrive frustum, constitutes a connection between that charge and the remote universe. If charges are retained longer at the large end of the frustum, during the process of reflection, then there is a simple explanation for the emdrive thrust apparent.

       Recall that current emits radiation when diverted and that the frequency which appears to excite an emdrive frustum to acceleration is a similar wavelength to the dimensions of its endplates. Could the asymmetry of the endplates be all that is required to produce acceleration when the contained radiation becomes resonant?

You have the same (more or less) line of thought as an engineer who said on TT's own google group, July 22, 2017:

Quote from: Hauke Hein
Asuming the H field moves the free elektron mass in the skindept available space between bigplate and smallplate my impression is it would generate a higher energy density around the smallplate area and a slightly lower around the big plate area just looking at the available space for the free elektrons in those spaces. Could this result in an inertia difference causing the Mach effect by shuttling those elektrons back and forth a tiny amount parallel to the z-axis in the conical walls of the frustum, causing a current between the capacitor plates?

This also seems connected to the ideas presented in Jean-Philippe Montillet's Estes Park paper.
flux_capacitor & dustinthewind
       radiation pressure is the inevitable consequence of absorption at any frequency. It is our understanding of the mechanism of reflection which seems to me to be incomplete. If emission occurs during absorption, as appears to be the case with reflection of light from a mirror, then I have nothing. But if emission occurs as a consequence of the current engendered in the reflecting surface by absorption, encountering an edge or discontinuity within that surface, such as appears to be the case when RADAR is reflected from a convoluted conducting shape, then the retention of the current between absorption and emission also requires that the inertia engendered by the radiation pressure is also retained.
       If that inertia is retained for longer in the larger surface, and is compounded by resonance, then we may have a mechanism for acceleration of the whole device IF and only if, all charges interact all the time. That can only be the case if photons are a special case of interaction involving just one pair of charges.
       It surprises me not at all that my attempts to communicate this complex set of maybes have so far been indecipherable but I am convinced there is something worth considering here. Something which fits completely within a classical description of charge interactions.
       Yes, I will have a read of Jean-Philippe's paper  :)

(http://slideplayer.com/4519536/15/images/87/First%2C+consider+a+charged+particle+q+moving+at+some+velocity+v+from+left+to+right.+It+is+suddenly+brought+to+a+stop+at+point+x+at+time+t%3D0%3B+I.e.%2C+it+is+decelerated..jpg)

This decelerating charge emits light via the transverse E field centered on its position.  For a cavity with antenna inside in the shape of a current loop we get such an electric field all around the loop pointing in the direction of charge acceleration.  This propagates out at c exciting the charges in the cavity to flow in a similar pattern. 

For a superconducting cavity if we excite a permanent current in the loop antenna, this change radiates to the cavity surface, but with no resistance and no further change in the magnetic field we have no reflection.  Just a permanently contained magnetic field inside the cavity. 

In a normal cavity we have resistance (related to Q) so exciting the charges in the loop changes the current in the cavity, but via resistance, charge in the cavity walls will decelerate causing further charge acceleration and change in the magnetic field, which propagates from the cavity walls - seeming more like a reflection.  This is really just information propagating about changes in the magnetic field via accelerating charges.   

some interesting information on the birth and death of a photon I found:
Quote from: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2409/shine-a-light-into-a-superconductor
When it comes to practical issue, it's even more impressive: the superconducting mirror was the key experimental ingredients in the Haroche, Raymond and Brune experiment, see e.g. http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0612031 and http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.3880 for the first experimental proofs of the birth and death of a photon inside a cavity made with superconducting mirror. This experiment earned the 2012 Nobel Prize, see http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2012/. Without the ultra-high reflexion coefficient of the superconducting mirror (for microwave radiations), these experiments would not have been possible.

...

By FraShelle
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/05/2017 04:15 am
That's right.  Were looking for new physics.  Something that hasn't been notice before.  Bringing up an existing experiment (even unintentional) and its results would be paramount to proving such a thing does/doesn't exist, or if it hasn't been done then it is an experiment that hasn't been done yet.
But what you have provided discussing electromagnetic forces is not new physics. It is well known physics that does not lead to anything better than a photon rocket. No amount of reconfiguring the design of an electromagnetic system will change the general results, which hold for any electromagnetic system.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 09/05/2017 04:31 am
That's right.  Were looking for new physics.  Something that hasn't been notice before.  Bringing up an existing experiment (even unintentional) and its results would be paramount to proving such a thing does/doesn't exist, or if it hasn't been done then it is an experiment that hasn't been done yet.
But what you have provided discussing electromagnetic forces is not new physics. It is well known physics that does not lead to anything better than a photon rocket. No amount of reconfiguring the design of an electromagnetic system will change the general results, which hold for any electromagnetic system.

What experiment conducted might that be that has already eliminated the possibility?  This one perhaps?

https://etd.ohiolink.edu/rws_etd/document/get/case1259607091/inline
A MAGNETIC PHASED ARRAY ANTENNA
FOR COMMUNICATION WITH IMPLANTED
BIOMEDICAL DEVICES IN SMALL ANIMALS
by
MICHAEL LEKAS

To get reasonable forces you would need to use the proper dielectric and they don't even mention a dielectric in theirs, much less the word force, which I don't think they intended to measure.  Getting it just right would be tricky business and then an apparatus to measure the forces. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/05/2017 05:58 am
That's right.  Were looking for new physics.  Something that hasn't been notice before.  Bringing up an existing experiment (even unintentional) and its results would be paramount to proving such a thing does/doesn't exist, or if it hasn't been done then it is an experiment that hasn't been done yet.
But what you have provided discussing electromagnetic forces is not new physics. It is well known physics that does not lead to anything better than a photon rocket. No amount of reconfiguring the design of an electromagnetic system will change the general results, which hold for any electromagnetic system.

What experiment conducted might that be that has already eliminated the possibility?  This one perhaps?
What do you mean by "the possibility" the possibility of what? Electrodynamics has been confirmed by countless experiments and simply does not allow anything better than a photon rocket, unless you have an external field, such as the Earth's magnetic field to push against.

An experiment can't disprove a hypothesis that doesn't exist, and you have not provided an alternate theory to test.

To get reasonable forces you would need to use the proper dielectric
No, to get reasonable forces you would need to use an alternate theory of electrodynamics.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 09/05/2017 07:05 am
Monomorphic -

I don't know how hard it would be to shift the vertical LDS to a horizontal LDS at the other end. If it were easy enough, you could try it on a test and estimate the non-torsional movement as above. If it turns out to be small enough to ignore, you could move it back. If not, you'd have to decide what to do next....
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 09/05/2017 08:18 am
Re: back radiation

Isn't quantum mechanics a big challenge for back-radiation?

We know that accelerating charges within an atom don't radiate. That's the original motivation for the Bohr atom.

Perhaps then we want to say that those charges are not accelerating, they have a static wave function. But what about a piece of anything, constructed of atoms, which is accelerated in bulk? Theory then says that each of the positive and negative charges radiates. I guess the object 'glows' in the near field. Is that verified to happen?

Worse, apply the principle of equivalence. Then it would seem that the same object sitting still in a gravitational field also glows - essentially in perpetuity. Where does the energy come from to allow that?

Actually both of these radiative effects seem wildly unlikely, since they seem to imply atoms leaking energy, which clearly doesn't happen. Is there another way to interpret this, other than to say that sometimes back-radiation is blocked by quantum effects?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/05/2017 03:01 pm
A bit about the US Navy EmDrive work has surfaced:
https://info.aiaa.org/tac/PEG/NFPTC/Shared%20Documents/abstract_Mcdonald.pdf

Seems the project lead, Mike McDonald, is credible:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-mcdonald-36447050/

Roger's interesting comment on the attached was:
"It is good to see that the US Naval Research Lab has broken cover.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 09/05/2017 03:20 pm
A bit about the US Navy EmDrive work has surfaced:
https://info.aiaa.org/tac/PEG/NFPTC/Shared%20Documents/abstract_Mcdonald.pdf

Seems the project lead, Mike McDonald, is credible:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-mcdonald-36447050/

Roger's interesting comment on the attached was:
"It is good to see that the US Naval Research Lab has broken cover.

Happy to see that they are local. I am going to contact them to obtain access to their experiment to spot any problems. Not very positive though -- due to my foreign background. But will try.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/05/2017 03:50 pm
You say I don't understand them and am going off half (maybe all) cocked. Do you really think they would write all those papers if all they were saying is "Hey, here's an interesting way to make a propellent-less propulsion device that works far far less efficiently than a simple photon rocket and is entirely useless!!!!!"? Or maybe, "Hey, this would work but you need gigawatts of power!!!! Maybe that's the academic world but somehow, I doubt that. So, what do you think they are really trying to say with these papers?

Can you realistically imagine proposing gigawatt levels of power in meter sized coils carrying 100 amps of current? Wouldn't they just melt?
I have no idea why they haven't calculated the power requirements, especially since there is an easy way to do so since the energy flux is equal to c times the momentum flux. Them not calculating it in no way changes the fact that this is a ton of power, and yes it probably would melt something if you tried to build such a device.

It does not matter why they aren't discussing the power numbers, because the power numbers are what they are. Do you have anything to add that is actually based on math or physics?

I emailed one of the authors, professor Yahalom, about the power levels for that 2.74N force and I'll let you know if he answers.

I got an answer. He said using his concept a 100 kg device should get to a speed of 1m/s with 50 Joules where a photon rocket requires 3E10 Joules to do the same. So he thinks it's not just in effect a photon rocket. But I did ask for further clarification that he specifically state the fields carry away more momentum than a simple photon rocket if that's what he believes.
Belief is irrelevant, and the math says he is very wrong. Clearly he just calculated the kinetic energy of the device and did not account for any of the energy in the fields.

I think it's clear I wasn't suggesting he simply believes this or that as an article if faith and not by a scientific argument. And he does calculate the energy of the fields here;

https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.2537v2

Updated with a new title here;


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.2537v3.pdf

I suggested to him by email that he explicitly compare his device to a photon rocket and he said that was a good idea and might be a future paper.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/05/2017 04:01 pm
A bit about the US Navy EmDrive work has surfaced:
https://info.aiaa.org/tac/PEG/NFPTC/Shared%20Documents/abstract_Mcdonald.pdf

Seems the project lead, Mike McDonald, is credible:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-mcdonald-36447050/

Roger's interesting comment on the attached was:
"It is good to see that the US Naval Research Lab has broken cover.

Happy to see that they are local. I am going to contact them to obtain access to their experiment to spot any problems. Not very positive though -- due to my foreign background. But will try.

Hi PN,

Mike McDonald's email is in the paper.

What I know about torsion test rigs is they must allow significant room for the cavity to accelerate, at least 20um, 50 um is better. Stiff test rigs that don't allow enough sufficient room to accelerate may fail to record any significant force.

As exampke, the EW test rig is much stiffer than Jamies, with Jamie's stiffer than Dave's. Giving the cavity room to accelerate and get into Motor Mode is very important.

Will be interesting to see the cavity they built, their Rf system and put their cavity numbers through my larest design tool.

Maybe McDonald or others on the team would be interested in discussion on NSF?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/05/2017 04:19 pm
That's right.  Were looking for new physics.  Something that hasn't been notice before.  Bringing up an existing experiment (even unintentional) and its results would be paramount to proving such a thing does/doesn't exist, or if it hasn't been done then it is an experiment that hasn't been done yet.
But what you have provided discussing electromagnetic forces is not new physics. It is well known physics that does not lead to anything better than a photon rocket. No amount of reconfiguring the design of an electromagnetic system will change the general results, which hold for any electromagnetic system.

"It is well known"

Yes, it certainly is and I'm not saying it isn't a correct understanding but being well known is not proof no exception will never be found since such proofs are always based on certain assumptions which would by definition be violated if an exception were found. It is in fact a belief grounded in the best understanding to date. And if we used such arguments to limit research which examined things already "well known", nobody would be looking at EMDrives. So it seems to me your statement "No amount of reconfiguring the design of an electromagnetic system will change the general results, which hold for any electromagnetic system" is too dogmatic.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: wicoe on 09/05/2017 04:44 pm

"It is well known"

Yes, it certainly is and I'm not saying it isn't a correct understanding but being well known is not proof no exception will never be found since such proofs are always based on certain assumptions which would by definition be violated if an exception were found. It is in fact a belief grounded in the best understanding to date. And if we used such arguments to limit research which examined things already "well known", nobody would be looking at EMDrives. So it seems to me your statement "No amount of reconfiguring the design of an electromagnetic system will change the general results, which hold for any electromagnetic system" is too dogmatic.

How do you know where to stop?  Do you consider claims that energy/momentum is always conserved (including that you cannot get free energy) dogmatic too?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/05/2017 04:46 pm
I think it's clear I wasn't suggesting he simply believes this or that as an article if faith and not by a scientific argument. And he does calculate the energy of the fields here;

https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.2537v2

Updated with a new title here;


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.2537v3.pdf

I suggested to him by email that he explicitly compare his device to a photon rocket and he said that was a good idea and might be a future paper.
In equation 26, they conclude that the mechanical energy is equal to the negative of the energy stored in the fields. Neither of these make sense to be negative, however. The issue is that they are ignoring the energy in the power supply (I assume it is a battery). As a result, the equation should actually read that the mechanical energy of the system plus the energy stored in the fields (external to the battery) is equal to the electrical energy lost by the battery. As a result, their conclusions from that point on are all incorrect.

Also, something seems wrong in general with their conclusions, because equation 15 shows that the mechanical momentum is simply a function of the current, which means an alternating current would lead to the mechanical momentum simply oscillating back and forth. In this case, what they have seems like it may be a situation where the wires may not even move at all, but there is "hidden momentum" which relates to relativistic effects and the velocities of the electrons in the current loops.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 09/05/2017 04:48 pm
A bit about the US Navy EmDrive work has surfaced:
https://info.aiaa.org/tac/PEG/NFPTC/Shared%20Documents/abstract_Mcdonald.pdf

Seems the project lead, Mike McDonald, is credible:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-mcdonald-36447050/

Roger's interesting comment on the attached was:
"It is good to see that the US Naval Research Lab has broken cover.

I like there are more well funded professional replications. That's always good.

Concerning Roger Shawyer's comment, it really depends (for him) if the result is a confirmation or a refutation. Which seems not to be clear from the abstract alone.

There is less motivation to publish a negative result, I admit, but it would be surprising to some people to know that some scientists still engage in due diligence and report whatever they find, be it positive or negative.

Personally, even if I'd be disappointed first, in the end I'd be thankful if we got a bullet-proof negative result. The truth is always better than lies and wishful thinking.

But of course, getting another peer reviewed confirmation would be even better. ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/05/2017 04:52 pm
I think it's clear I wasn't suggesting he simply believes this or that as an article if faith and not by a scientific argument. And he does calculate the energy of the fields here;

https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.2537v2

Updated with a new title here;


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.2537v3.pdf

I suggested to him by email that he explicitly compare his device to a photon rocket and he said that was a good idea and might be a future paper.
In equation 26, they conclude that the mechanical energy is equal to the negative of the energy stored in the fields. Neither of these make sense to be negative, however. The issue is that they are ignoring the energy in the power supply (I assume it is a battery). As a result, the equation should actually read that the mechanical energy of the system plus the energy stored in the fields (external to the battery) is equal to the electrical energy lost by the battery. As a result, their conclusions from that point on are all incorrect.

Also, something seems wrong in general with their conclusions, because equation 15 shows that the mechanical momentum is simply a function of the current, which means an alternating current would lead to the mechanical momentum simply oscillating back and forth. In this case, what they have seems like it may be a situation where the wires may not even move at all, but there is "hidden momentum" which relates to relativistic effects and the velocities of the electrons in the current loops.

You are free to discuss your objections with professor Yahalom if you wish like I did.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 09/05/2017 04:53 pm
A bit about the US Navy EmDrive work has surfaced:
https://info.aiaa.org/tac/PEG/NFPTC/Shared%20Documents/abstract_Mcdonald.pdf

Seems the project lead, Mike McDonald, is credible:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-mcdonald-36447050/

Roger's interesting comment on the attached was:
"It is good to see that the US Naval Research Lab has broken cover.

Happy to see that they are local. I am going to contact them to obtain access to their experiment to spot any problems. Not very positive though -- due to my foreign background. But will try.

Hi PN,

Mike McDonald's email is in the paper.

What I know about torsion test rigs is they must allow significant room for the cavity to accelerate, at least 20um, 50 um is better. Stiff test rigs that don't allow enough sufficient room to accelerate may fail to record any significant force.

As exampke, the EW test rig is much stiffer than Jamies, with Jamie's stiffer than Dave's. Giving the cavity room to accelerate and get into Motor Mode is very important.

Will be interesting to see the cavity they built, their Rf system and put their cavity numbers through my larest design tool.

Maybe McDonald or others on the team would be interested in discussion on NSF?

TT, I do not believe Mr. Shawyer's theory of accelerating cavity and force. After all, the earth is moving fast around the sun and the gravity is accelerating (Einstein's equivalence of gravity and acceleration) the cavity.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/05/2017 05:00 pm
That's right.  Were looking for new physics.  Something that hasn't been notice before.  Bringing up an existing experiment (even unintentional) and its results would be paramount to proving such a thing does/doesn't exist, or if it hasn't been done then it is an experiment that hasn't been done yet.
But what you have provided discussing electromagnetic forces is not new physics. It is well known physics that does not lead to anything better than a photon rocket. No amount of reconfiguring the design of an electromagnetic system will change the general results, which hold for any electromagnetic system.

"It is well known"

Yes, it certainly is and I'm not saying it isn't a correct understanding but being well known is not proof no exception will never be found since such proofs are always based on certain assumptions which would by definition be violated if an exception were found. It is in fact a belief grounded in the best understanding to date. And if we used such arguments to limit research which examined things already "well known", nobody would be looking at EMDrives. So it seems to me your statement "No amount of reconfiguring the design of an electromagnetic system will change the general results, which hold for any electromagnetic system" is too dogmatic.
The relevant assumptions are Maxwell's equations, so as I said, you need to propose a new theory of electrodynamics, otherwise you will keep getting the same results. It is not "dogmatic" it is simply a fact of what current theories predict. It is also a fact that we have no experimental evidence that Maxwell's equations are violated. (They have done an excellent job predicting emDrive cavity mode shapes and frequencies for example)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/05/2017 05:05 pm

"It is well known"

Yes, it certainly is and I'm not saying it isn't a correct understanding but being well known is not proof no exception will never be found since such proofs are always based on certain assumptions which would by definition be violated if an exception were found. It is in fact a belief grounded in the best understanding to date. And if we used such arguments to limit research which examined things already "well known", nobody would be looking at EMDrives. So it seems to me your statement "No amount of reconfiguring the design of an electromagnetic system will change the general results, which hold for any electromagnetic system" is too dogmatic.

How do you know where to stop?  Do you consider claims that energy/momentum is always conserved (including that you cannot get free energy) dogmatic too?

I didn't say all science is dogma and is suspect. Don't think that! ;D the point is that one has to make a judgement call in each case. If some amateur inventor wants me to invest in his free energy machine I run away. If some well credited scientist associated with the Isaac Newton Institute at Cambridge University says something, I can at least listen with an open mind.

Regarding energy and momentum conservation, one can firmly hold that while at the same time not rushing to judgement as to how it exactly applies in a particular situation and thus risk rejecting a new idea prematurely.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 09/05/2017 05:07 pm
A bit about the US Navy EmDrive work has surfaced:
https://info.aiaa.org/tac/PEG/NFPTC/Shared%20Documents/abstract_Mcdonald.pdf

Seems the project lead, Mike McDonald, is credible:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-mcdonald-36447050/

Roger's interesting comment on the attached was:
"It is good to see that the US Naval Research Lab has broken cover.

Happy to see that they are local. I am going to contact them to obtain access to their experiment to spot any problems. Not very positive though -- due to my foreign background. But will try.

Why so sudden interest if I may ask? I saw you being only critical of the EmDrive. I believe it is better if we leave them to condcut the test on their own like NASA Eagleworks did. Only by that way we can be sure that they stay truly neutral to the experiment. In my own opinion your critical opinion will not let you be a good judge of this device.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/05/2017 05:16 pm
That's right.  Were looking for new physics.  Something that hasn't been notice before.  Bringing up an existing experiment (even unintentional) and its results would be paramount to proving such a thing does/doesn't exist, or if it hasn't been done then it is an experiment that hasn't been done yet.
But what you have provided discussing electromagnetic forces is not new physics. It is well known physics that does not lead to anything better than a photon rocket. No amount of reconfiguring the design of an electromagnetic system will change the general results, which hold for any electromagnetic system.

"It is well known"

Yes, it certainly is and I'm not saying it isn't a correct understanding but being well known is not proof no exception will never be found since such proofs are always based on certain assumptions which would by definition be violated if an exception were found. It is in fact a belief grounded in the best understanding to date. And if we used such arguments to limit research which examined things already "well known", nobody would be looking at EMDrives. So it seems to me your statement "No amount of reconfiguring the design of an electromagnetic system will change the general results, which hold for any electromagnetic system" is too dogmatic.
The relevant assumptions are Maxwell's equations, so as I said, you need to propose a new theory of electrodynamics, otherwise you will keep getting the same results. It is not "dogmatic" it is simply a fact of what current theories predict. It is also a fact that we have no experimental evidence that Maxwell's equations are violated. (They have done an excellent job predicting emDrive cavity mode shapes and frequencies for example)

Scientists can sometimes disagree with what the same equations predict. Questioning the Maxwell equations is a red herring. You made a broad statement but clearly, you haven't tested all options. You might say you are extremely confident no exceptions will ever be found but you can't say absolutely. I'm not proposing a new theory, nor do I have to, that's not my interest or ability. I'm just saying I am unwilling to absolutely say no configuration could ever result in a net Lorentz force without deep thought as to what exactly defines the system being open or closed, what determines when a force is internal or external, causality, signal retardation and a host of other such issues. Thanks for the discussion.  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 09/05/2017 05:20 pm
A bit about the US Navy EmDrive work has surfaced:
https://info.aiaa.org/tac/PEG/NFPTC/Shared%20Documents/abstract_Mcdonald.pdf

Seems the project lead, Mike McDonald, is credible:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-mcdonald-36447050/

Roger's interesting comment on the attached was:
"It is good to see that the US Naval Research Lab has broken cover.

Happy to see that they are local. I am going to contact them to obtain access to their experiment to spot any problems. Not very positive though -- due to my foreign background. But will try.

Why so sudden interest if I may ask? I saw you being only critical of the EmDrive. I believe it is better if we leave them to condcut the test on their own like NASA Eagleworks did. Only by that way we can be sure that they stay truly neutral to the experiment. In my own opinion your critical opinion will not let you be a good judge of this device.

I carried out my own experiment in case you did not know. If there are problems in their experiment, like those in the NASA experiment and those in Tajmar's experiment, it is best for science's sake to correct them before them being published. Staying neutral does not mean being ignorant of potential problems. I am a good judge, because I am critical not for being critical, but for science's sake.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 09/05/2017 05:24 pm
A bit about the US Navy EmDrive work has surfaced:
https://info.aiaa.org/tac/PEG/NFPTC/Shared%20Documents/abstract_Mcdonald.pdf

Seems the project lead, Mike McDonald, is credible:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-mcdonald-36447050/

Roger's interesting comment on the attached was:
"It is good to see that the US Naval Research Lab has broken cover.

Now there is no doubt, why Mr. Shawyer can not share with us any results. My and yours informations are correct that he is under supervision of both the US and UK military / defense.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 09/05/2017 05:32 pm
A bit about the US Navy EmDrive work has surfaced:
https://info.aiaa.org/tac/PEG/NFPTC/Shared%20Documents/abstract_Mcdonald.pdf

Seems the project lead, Mike McDonald, is credible:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-mcdonald-36447050/

Roger's interesting comment on the attached was:
"It is good to see that the US Naval Research Lab has broken cover.

Happy to see that they are local. I am going to contact them to obtain access to their experiment to spot any problems. Not very positive though -- due to my foreign background. But will try.

Why so sudden interest if I may ask? I saw you being only critical of the EmDrive. I believe it is better if we leave them to condcut the test on their own like NASA Eagleworks did. Only by that way we can be sure that they stay truly neutral to the experiment. In my own opinion your critical opinion will not let you be a good judge of this device.

I carried out my own experiment in case you did not know. If there are problems in their experiment, like those in the NASA experiment and those in Tajmar's experiment, it is best for science's sake to correct them before them being published. Staying neutral does not mean being ignorant of potential problems. I am a good judge, because I am critical not for being critical, but for science's sake.

I do not judge your experience. I judge your objectivity. I saw 90% of people here being only critical. You and the others will need to prove to me that you can be neutral to this test. I will not believe your results unless it is also checked by some other people with more open mind to this matter.

Same critic is used againts Mr. Shawyer. It is only fair same approach will be used now to question objectivity of the critics.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/05/2017 05:49 pm
A bit about the US Navy EmDrive work has surfaced:
https://info.aiaa.org/tac/PEG/NFPTC/Shared%20Documents/abstract_Mcdonald.pdf

Seems the project lead, Mike McDonald, is credible:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-mcdonald-36447050/

Roger's interesting comment on the attached was:
"It is good to see that the US Naval Research Lab has broken cover.

Happy to see that they are local. I am going to contact them to obtain access to their experiment to spot any problems. Not very positive though -- due to my foreign background. But will try.

Hi PN,

Mike McDonald's email is in the paper.

What I know about torsion test rigs is they must allow significant room for the cavity to accelerate, at least 20um, 50 um is better. Stiff test rigs that don't allow enough sufficient room to accelerate may fail to record any significant force.

As exampke, the EW test rig is much stiffer than Jamies, with Jamie's stiffer than Dave's. Giving the cavity room to accelerate and get into Motor Mode is very important.

Will be interesting to see the cavity they built, their Rf system and put their cavity numbers through my larest design tool.

Maybe McDonald or others on the team would be interested in discussion on NSF?

TT, I do not believe Mr. Shawyer's theory of accelerating cavity and force. After all, the earth is moving fast around the sun and the gravity is accelerating (Einstein's equivalence of gravity and acceleration) the cavity.

PN,

Roger has stated several times that for a non accelerating cavity relative to the trapped photons, there is no generated Force.

He explains this in his 2013 paper as attached.

Jamie's earlier data clearly shows the Force generation stopping as his cavity achieved max deflection. 

As discussed with Paul March, the EW data is not that of an EmDrive as using continuous Rf, there is no Force generation with a non accelerating cavity. My suggestion to Paul was possibly Dr. White and the EW team had successfully built a QV thruster.

Yes what appears to be static Force generation is possible with a cavity on a test rig with a spring constant and pulsed acceleration that resulted from pulsed Rf. Roger covered this in some detail in his paper on the Experimental EmDrive which used 50Hz pulsed Rf from his magnetron that was driven by a 1/2 wave rectified dc supply.

The Navy test data, test rig design, it's stiffness, their cavity design and method of Rf application, etc will be interesting.


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/05/2017 05:50 pm
A bit about the US Navy EmDrive work has surfaced:
https://info.aiaa.org/tac/PEG/NFPTC/Shared%20Documents/abstract_Mcdonald.pdf

Seems the project lead, Mike McDonald, is credible:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-mcdonald-36447050/

Roger's interesting comment on the attached was:
"It is good to see that the US Naval Research Lab has broken cover.

Now there is no doubt, why Mr. Shawyer can not share with us any results. My and yours informations are correct that he is under supervision of both the US and UK military / defense.
Nonsense. This release from the naval research lab is a follow up to the Eagleworks experiment. If they were supervising Shawyer, and had seen any evidence of his extreme claims, this experiment would not be necessary.

I do not judge your experience. I judge your objectivity. I saw 90% of people here being only critical. You and the others will need to prove to me that you can be neutral to this test. I will not believe your results unless it is also checked by some other people with more open mind to this matter.

Same critic is used againts Mr. Shawyer. It is only fair same approach will be used now to question objectivity of the critics.
You are the one who needs their objectivity investigated. Anyone who doesn't have significant doubts about the emDrive working simply does not have sufficient physics background to run an experiment and account for the error sources. Read exactly what the naval research lab says, they state that it either violates conservation of momentum, or interacts with a completely unknown medium. They are investigating to test whether Eagleworks results are due to experimental errors. This shows significant doubt about the emDrive working, and is the most truly neutral position I have seen.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/05/2017 05:56 pm
Happy to see that they are local. I am going to contact them to obtain access to their experiment to spot any problems. Not very positive though -- due to my foreign background. But will try.

I received an email from Michael McDonald this morning in response to my inquiries. Coincidentally we will both be at the same workshop in November so I reached out to him over the weekend. He said they have not yet begun vacuum thrust tests and that "it has been all setup to this point." They hope to have preliminary results for the International Electric Propulsion Conference in October. Their experiment is an independent validation and verification of the results from White et. al. 

Correction: They "hope to present at least a design paper at the International Electric Propulsion Conference in October..."
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/05/2017 05:57 pm
A bit about the US Navy EmDrive work has surfaced:
https://info.aiaa.org/tac/PEG/NFPTC/Shared%20Documents/abstract_Mcdonald.pdf

Seems the project lead, Mike McDonald, is credible:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-mcdonald-36447050/

Roger's interesting comment on the attached was:
"It is good to see that the US Naval Research Lab has broken cover.

Now there is no doubt, why Mr. Shawyer can not share with us any results. My and yours informations are correct that he is under supervision of both the US and UK military / defense.
Nonsense. This release from the naval research lab is a follow up to the Eagleworks experiment. If they were supervising Shawyer, and had seen any evidence of his extreme claims, this experiment would not be necessary.

I do not judge your experience. I judge your objectivity. I saw 90% of people here being only critical. You and the others will need to prove to me that you can be neutral to this test. I will not believe your results unless it is also checked by some other people with more open mind to this matter.

Same critic is used againts Mr. Shawyer. It is only fair same approach will be used now to question objectivity of the critics.
You are the one who needs their objectivity investigated. Anyone who doesn't have significant doubts about the emDrive working simply does not have sufficient physics background to run an experiment and account for the error sources. Read exactly what the naval research lab says, they state that it either violates conservation of momentum, or interacts with a completely unknown medium. They are investigating to test whether Eagleworks results are due to experimental errors. This shows significant doubt about the emDrive working, and is the most truly neutral position I have seen.

Meberbs,

The US Navy team also built and tested a cavity and Rf system of their design.

Quote
We report on the fabrication and vacuum testing of both a replica of White’s experimental configuration as well as a cavity and driving microwave circuit of our own design, with careful attention to maximizing driving RF power and cavity resonant quality factor Q in both the NASA and NRL cavity geometries.

To me Roger's comment seems to be speaking to his involvement with their cavity build.

Time will tell.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/05/2017 06:01 pm
Jamie's earlier data clearly shows the Force generation stopping as his cavity achieved max deflection. 
No, this statement is just more evidence that you don't understand how forces work. With a constant force from a thruster, a torsion pendulum will oscillate around the equilibrium deflection point.

Meberbs,

The US Navy team also built and tested a cavity and Rf system of their design.

To me Roger's comment seems to be speaking to his involvement with their cavity build.

Time will tell.
False, they have not performed tests yet. See Monomorphic's post above yours. It is clear from what they released and what Monomorphic said that Shawyer is not involved, and they are just independently attempting to replicate White et. al.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/05/2017 06:05 pm
Jamie's earlier data clearly shows the Force generation stopping as his cavity achieved max deflection. 
No, this statement is just more evidence that you don't understand how forces work. With a constant force from a thruster, a torsion pendulum will oscillate around the equilibrium deflection point.

Meberbs,

The US Navy team also built and tested a cavity and Rf system of their design.

To me Roger's comment seems to be speaking to his involvement with their cavity build.

Time will tell.
False, they have not performed tests yet. See Monomorphic's post above yours. It is clear from what they released and what Monomorphic said that Shawyer is not involved, and they are just independently attempting to replicate White et. al.

Please read what they wrote:

Quote
We report on the fabrication and vacuum testing of both a replica of White’s experimental configuration as well as a cavity and driving microwave circuit of our own design, with careful attention to maximizing driving RF power and cavity resonant quality factor Q in both the NASA and NRL cavity geometries

Meberbs,

Clearly in building a cavity and Rf system of their own design, they are doing more than replication.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 09/05/2017 06:07 pm
A bit about the US Navy EmDrive work has surfaced:
https://info.aiaa.org/tac/PEG/NFPTC/Shared%20Documents/abstract_Mcdonald.pdf

Seems the project lead, Mike McDonald, is credible:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-mcdonald-36447050/

Roger's interesting comment on the attached was:
"It is good to see that the US Naval Research Lab has broken cover.

Now there is no doubt, why Mr. Shawyer can not share with us any results. My and yours informations are correct that he is under supervision of both the US and UK military / defense.
Nonsense. This release from the naval research lab is a follow up to the Eagleworks experiment. If they were supervising Shawyer, and had seen any evidence of his extreme claims, this experiment would not be necessary.

I do not judge your experience. I judge your objectivity. I saw 90% of people here being only critical. You and the others will need to prove to me that you can be neutral to this test. I will not believe your results unless it is also checked by some other people with more open mind to this matter.

Same critic is used againts Mr. Shawyer. It is only fair same approach will be used now to question objectivity of the critics.
You are the one who needs their objectivity investigated. Anyone who doesn't have significant doubts about the emDrive working simply does not have sufficient physics background to run an experiment and account for the error sources. Read exactly what the naval research lab says, they state that it either violates conservation of momentum, or interacts with a completely unknown medium. They are investigating to test whether Eagleworks results are due to experimental errors. This shows significant doubt about the emDrive working, and is the most truly neutral position I have seen.

Please provide me with the proof that he is not under the supervision. I will be glad to accept that.

No I do not have physics background, you are right there.

I read it. Yes, they are neutral, that is why I question PotomacNeuron approach there. Because after his critic he will not be. I believe that true critic can be passed down only by the people that will actualy test this device. How can be so much people sure this can not work if they did not built it or test it on their own? That, does not make any sense. In this case more than ever. Theory is no doubt important. But actual testing is the pure essence of physics.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/05/2017 06:50 pm
Quote
We report on the fabrication and vacuum testing of both a replica of White’s experimental configuration as well as a cavity and driving microwave circuit of our own design, with careful attention to maximizing driving RF power and cavity resonant quality factor Q in both the NASA and NRL cavity geometries

Meberbs,

Clearly in building a cavity and Rf system of their own design, they are doing more than replication.
Cavity is not their design, they are using the same design, but better fabrication techniques. The changes they are making are specifically just using better equipment that should raise the signal to noise ratio, and address unaccounted for error sources in the original experiment. Replication does not have to have every detail the same, otherwise it would be impossible to identify and eliminate unaccounted for errors.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 09/05/2017 06:59 pm


You must prove asymmetric boundary conditions between endplates and consistent phase shift.

Napkin note regarding arcing:
flows balance w internal oscillating field however impurities and anomalous shapes may tangle waves or divert them. Arcing then occurs across discontinuity in otherwise congruous and internal field coherent metallic lattice.

As coherency increases and resonance locks, discontinuities will hinder charge distribution along sidewall creating conflicting field lines among B field lateral component. So E field and B field lines diverge in walls increasing stress and shearing if at micro level. This will encourage arc from all closed path waves impacting both points of shearing. It is the kinetic impact of plasma arc and the higher absorption which can occur more often (more discontinuities in bigger surface area) which determines direction of thrust perhaps?

If true as said is a plasma globe shaped like a tapered cylinder. Higher flux tube density in the discontinuity region in the skin is important since it alters boundary conditions!

I'm not sure what your getting at.  I'm talking about a phased array not a cavity necessarily (trying to keep it simple to begin with).  Now its possible to extend this to a cavity but I wasn't going there.  Here is an image of a time retarded phased array field and the forces induced on the phased array when the field was created.  Notice how in a normal phased array the time retarded creation of the "charge separation fields" and "magnetic fields" create opposite forces on the phased array.  Obviously magnetic or charge separation fields are stronger and the difference probably gives us the photon force. 

Now the pure magnetic phased array no longer has this opposing electric force from charge separation.  What happens? 

If image of why such forces are induced in a phased array are needed I can link those.  They are in my previous posts.  https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1459290#msg1459290

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=36911.0;attach=1087630;image)

I was talking about the cavity resembling a phased array since that is where I thought you were going. Comparing the cavity to an LC circuit is a bad analogy for a number of reasons and the same might be said about a phased array. You would have to prove that the two endplates and walls share the same E field, which we know is very unlikely in most "high thrust" modes and due to multiple magnetic dipoles in the sidewalls. One solution is considering delocalized electrons in the interior though due to the relatively strong guide fields and oscillatory field it should form a permanent end-to-end arc to complete such a phased array style circuit. Hence why you would need to prove the phase and group velocity shifting between the two asymmetric ends, to compensate for the time retardation of the e- (presumably via walls) and match the difference in the net force. Think of this predictable phase shift as a result of the internal field oscillations as the overlapped field 'swings' back and forth based on the average of the most reflections on the various areas of each end (or put simply the interference pattern will always result from the sum of the coincident waves hence why proving the phased array interpretation of the cavity requires interpreting periodic phase shift).

The rest was more some thoughts I had regarding how the mere fact that there are more impurities (i.e. liquid droplets, metallic impurities (incl. oxidated states), organics, other compounds) in a larger surface area may be partially responsible for the thrust. If the thrust is composed of mainly the ions and electrons impacting the cavity walls then this should be more notable if one side has more impurities since the charge separation is greater turning each scratch, dust particle and/or rogue ion into a natural lightning rod and photovoltaic cell for both the internal microwaves and particle soup. Might be interesting to try a cavity with one side being partially doped or alloyed. Using irregular sized rings of alloy near the predicted modal peak(s) might impede the current and improve the likelihood of arcing in the big-endian direction. Again, these are all thoughts related to the phased array and assume that the wall is not made of discrete quanta which cannot communicate due to the strength and misalignment of the wall fields. Remember that the current in the walls will form loops in opposing directions near each modal peak, so single top to bottom mode cavities might be the only viable candidates for testing whether it is a phased array (also good support for why TM mode fails).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/05/2017 07:04 pm
Please provide me with the proof that he is not under the supervision. I will be glad to accept that.
What do you consider "proof" for this? There is currently not a shred of evidence that Shawyer is involved with the Navy at all, and I just explained why this most recent information is evidence to the contrary. You have not provided any evidence to support your side. (Obscure hints by Shawyer that he is working with them don't count because he currently has no credibility.)

No I do not have physics background, you are right there.

I read it. Yes, they are neutral, that is why I question PotomacNeuron approach there. Because after his critic he will not be. I believe that true critic can be passed down only by the people that will actualy test this device. How can be so much people sure this can not work if they did not built it or test it on their own? That, does not make any sense. In this case more than ever. Theory is no doubt important. But actual testing is the pure essence of physics.
PotomacNeuron just reminded you that he has performed his own experiment, not that that is a requirement to be able to recognize flaws in someone else's experiment. The current available body of experimental evidence is not in favor of the emDrive working.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/05/2017 07:07 pm
Quote
We report on the fabrication and vacuum testing of both a replica of White’s experimental configuration as well as a cavity and driving microwave circuit of our own design, with careful attention to maximizing driving RF power and cavity resonant quality factor Q in both the NASA and NRL cavity geometries

Meberbs,

Clearly in building a cavity and Rf system of their own design, they are doing more than replication.
Cavity is not their design, they are using the same design, but better fabrication techniques. The changes they are making are specifically just using better equipment that should raise the signal to noise ratio, and address unaccounted for error sources in the original experiment. Replication does not have to have every detail the same, otherwise it would be impossible to identify and eliminate unaccounted for errors.

Please read the bolded text:

Quote
We report on the fabrication and vacuum testing of both a replica of White’s experimental configuration as well as a cavity and driving microwave circuit of our own design, with careful attention to maximizing driving RF power and cavity resonant quality factor Q in both the NASA and NRL cavity geometries

One a NASA replicant cavity.
One cavity their design.
Each cavity has different geometries = different cavities.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/05/2017 07:18 pm
Quote
We report on the fabrication and vacuum testing of both a replica of White’s experimental configuration as well as a cavity and driving microwave circuit of our own design, with careful attention to maximizing driving RF power and cavity resonant quality factor Q in both the NASA and NRL cavity geometries

One a NASA replicant cavity.
One cavity their design.
Each cavity has different geometries = different cavities.
I misread the grammar, as only applying to "their design" to the microwave circuit. That is the only sentence where they mention it. It is clear that they are focused on the replication of White et. al.
Quote
This experimental effort focuses on the cavity point design of White et. al from NASA JSC
Also, "own design" would say "Shawyer provided design" if he was providing the design, as it stands evidence remains that he is not involved.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/05/2017 09:09 pm
A bit about the US Navy EmDrive work has surfaced:
https://info.aiaa.org/tac/PEG/NFPTC/Shared%20Documents/abstract_Mcdonald.pdf

Seems the project lead, Mike McDonald, is credible:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-mcdonald-36447050/

Roger's interesting comment on the attached was:
"It is good to see that the US Naval Research Lab has broken cover.

As always, leading the way. Go Navy!

Some history.
https://www.nrl.navy.mil/ssdd/ncst/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/05/2017 09:57 pm
A bit about the US Navy EmDrive work has surfaced:
https://info.aiaa.org/tac/PEG/NFPTC/Shared%20Documents/abstract_Mcdonald.pdf

Seems the project lead, Mike McDonald, is credible:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-mcdonald-36447050/

Roger's interesting comment on the attached was:
"It is good to see that the US Naval Research Lab has broken cover.

As always, leading the way. Go Navy!

Some history.
https://www.nrl.navy.mil/ssdd/ncst/

(https://polination.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/us-navy-life-liberty-and-the-pursuit-of-all-who-threaten-it.jpg)

(http://navylive.dodlive.mil/files/2015/08/150819-N-ZZ999-001-1024x682.jpg)

(http://navylive.dodlive.mil/files/2015/08/av_muos4_r4.jpg)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: moreno7798 on 09/05/2017 10:03 pm
Quote
We report on the fabrication and vacuum testing of both a replica of White’s experimental configuration as well as a cavity and driving microwave circuit of our own design, with careful attention to maximizing driving RF power and cavity resonant quality factor Q in both the NASA and NRL cavity geometries

Meberbs,

Clearly in building a cavity and Rf system of their own design, they are doing more than replication.
Cavity is not their design, they are using the same design, but better fabrication techniques. The changes they are making are specifically just using better equipment that should raise the signal to noise ratio, and address unaccounted for error sources in the original experiment. Replication does not have to have every detail the same, otherwise it would be impossible to identify and eliminate unaccounted for errors.

Again . . .

Quote
... as well as a cavity and driving microwave circuit of our own design, with careful attention to maximizing driving RF power and cavity resonant quality factor Q in both the NASA and NRL cavity geometries

Meberbs, I think you are coming close to stretching your interpretation of the Navy's own words . . .
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/05/2017 10:25 pm
Meberbs, I think you are coming close to stretching your interpretation of the Navy's own words . . .
Did you not read the rest of the discussion before posting? I already said I misinterpreted part of that sentence, but they clearly aren't focused on that second design.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 09/05/2017 11:07 pm
A bit about the US Navy EmDrive work has surfaced:
https://info.aiaa.org/tac/PEG/NFPTC/Shared%20Documents/abstract_Mcdonald.pdf

Seems the project lead, Mike McDonald, is credible:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-mcdonald-36447050/

Roger's interesting comment on the attached was:
"It is good to see that the US Naval Research Lab has broken cover.

As always, leading the way. Go Navy!

Some history.
https://www.nrl.navy.mil/ssdd/ncst/

Bravo Zulu - GO NAVY Indeed.   I am VERY excited to hear they are involved and waiting with worm on tongue for their results.   Sierra Hotel.

In my experience NRL has some of the best most capable and critical minds today.  Yes - I am a bit biased towards Navy (see my sig line or my linkedin profile)  BUT I also worked with them as a SE or PE for various civilian contractors on several projects over maybe 30 years and without exception found them absolutely committed to obtaining results which are solid (whether positive, negative or whatever).   I am really looking forward to their design and their results.   One advantage of being an old f**t is worked with a lot of folks and developing a strong feeling for whom you can depend of for solid data.   In my experience NRL is one of those groups.

Just one other suggestion - those members who approach the EMDrive critically and who try to find the problems and difficulties, who force us to examine flaws etc  with new theories and experimental approaches are one of our most valuable resources here.   Each time they point out a problem and a theory or experiment is improved to address that problem we are closer to a BELIVABLE answer to "does it work".  So perhaps we should not question the motives of someone questioning the EMDrive - they are doing some heavy lifting whether or not it works.

 Personally  - I HOPE it works, I THINK or perhaps FEEL based on decades of RF experimentation, that  it might - and  neither of those  is worth a bucket of warm spittle.  I want to KNOW, we NEED to know,  and that takes carefully critically obtained DATA.  DATA which are  challenged, questioned; with strong robust attempts to refute them.  As someone said some pages back - no a flying car WON'T be sufficient.  But 1 micro-newton of excess thrust critically and objectively PROVEN will be earth shaking.

 And the provable, internally and externally consistent theory as to how that micro-newton of force got there is going to put someone's name on a new chair(s) in some very prestigious physics department(s). And probably a trip to Sweden.   Likewise data and theory which PROVE this a long stern chase of non-domestic geese will allow some great minds to move on and work on the next step on getting humankind off this mudball.



Herman
graybeardsyseng
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: birchoff on 09/06/2017 12:19 am
A bit about the US Navy EmDrive work has surfaced:
https://info.aiaa.org/tac/PEG/NFPTC/Shared%20Documents/abstract_Mcdonald.pdf

Seems the project lead, Mike McDonald, is credible:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-mcdonald-36447050/

Roger's interesting comment on the attached was:
"It is good to see that the US Naval Research Lab has broken cover.

As always, leading the way. Go Navy!

Some history.
https://www.nrl.navy.mil/ssdd/ncst/

Bravo Zulu - GO NAVY Indeed.   I am VERY excited to hear they are involved and waiting with worm on tongue for their results.   Sierra Hotel.

In my experience NRL has some of the best most capable and critical minds today.  Yes - I am a bit biased towards Navy (see my sig line or my linkedin profile)  BUT I also worked with them as a SE or PE for various civilian contractors on several projects over maybe 30 years and without exception found them absolutely committed to obtaining results which are solid (whether positive, negative or whatever).   I am really looking forward to their design and their results.   One advantage of being an old f**t is worked with a lot of folks and developing a strong feeling for whom you can depend of for solid data.   In my experience NRL is one of those groups.

Just one other suggestion - those members who approach the EMDrive critically and who try to find the problems and difficulties, who force us to examine flaws etc  with new theories and experimental approaches are one of our most valuable resources here.   Each time they point out a problem and a theory or experiment is improved to address that problem we are closer to a BELIVABLE answer to "does it work".  So perhaps we should not question the motives of someone questioning the EMDrive - they are doing some heavy lifting whether or not it works.

 Personally  - I HOPE it works, I THINK or perhaps FEEL based on decades of RF experimentation, that  it might - and  neither of those  is worth a bucket of warm spittle.  I want to KNOW, we NEED to know,  and that takes carefully critically obtained DATA.  DATA which are  challenged, questioned; with strong robust attempts to refute them.  As someone said some pages back - no a flying car WON'T be sufficient.  But 1 micro-newton of excess thrust critically and objectively PROVEN will be earth shaking.

 And the provable, internally and externally consistent theory as to how that micro-newton of force got there is going to put someone's name on a new chair(s) in some very prestigious physics department(s). And probably a trip to Sweden.   Likewise data and theory which PROVE this a long stern chase of non-domestic geese will allow some great minds to move on and work on the next step on getting humankind off this mudball.



Herman
graybeardsyseng

While they will not be evaluating theory in their work. I wonder why they even bothered including talk about Mach Effect thruster. The devices that have been shown to work under that particular theory are configured in a completely different manner. To date unless I missed something, linking Resonant cavity force measurements to ME theory is mostly theoretical conjecture at this point.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/06/2017 01:02 am
I don't know how hard it would be to shift the vertical LDS to a horizontal LDS at the other end. If it were easy enough, you could try it on a test and estimate the non-torsional movement as above. If it turns out to be small enough to ignore, you could move it back. If not, you'd have to decide what to do next....

Not very hard at all. The cables are long enough to reach if I move the electronics up to the height of the pendulum. This was planned for other reasons, so I went ahead and included the ability for dual optical sensors, that are mirrored as exactly as possible on opposite sides.  Just two nuts to remove and one can be moved back into the vertical detection orientation.   :D

With any luck the 30W amplifier will be operational in the next few days. Then a great deal of calibrating.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/06/2017 02:17 am
A bit about the US Navy EmDrive work has surfaced:
https://info.aiaa.org/tac/PEG/NFPTC/Shared%20Documents/abstract_Mcdonald.pdf

Seems the project lead, Mike McDonald, is credible:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-mcdonald-36447050/

Roger's interesting comment on the attached was:
"It is good to see that the US Naval Research Lab has broken cover.

As always, leading the way. Go Navy!

Some history.
https://www.nrl.navy.mil/ssdd/ncst/

Bravo Zulu - GO NAVY Indeed.   I am VERY excited to hear they are involved and waiting with worm on tongue for their results.   Sierra Hotel.

In my experience NRL has some of the best most capable and critical minds today.  Yes - I am a bit biased towards Navy (see my sig line or my linkedin profile)  BUT I also worked with them as a SE or PE for various civilian contractors on several projects over maybe 30 years and without exception found them absolutely committed to obtaining results which are solid (whether positive, negative or whatever).   I am really looking forward to their design and their results.   One advantage of being an old f**t is worked with a lot of folks and developing a strong feeling for whom you can depend of for solid data.   In my experience NRL is one of those groups.

Just one other suggestion - those members who approach the EMDrive critically and who try to find the problems and difficulties, who force us to examine flaws etc  with new theories and experimental approaches are one of our most valuable resources here.   Each time they point out a problem and a theory or experiment is improved to address that problem we are closer to a BELIVABLE answer to "does it work".  So perhaps we should not question the motives of someone questioning the EMDrive - they are doing some heavy lifting whether or not it works.

 Personally  - I HOPE it works, I THINK or perhaps FEEL based on decades of RF experimentation, that  it might - and  neither of those  is worth a bucket of warm spittle.  I want to KNOW, we NEED to know,  and that takes carefully critically obtained DATA.  DATA which are  challenged, questioned; with strong robust attempts to refute them.  As someone said some pages back - no a flying car WON'T be sufficient.  But 1 micro-newton of excess thrust critically and objectively PROVEN will be earth shaking.

 And the provable, internally and externally consistent theory as to how that micro-newton of force got there is going to put someone's name on a new chair(s) in some very prestigious physics department(s). And probably a trip to Sweden.   Likewise data and theory which PROVE this a long stern chase of non-domestic geese will allow some great minds to move on and work on the next step on getting humankind off this mudball.



Herman
graybeardsyseng

While they will not be evaluating theory in their work. I wonder why they even bothered including talk about Mach Effect thruster. The devices that have been shown to work under that particular theory are configured in a completely different manner. To date unless I missed something, linking Resonant cavity force measurements to ME theory is mostly theoretical conjecture at this point.

Maybe it's better to separate ME theory from the Woodward devices and then look at the commonalities of those devices to that of EMdrive.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 09/06/2017 04:17 am
You say I don't understand them and am going off half (maybe all) cocked. Do you really think they would write all those papers if all they were saying is "Hey, here's an interesting way to make a propellent-less propulsion device that works far far less efficiently than a simple photon rocket and is entirely useless!!!!!"? Or maybe, "Hey, this would work but you need gigawatts of power!!!! Maybe that's the academic world but somehow, I doubt that. So, what do you think they are really trying to say with these papers?

Can you realistically imagine proposing gigawatt levels of power in meter sized coils carrying 100 amps of current? Wouldn't they just melt?
I have no idea why they haven't calculated the power requirements, especially since there is an easy way to do so since the energy flux is equal to c times the momentum flux. Them not calculating it in no way changes the fact that this is a ton of power, and yes it probably would melt something if you tried to build such a device.

It does not matter why they aren't discussing the power numbers, because the power numbers are what they are. Do you have anything to add that is actually based on math or physics?

I emailed one of the authors, professor Yahalom, about the power levels for that 2.74N force and I'll let you know if he answers.

I got an answer. He said using his concept a 100 kg device should get to a speed of 1m/s with 50 Joules where a photon rocket requires 3E10 Joules to do the same. So he thinks it's not just in effect a photon rocket. But I did ask for further clarification that he specifically state the fields carry away more momentum than a simple photon rocket if that's what he believes.
Belief is irrelevant, and the math says he is very wrong. Clearly he just calculated the kinetic energy of the device and did not account for any of the energy in the fields.

I think it's clear I wasn't suggesting he simply believes this or that as an article if faith and not by a scientific argument. And he does calculate the energy of the fields here;

https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.2537v2

Updated with a new title here;


https://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.2537v3.pdf

I suggested to him by email that he explicitly compare his device to a photon rocket and he said that was a good idea and might be a future paper.

Hi Bob, this paper looks very similar to the one you pulled up.  Linked here: DEF: The Physical Basis of Electromagnetic Propulsion by Mario J. Pinheiro (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=DEF%3A+The+Physical+Basis+of+Electromagnetic+Propulsion&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C26)  He references White's quantum vacuum propulsion I think.  Seems to emphasize time delayed near field interaction.  It strikes me he mentions using the Barium Titanate at low frequency.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 09/06/2017 06:25 am
A bit about the US Navy EmDrive work has surfaced:
https://info.aiaa.org/tac/PEG/NFPTC/Shared%20Documents/abstract_Mcdonald.pdf

Seems the project lead, Mike McDonald, is credible:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-mcdonald-36447050/

Roger's interesting comment on the attached was:
"It is good to see that the US Naval Research Lab has broken cover.

As always, leading the way. Go Navy!

Some history.
https://www.nrl.navy.mil/ssdd/ncst/

Good read thank you.

It looks like Mr. McDonald and his team will be attending The 35th International Electric Propulsion Conference (IEPC) is scheduled for October 8 – 12, 2017 on the Georgia Institute of Technology campus in Atlanta.

He is mentioned in here - https://iepc2017.org/preliminary-technical-program
First page 10:00, Track 8

Thrust Measurement and Error Analysis of the IMPULSE Resonant Microwave Cavity Drive

Michael S. McDonald,
Michael W. Nurnberger,
Logan T. Williams

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 09/06/2017 08:34 am
@monomorphic (and possibly others)

I just stumbled upon this piece of software which allows to write code to easily interface to various instruments, while it may be somewhat OT, I decided to post it here since it may be useful to EMdrive builders and experimenters

https://www.codeproject.com/Articles/11033/FreeCal-GPIB-Instrument-Automation-for-Metrology-T

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/06/2017 11:18 am
Just received from Roger:

Hi Phil,

As there seem to be a significant number of experiments in the public domain that are not achieving anywhere near viable thrust values, I have put together the attached short note on general principles of EmDrive design and manufacture.

Hopefully this will illustrate that although the theory is relatively straightforward, the engineering of a successful EmDrive is difficult. It requires the knowledge, patience and tenacity exhibited by all successful microwave engineers. I am sure you are well aware of this.

Feel free to share.

Best regards
Roger


General  Principles  for  the  successful  design  and  manufacture  of  an  EmDrive  Thruster
 


1.  Design  the  cavity  for the  required  operating  frequency  and  mode,  at  a  specified temperature.   Do  not  just  make  a cavity  and  then find  out  what the  resonant  frequency  is.  This has been  the  case  for  a number  of  experimenters  who  have  either  obtained  no  thrust  or have  achieved only  a  very  low  level  of thrust.

2.  The  design  should  aim  for  a clear  separation  of  operating  frequency  and  mode  from  the various  possible  modes.  A  series  of designs  should  be  undertaken as  part  of a  full  model analysis.  The  operating  mode  must  remain  above  cut-off at  the  small  end  of the  cavity.

3.  For a narrow  band  microwave  source,  the  cavity  geometry  should  include  shaped end  plates to  ensure  that  wave-front  phase  distortion,  which  results in  a bandwidth  spread,  does  not limit  the  Q  of  the  cavity.  Clearly  correct  geometric alignment  is impossible  with  flat  end plates.  Spherical  end  plates  with  correct  radii  are  the simplest  option.

4.  The  cavity  design  should  be  initially  tested  with a  swept  frequency  to  identify  the  resonant frequencies  of  the required  mode  and  adjacent  modes. A successful design  and  build  will give  an initial  resonant  frequency  within  a  maximum  of  0.5%  of  design  value,  at  the  specified temperature.

5.  Cavity  manufacture  to  high  tolerance  is essential  to  obtain  high  Q  at  the specified  resonant frequency.   Manufacturing  tolerance  should  be  around  ±0.01mm.

6.  Assembly  of the  cavity  must  include  an  end  plate  alignment  process  to  obtain  a  Q  of at  least 50,000. Low  Q  values  are unlikely  to  give  predicted  thrust  values, as  they  are  a  sign  of poor design  or  manufacture.

7.  Whatever  input  circuit is  used, loop, slot,  dipole  etc.,  it  must  be  designed  and  tested to deliver  a  good  match  between  the  wave  impedance  of the  cavity  at  the  input  position,  and the  microwave  source  impedance.   Input  tuning  is  inevitably  a  sensitive  and  lengthy adjustment  process.

8.  A correctly  matched  input  circuit will give  a  loaded Q  value  of half  that  of the  natural unloaded Q.   Optimum  match can  be  checked by  measuring  internal cavity  power  using  a small  detector  probe  positioned at  E  field  maximum.   The  probe  should  be  designed to give an  output  at  least  20dB down on  input  power  to  avoid  loading  the  cavity.

9.  Thrust  measurement requires  a clear understanding  of Newtonian  principles,  as  applied to  a propellantless thruster.  Expecting  to  measure  thrust  as if EmDrive  is  a  conventional propulsion  system  will lead to  ambiguous  results.  Ideally,  thrust  should  be  calculated  by measuring  the  acceleration  of a  freely  suspended  thruster,  and  then  applying  Newton’s laws.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/06/2017 11:55 am
6.  Assembly  of the  cavity  must  include  an  end  plate  alignment  process  to  obtain  a  Q  of at  least 50,000. Low  Q  values  are unlikely  to  give  predicted  thrust  values, as  they  are  a  sign  of poor design  or  manufacture.

Number 6 is critical to achieving good thrust.
I have mentioned this before.
Any EmDrive builder that does not design in the ability to adjust end plate parallelism may be disappointed with achieved thrust, even when the thruster is built to +-10um dimensional tolerance and all interior surfaces are polished to astronomical quality.

I use dual O rings and 8 equally spaced bolts to adjust end plate flange to side wall flange O ring compression to obtain max Q and optimal end plate parallelism.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/06/2017 01:01 pm
More from Michael McDonald regarding Roger Shawyer and their second frustum:
"I have neither a working EMDrive nor have I ever interacted with Roger Shawyer.  If the abstract mentioned our own design it’s due to poor editing.  I wrote an earlier version I wrote when I thought we’d be making one of our own.  I thought I had updated it to present correctness, but I guess not. "
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 09/06/2017 02:02 pm
Just received from Roger:

Hi Phil,

As there seem to be a significant number of experiments in the public domain that are not achieving anywhere near viable thrust values, I have put together the attached short note on general principles of EmDrive design and manufacture.

Hopefully this will illustrate that although the theory is relatively straightforward, the engineering of a successful EmDrive is difficult. It requires the knowledge, patience and tenacity exhibited by all successful microwave engineers. I am sure you are well aware of this.

Feel free to share.

Best regards
Roger


General  Principles  for  the  successful  design  and  manufacture  of  an  EmDrive  Thruster
 


1.  Design  the  cavity  for the  required  operating  frequency  and  mode,  at  a  specified temperature.   Do  not  just  make  a cavity  and  then find  out  what the  resonant  frequency  is.  This has been  the  case  for  a number  of  experimenters  who  have  either  obtained  no  thrust  or have  achieved only  a  very  low  level  of thrust.

2.  The  design  should  aim  for  a clear  separation  of  operating  frequency  and  mode  from  the various  possible  modes.  A  series  of designs  should  be  undertaken as  part  of a  full  model analysis.  The  operating  mode  must  remain  above  cut-off at  the  small  end  of the  cavity.

3.  For a narrow  band  microwave  source,  the  cavity  geometry  should  include  shaped end  plates to  ensure  that  wave-front  phase  distortion,  which  results in  a bandwidth  spread,  does  not limit  the  Q  of  the  cavity.  Clearly  correct  geometric alignment  is impossible  with  flat  end plates.  Spherical  end  plates  with  correct  radii  are  the simplest  option.

4.  The  cavity  design  should  be  initially  tested  with a  swept  frequency  to  identify  the  resonant frequencies  of  the required  mode  and  adjacent  modes. A successful design  and  build  will give  an initial  resonant  frequency  within  a  maximum  of  0.5%  of  design  value,  at  the  specified temperature.

5.  Cavity  manufacture  to  high  tolerance  is essential  to  obtain  high  Q  at  the specified  resonant frequency.   Manufacturing  tolerance  should  be  around  ±0.01mm.

6.  Assembly  of the  cavity  must  include  an  end  plate  alignment  process  to  obtain  a  Q  of at  least 50,000. Low  Q  values  are unlikely  to  give  predicted  thrust  values, as  they  are  a  sign  of poor design  or  manufacture.

7.  Whatever  input  circuit is  used, loop, slot,  dipole  etc.,  it  must  be  designed  and  tested to deliver  a  good  match  between  the  wave  impedance  of the  cavity  at  the  input  position,  and the  microwave  source  impedance.   Input  tuning  is  inevitably  a  sensitive  and  lengthy adjustment  process.

8.  A correctly  matched  input  circuit will give  a  loaded Q  value  of half  that  of the  natural unloaded Q.   Optimum  match can  be  checked by  measuring  internal cavity  power  using  a small  detector  probe  positioned at  E  field  maximum.   The  probe  should  be  designed to give an  output  at  least  20dB down on  input  power  to  avoid  loading  the  cavity.

9.  Thrust  measurement requires  a clear understanding  of Newtonian  principles,  as  applied to  a propellantless thruster.  Expecting  to  measure  thrust  as if EmDrive  is  a  conventional propulsion  system  will lead to  ambiguous  results.  Ideally,  thrust  should  be  calculated  by measuring  the  acceleration  of a  freely  suspended  thruster,  and  then  applying  Newton’s laws.

I think those principles make it very difficult to carry out an EmDrive experiment. I think the EW's, Tajmar's, and himself's experiments are all invalidated by this or that point. Even monomorphic's is invalidated---- no way the inner finish is to 0.01mm tolerance with the foils glued on. The Navy's new experiment is invalidated because of its flat ends, either.

Some are not logical either. I do not see the difference of making a frustum within 0.5% to targeted frequency, and making a similarly shaped one then choosing frequency to match the frustum.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/06/2017 02:26 pm
More from Michael McDonald regarding Roger Shawyer and their second frustum:
"I have neither a working EMDrive nor have I ever interacted with Roger Shawyer.  If the abstract mentioned our own design it’s due to poor editing.  I wrote an earlier version I wrote when I thought we’d be making one of our own.  I thought I had updated it to present correctness, but I guess not. "

Can you ask Mike McDonald why he hasn't yet/doesn't want to "interact" with Roger Shawyer? This seems weird to me, as Eagleworks achieved very little thrust (if not at all, since the measured forces have perhaps been masqueraded with potential systematic experimental errors) whereas Shawyer claims much better experimental achievements for many years, using tighter geometries wrt "cuttoff conditions", Df and pulsed operation. Plus he often answers messages and provides assistance, as you experienced yourself.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 09/06/2017 02:34 pm
A bit about the US Navy EmDrive work has surfaced:
https://info.aiaa.org/tac/PEG/NFPTC/Shared%20Documents/abstract_Mcdonald.pdf

Seems the project lead, Mike McDonald, is credible:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-mcdonald-36447050/

Roger's interesting comment on the attached was:
"It is good to see that the US Naval Research Lab has broken cover.

Take the following with a grain or two of salt since I am not a builder or even a contributor to any of the design models.., and have no fundamental background in microwave technology. That said...

While it is encouraging that a lab at least associated with, if not directly supported by the US Navy, it concerns me that the limited information from the above link, suggests that they will be just replicating the Eagle Works build with relatively minor improvements.., "This experimental effort focuses on the cavity point design of White et. al from NASA JSC in Ref. [1] as both the best-described and only peer-reviewed result currently available, and reproduces their cavity geometry while re-engineering the fabrication technique and microwave (RF) power feed system into the cavity.". The issue to me here being that if I remember correctly the Eagle Works build wound up resonating at a TM mode while it seems most modeling, anecdotal information and DIY designs suggest better results from builds designed around TE resonant modes.

While it is true that the Eagle Works effort has been the best documented and peer reviewed experimental test of the involved design concepts, their specific design and resulting resonant mode may not represent the best case basic design.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/06/2017 02:40 pm
Just received from Roger:

Hi Phil,

As there seem to be a significant number of experiments in the public domain that are not achieving anywhere near viable thrust values, I have put together the attached short note on general principles of EmDrive design and manufacture.

Hopefully this will illustrate that although the theory is relatively straightforward, the engineering of a successful EmDrive is difficult. It requires the knowledge, patience and tenacity exhibited by all successful microwave engineers. I am sure you are well aware of this.

Feel free to share.

Best regards
Roger


General  Principles  for  the  successful  design  and  manufacture  of  an  EmDrive  Thruster
 


1.  Design  the  cavity  for the  required  operating  frequency  and  mode,  at  a  specified temperature.   Do  not  just  make  a cavity  and  then find  out  what the  resonant  frequency  is.  This has been  the  case  for  a number  of  experimenters  who  have  either  obtained  no  thrust  or have  achieved only  a  very  low  level  of thrust.

2.  The  design  should  aim  for  a clear  separation  of  operating  frequency  and  mode  from  the various  possible  modes.  A  series  of designs  should  be  undertaken as  part  of a  full  model analysis.  The  operating  mode  must  remain  above  cut-off at  the  small  end  of the  cavity.

3.  For a narrow  band  microwave  source,  the  cavity  geometry  should  include  shaped end  plates to  ensure  that  wave-front  phase  distortion,  which  results in  a bandwidth  spread,  does  not limit  the  Q  of  the  cavity.  Clearly  correct  geometric alignment  is impossible  with  flat  end plates.  Spherical  end  plates  with  correct  radii  are  the simplest  option.

4.  The  cavity  design  should  be  initially  tested  with a  swept  frequency  to  identify  the  resonant frequencies  of  the required  mode  and  adjacent  modes. A successful design  and  build  will give  an initial  resonant  frequency  within  a  maximum  of  0.5%  of  design  value,  at  the  specified temperature.

5.  Cavity  manufacture  to  high  tolerance  is essential  to  obtain  high  Q  at  the specified  resonant frequency.   Manufacturing  tolerance  should  be  around  ±0.01mm.

6.  Assembly  of the  cavity  must  include  an  end  plate  alignment  process  to  obtain  a  Q  of at  least 50,000. Low  Q  values  are unlikely  to  give  predicted  thrust  values, as  they  are  a  sign  of poor design  or  manufacture.

7.  Whatever  input  circuit is  used, loop, slot,  dipole  etc.,  it  must  be  designed  and  tested to deliver  a  good  match  between  the  wave  impedance  of the  cavity  at  the  input  position,  and the  microwave  source  impedance.   Input  tuning  is  inevitably  a  sensitive  and  lengthy adjustment  process.

8.  A correctly  matched  input  circuit will give  a  loaded Q  value  of half  that  of the  natural unloaded Q.   Optimum  match can  be  checked by  measuring  internal cavity  power  using  a small  detector  probe  positioned at  E  field  maximum.   The  probe  should  be  designed to give an  output  at  least  20dB down on  input  power  to  avoid  loading  the  cavity.

9.  Thrust  measurement requires  a clear understanding  of Newtonian  principles,  as  applied to  a propellantless thruster.  Expecting  to  measure  thrust  as if EmDrive  is  a  conventional propulsion  system  will lead to  ambiguous  results.  Ideally,  thrust  should  be  calculated  by measuring  the  acceleration  of a  freely  suspended  thruster,  and  then  applying  Newton’s laws.

I think those principles make it very difficult to carry out an EmDrive experiment. I think the EW's, Tajmar's, and himself's experiments are all invalidated by this or that point. Even monomorphic's is invalidated---- no way the inner finish is to 0.01mm tolerance with the foils glued on. The Navy's new experiment is invalidated because of its flat ends, either.

Some are not logical either. I do not see the difference of making a frustum within 0.5% to targeted frequency, and making a similarly shaped one then choosing frequency to match the frustum.

Engineering is engineering.

NONE of Roger's cavities used flat end plates set at the ends of the tapered side walls. While the EW and other cavities did use this, it is not what Roger recommends nor ever used. A tapered cavity needs spherical end plates to obtain high Q. Fact. End of discussion.

EW did not build a SPR compliant thruster as the small end diameter is too small and results in operation below practical cut-off and included a lossy dielectric. They built a thruster based on QV theory and ignored Roger's advise.

Tajmar's cavity was about as bad as it gets with a Q of around 50.

Both had force generation at the level of a few snowflakes.

Wavefront phase distortion can destroy high Q.

Maybe tell the builders of high Q accelerator cavities to use flat sides, ignore tight build tolerance, forget about optical quality polishing, no need to physically tune their cavities, and don't bother to tune their couplers to get optimal Ql?

If you want good specific force, for a Cu spherical S band TE013 thruster specific force should be around 0.3 to 0.4N / kWrf, then follow Roger's guidelines.

For sure those guidelines are not simple, easy, low cost nor quick to follow.

Bottom line is ignore the design rules, build a non compliant cavity and forget about any significant thrust.

Should add that when EW removed the dielectric, specific force increased over 3x. I have no doubt that had their cavity had a 0.82 design rule compliant small end, the specific force would have been mant times again higher.

What amazes me is why when EW knew a non dielectric TE012 cavity could produce 3.85mN/kW, they continued to use the dielectric TM212 cavity at 1.2mN/kW?
 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 09/06/2017 02:59 pm
Just received from Roger:

Hi Phil,

As there seem to be a significant number of experiments in the public domain that are not achieving anywhere near viable thrust values, I have put together the attached short note on general principles of EmDrive design and manufacture.

Hopefully this will illustrate that although the theory is relatively straightforward, the engineering of a successful EmDrive is difficult. It requires the knowledge, patience and tenacity exhibited by all successful microwave engineers. I am sure you are well aware of this.

Feel free to share.

Best regards
Roger


General  Principles  for  the  successful  design  and  manufacture  of  an  EmDrive  Thruster
 


1.  Design  the  cavity  for the  required  operating  frequency  and  mode,  at  a  specified temperature.   Do  not  just  make  a cavity  and  then find  out  what the  resonant  frequency  is.  This has been  the  case  for  a number  of  experimenters  who  have  either  obtained  no  thrust  or have  achieved only  a  very  low  level  of thrust.

2.  The  design  should  aim  for  a clear  separation  of  operating  frequency  and  mode  from  the various  possible  modes.  A  series  of designs  should  be  undertaken as  part  of a  full  model analysis.  The  operating  mode  must  remain  above  cut-off at  the  small  end  of the  cavity.

3.  For a narrow  band  microwave  source,  the  cavity  geometry  should  include  shaped end  plates to  ensure  that  wave-front  phase  distortion,  which  results in  a bandwidth  spread,  does  not limit  the  Q  of  the  cavity.  Clearly  correct  geometric alignment  is impossible  with  flat  end plates.  Spherical  end  plates  with  correct  radii  are  the simplest  option.

4.  The  cavity  design  should  be  initially  tested  with a  swept  frequency  to  identify  the  resonant frequencies  of  the required  mode  and  adjacent  modes. A successful design  and  build  will give  an initial  resonant  frequency  within  a  maximum  of  0.5%  of  design  value,  at  the  specified temperature.

5.  Cavity  manufacture  to  high  tolerance  is essential  to  obtain  high  Q  at  the specified  resonant frequency.   Manufacturing  tolerance  should  be  around  ±0.01mm.

6.  Assembly  of the  cavity  must  include  an  end  plate  alignment  process  to  obtain  a  Q  of at  least 50,000. Low  Q  values  are unlikely  to  give  predicted  thrust  values, as  they  are  a  sign  of poor design  or  manufacture.

7.  Whatever  input  circuit is  used, loop, slot,  dipole  etc.,  it  must  be  designed  and  tested to deliver  a  good  match  between  the  wave  impedance  of the  cavity  at  the  input  position,  and the  microwave  source  impedance.   Input  tuning  is  inevitably  a  sensitive  and  lengthy adjustment  process.

8.  A correctly  matched  input  circuit will give  a  loaded Q  value  of half  that  of the  natural unloaded Q.   Optimum  match can  be  checked by  measuring  internal cavity  power  using  a small  detector  probe  positioned at  E  field  maximum.   The  probe  should  be  designed to give an  output  at  least  20dB down on  input  power  to  avoid  loading  the  cavity.

9.  Thrust  measurement requires  a clear understanding  of Newtonian  principles,  as  applied to  a propellantless thruster.  Expecting  to  measure  thrust  as if EmDrive  is  a  conventional propulsion  system  will lead to  ambiguous  results.  Ideally,  thrust  should  be  calculated  by measuring  the  acceleration  of a  freely  suspended  thruster,  and  then  applying  Newton’s laws.

I think those principles make it very difficult to carry out an EmDrive experiment. I think the EW's, Tajmar's, and himself's experiments are all invalidated by this or that point. Even monomorphic's is invalidated---- no way the inner finish is to 0.01mm tolerance with the foils glued on. The Navy's new experiment is invalidated because of its flat ends, either.

Some are not logical either. I do not see the difference of making a frustum within 0.5% to targeted frequency, and making a similarly shaped one then choosing frequency to match the frustum.

Engineering is engineering.

NONE of Roger's cavities used flat end plates set at the ends of the tapered side walls. While the EW and other cavities did use this, it is not what Roger recommends nor ever used. A tapered cavity needs spherical end plates to obtain high Q. Fact. End of discussion.

EW did not build a SPR compliant thruster as the small end diameter is too small and results in operation below practical cut-off and included a lossy dielectric. They built a thruster based on QV theory and ignored Roger's advise.

Tajmar's cavity was about as bad as it gets with a Q of around 50.

Both had force generation at the level of a few snowflakes.

Wavefront phase distortion can destroy high Q.

Maybe tell the builders of high Q accelerator cavities to use flat sides, ignore tight build tolerance, forget about optical quality polishing, no need to physically tune their cavities, and don't bother to tune their couplers to get optimal Ql?

If you want good specific force, for a Cu spherical S band TE013 thruster specific force should be around 0.3 to 0.4N / kWrf, then follow Roger's guidelines.

For sure those guidelines are not simple, easy, low cost nor quick to follow.

Bottom line is ignore the design rules, build a non compliant cavity and forget about any significant thrust.

Should add that when EW removed the dielectric, specific force increased over 3x. I have no doubt that had their cavity had a 0.82 design rule compliant small end, the specific force would have been mant times again higher.

What amazes me is why when EW knew a non dielectric cavity could produce 3.8mN/kW, they continued to use the dielectric at 1.2mN/kW?

The problem is we have never seen Shawyer showing a frustum with spherical ends. We only see drawings on his patent/patents. Has he carried out experiment with spherical ends? Those experiments he claimed to achieve hundreds of mN do not have spherical ends.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/06/2017 03:11 pm
The problem is we have never seen Shawyer showing a frustum with spherical ends. We only see drawings on his patent/patents. Has he carried out experiment with spherical ends? Those experiments he claimed to achieve hundreds of mN do not have spherical ends.

PN,

Roger has stated all thruster after the 1st Experimental EmDrive used shaped end plates. So both the Demonstrator and Flight Thruster had shaped end plates.

The Flight Thruster achieved the highest measured specific force of 0.326mN/kW. While Roger has never released full dimensions for the Flight Thruster, I did confirm that it needed to use spherical end plates to resonant at 3.85GHz in TE013.

The 1st Experimental EmDrive used a tunable 1/2 wave stepped back big end plate, which is like a spherical end plate, and a tunable high Q ceramic 2.45GHz Siemens resonator at the small end, which ensured the small end did not operate below cutoff.

I'm not sure who 1st built EmDrive cavities with non stepped back flat end plates but it was not Roger.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 09/06/2017 03:40 pm
More from Michael McDonald regarding Roger Shawyer and their second frustum:
"I have neither a working EMDrive nor have I ever interacted with Roger Shawyer.  If the abstract mentioned our own design it’s due to poor editing.  I wrote an earlier version I wrote when I thought we’d be making one of our own.  I thought I had updated it to present correctness, but I guess not. "

Can you ask Mike McDonald why he hasn't yet/doesn't want to "interact" with Roger Shawyer? This seems weird to me, as Eagleworks achieved very little thrust (if not at all, since the measured forces have perhaps been masqueraded with potential systematic experimental errors) whereas Shawyer claims much better experimental achievements for many years, using tighter geometries wrt "cuttoff conditions", Df and pulsed operation. Plus he often answers messages and provides assistance, as you experienced yourself.

Pay special attention to,"...whereas Shawyer claims.... Shawyer hasn't published any thing other than claims. Some of which seem they could be nothing but artifacts of his imagination, without a functioning flying car as proof. Claims are not the same as experimentally demonstrated data and/or proof.

It maybe that some of the information Shawyer provides is an interpretation of experimental observation, but he has not provided any real detail supporting the experiment(s) and much of what has been suggested can only at this point be attributed to theoretical projections based on what still seems to be faulty theory. What scales up, even based on solid theory, is not a reflection of what might be proven through engineering and manufacture.

P.S. Even patents that do not include sufficient detail to accurately reproduce any underlying claim, do not rise to the level of anything more than a "claim".
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/06/2017 03:54 pm
9.  Thrust  measurement requires  a clear understanding  of Newtonian  principles,  as  applied to  a propellantless thruster.  Expecting  to  measure  thrust  as if EmDrive  is  a  conventional propulsion  system  will lead to  ambiguous  results.  Ideally,  thrust  should  be  calculated  by measuring  the  acceleration  of a  freely  suspended  thruster,  and  then  applying  Newton’s laws.
This in itself is enough reason to ignore everything Shawyer says. Shawyer has demonstrated that he can't even do the most basic of force balances, and simply makes logically contradictory claims. Shawyer fails his own criteria so hard here, it can't even be used as a joke.

This list seems intended to do a run around to make sure that no one can ever do a competent experiment that demonstrates once and for all that the emDrive does not work. You can bet that if someone ever met all of those criteria, Shawyer would change the statement "thrust is proportional to Q, but Q < 50000 is a cutoff below which it doesn't work" to raise this cutoff to something physically impossible to build.

I am disappointed to see that Monomorphic "liked" this post, since it means we will never see his results. He already was on the verge of getting some good data with good calibration runs that brought the noise very low, before he stopped for months to completely change his setup.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 09/06/2017 04:45 pm
9.  Thrust  measurement requires  a clear understanding  of Newtonian  principles,  as  applied to  a propellantless thruster.  Expecting  to  measure  thrust  as if EmDrive  is  a  conventional propulsion  system  will lead to  ambiguous  results.  Ideally,  thrust  should  be  calculated  by measuring  the  acceleration  of a  freely  suspended  thruster,  and  then  applying  Newton’s laws.
This in itself is enough reason to ignore everything Shawyer says. Shawyer has demonstrated that he can't even do the most basic of force balances, and simply makes logically contradictory claims. Shawyer fails his own criteria so hard here, it can't even be used as a joke.

This list seems intended to do a run around to make sure that no one can ever do a competent experiment that demonstrates once and for all that the emDrive does not work. You can bet that if someone ever met all of those criteria, Shawyer would change the statement "thrust is proportional to Q, but Q < 50000 is a cutoff below which it doesn't work" to raise this cutoff to something physically impossible to build.

I am disappointed to see that Monomorphic "liked" this post, since it means we will never see his results. He already was on the verge of getting some good data with good calibration runs that brought the noise very low, before he stopped for months to completely change his setup.

Monomophic's experiment has already violated item 5,6,9. This means his experiment can not be used to  invalidate EmDrive, even if he measure zero thrust with precision. So is Navy's new experiment. I can not stop thinking of preemptive defense. But it could only be me.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: wicoe on 09/06/2017 05:11 pm
9.  Thrust  measurement requires  a clear understanding  of Newtonian  principles,  as  applied to  a propellantless thruster.  Expecting  to  measure  thrust  as if EmDrive  is  a  conventional propulsion  system  will lead to  ambiguous  results.  Ideally,  thrust  should  be  calculated  by measuring  the  acceleration  of a  freely  suspended  thruster,  and  then  applying  Newton’s laws.

Agreed, this is not even funny... well, maybe a little bit...

1st law: "In an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force".

- a "clear understanding" of this principle leads to the following conclusion: an "EmDrive" will not accelerate unless acted upon by a force.

2nd law: "In an inertial reference frame, the vector sum of the forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration a of the object: F = ma" (note that this is a vector equation, i.e. the object accelerates in the same direction as the vector sum of the forces acting upon it).

- a "clear understanding" of this principle leads to the following conclusion: if an "EmDrive" accelerates, it does so in the direction of the force acting upon it, not in the opposite direction.  If the acceleration is caused by radiation pressure force, it will accelerate in the direction of the radiation pressure.

3rd law: "When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body".

- a "clear understanding" of this principle leads to the following conclusion: if a force is applied to "EmDrive" by some "body", the "EmDrive" will exert an equal (but opposite in direction) reaction force upon that "body".  A reaction force cannot be the cause of acceleration of the "EmDrive" since it is exerted by it upon other objects during interaction, and acts in the opposite direction.  When the interaction is mediated by photons, the reaction force is what the source of the photons "feels" as it gets pushed back.  If the source of the photons is attached to the object ("EmDrive"), it will "feel" the reaction force, which will cancel out the "action" force (radiation pressure).

What other "Newtonian principles" are there to understand?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Jim Davis on 09/06/2017 05:11 pm
I can not stop thinking of preemptive defense. But it could only be me.

Face saving excuses was the phrase that came to my mind.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 09/06/2017 05:25 pm
....

I am disappointed to see that Monomorphic "liked" this post, since it means we will never see his results. He already was on the verge of getting some good data with good calibration runs that brought the noise very low, before he stopped for months to completely change his setup.

For the last year and a half I have not been able to follow the detail in these discussions as well as I would have liked still...

I believe the above is an unjust criticism of Monomorphic's efforts. Yes, I agree there comes a point where it would be better to just go ahead with testing what he has. That said.., most of the changes to his setup have either been to address issues he observed in past tests or criticisms and suggestions others have offered.., and they seem all to have been while waiting to finish putting together the equipment needed to run a 30W test. Again... If his next goal is a 30W test, why shouldn't he do whatever he can and chooses to, to improve his setup, while waiting to put the 30W equipment together?

How many times has someone requested some change or addition and he responded by saying, yes that would be easy to do? And then made changes or additions, in an attempt to address the issue(s). Measure those against the more recent suggestion for a change/addition to his setup, where he explained that the cost would be beyond what he was comfortable with, right now.

.....

There is a difference between disputing the flawed theory that Shawyer continues to argue and assuming that "if" there is any possible force/thrust, some of what he says might be based on what he has seen rather than the flawed theory he believes.

Right now whether an EmDrive actually produces useable thrust has not been proven or disproven by any publicly published experimental data. While I am in the group that dismisses Shawyer's theory of operation, until someone has produced credible results that proves or disproves the underlying claim that thrust is produced, it would be negligent to discount any information/suggestion, which might be the result of even undocumented observation. Some of what wound up in that list TT posted would have discredited any claim that many of Shawyer's earlier builds produced any results. That may be the case and it may be that all results from all actors turn out to be systemic or experimental error.., or there may be something new and potentially useful to be explored. What we believe, each of us is of little consequence. Only what we come to know, from  credible experimental results/data, will settle the issue, of whether there is an anomalous force, or not.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/06/2017 05:31 pm
9.  Thrust  measurement requires  a clear understanding  of Newtonian  principles,  as  applied to  a propellantless thruster.  Expecting  to  measure  thrust  as if EmDrive  is  a  conventional propulsion  system  will lead to  ambiguous  results.  Ideally,  thrust  should  be  calculated  by measuring  the  acceleration  of a  freely  suspended  thruster,  and  then  applying  Newton’s laws.
This in itself is enough reason to ignore everything Shawyer says. Shawyer has demonstrated that he can't even do the most basic of force balances, and simply makes logically contradictory claims. Shawyer fails his own criteria so hard here, it can't even be used as a joke.

This list seems intended to do a run around to make sure that no one can ever do a competent experiment that demonstrates once and for all that the emDrive does not work. You can bet that if someone ever met all of those criteria, Shawyer would change the statement "thrust is proportional to Q, but Q < 50000 is a cutoff below which it doesn't work" to raise this cutoff to something physically impossible to build.

I am disappointed to see that Monomorphic "liked" this post, since it means we will never see his results. He already was on the verge of getting some good data with good calibration runs that brought the noise very low, before he stopped for months to completely change his setup.

Your opinions of Mr. Shawyer aside, are you saying measuring the acceleration of a freely suspended cavity is not a reasonable way to measure the thrust? If not exactly why not?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/06/2017 05:37 pm
Your opinions of Mr. Shawyer aside, are you saying measuring the acceleration of a freely suspended cavity is not a reasonable way to measure the thrust? If not exactly why not?
No, but it is certainly not the only way, and claiming it is demonstrates that Shawyer does not understand Newtonian principles, right after he says it is important.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/06/2017 05:54 pm
Your opinions of Mr. Shawyer aside, are you saying measuring the acceleration of a freely suspended cavity is not a reasonable way to measure the thrust? If not exactly why not?
No, but it is certainly not the only way, and claiming it is demonstrates that Shawyer does not understand Newtonian principles, right after he says it is important.

Somewhere here I thought I read that seeing a suspended cavity move to one side was perhaps the most unambiguous test of a real force. My suggestion for you is that you go talk to Shawyer and see what he really understands or doesn't since parsing written statements isn't always definitive to completely understanding a person's mind.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/06/2017 06:01 pm
....

I am disappointed to see that Monomorphic "liked" this post, since it means we will never see his results. He already was on the verge of getting some good data with good calibration runs that brought the noise very low, before he stopped for months to completely change his setup.

For the last year and a half I have not been able to follow the detail in these discussions as well as I would have liked still...

I believe the above is an unjust criticism of Monomorphic's efforts. Yes, I agree there comes a point where it would be better to just go ahead with testing what he has.
I have generally avoided providing much advice to experimenters on how to run their setups. I never understood why Monomorphic didn't run more tests before making the changes, since more data is extremely helpful, and changing one thing at a time, while it may slow things down overall will result in much more useful data. That is fine though, and is his choice, and it may be has simple as him underestimating how long before more data could be taken.

My post wasn't intended to criticize Monomorphic's choices up until now, but that it is misguided to try and follow Shawyer's advice relayed by TT.

There is a difference between disputing the flawed theory that Shawyer continues to argue and assuming that "if" there is any possible force/thrust, some of what he says might be based on what he has seen rather than the flawed theory he believes.
Shawyer's lack of ability to follow Newtonian mechanics means that advice from him is just as likely to be advice on how to amplify noise or other errors.

Right now whether an EmDrive actually produces useable thrust has not been proven or disproven by any publicly published experimental data. While I am in the group that dismisses Shawyer's theory of operation, until someone has produced credible results that proves or disproves the underlying claim that thrust is produced, it would be negligent to discount any information/suggestion, which might be the result of even undocumented observation. Some of what wound up in that list TT posted would have discredited any claim that many of Shawyer's earlier builds produced any results. That may be the case and it may be that all results from all actors turn out to be systemic or experimental error.., or there may be something new and potentially useful to be explored. What we believe, each of us is of little consequence. Only what we come to know, from  credible experimental results/data, will settle the issue, of whether there is an anomalous force, or not.
There has been little given on what would be required to prove the emDrive does not work. The Navy experiment if it meats its goals for sensitivity, noise floor, and power level would detect down to a few times a photon rocket worth of thrust. This recent list from Shawyer is a combination of things that are either illogical, redundant, or clearly excessive as a benchmark for operation. Some have to do with design methodology that is irrelevant if you have a good constant frequency variable RF source. This list is clearly a bad basis as a threshold for an experiment to disprove the emDrive. What has been seen from Shawyer is constantly moving goalposts, and following them will result in never doing an experiment.

...
While it is true that the Eagle Works effort has been the best documented and peer reviewed experimental test of the involved design concepts, their specific design and resulting resonant mode may not represent the best case basic design.
There is no need to have the "best" design when we don't even know if the effect is real. In fact, there is no way to even know what "best" would be at this point. It just has to be enough to be clearly above the noise, sensitivity, and expected systematic errors of the setup. Proving a negative experimentally is impossible without some constraints.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/06/2017 06:07 pm
Your opinions of Mr. Shawyer aside, are you saying measuring the acceleration of a freely suspended cavity is not a reasonable way to measure the thrust? If not exactly why not?
No, but it is certainly not the only way, and claiming it is demonstrates that Shawyer does not understand Newtonian principles, right after he says it is important.

Somewhere here I thought I read that seeing a suspended cavity move to one side was perhaps the most unambiguous test of a real force. My suggestion for you is that you go talk to Shawyer and see what he really understands or doesn't since parsing written statements isn't always definitive to completely understanding a person's mind.
If you mean move to one side and stay there that would be unambiguous, but torsion pendulums should be even more sensitive.

I guess you haven't read his papers where he fails miserably at high school physics. There is no need to completely understand his mind, but repeated statements self contradictory statements also contrary to the most basic concepts in physics demonstrate that he either has no capacity at performing force measurements, or he is simply a scam artist.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 09/06/2017 06:18 pm
Your opinions of Mr. Shawyer aside, are you saying measuring the acceleration of a freely suspended cavity is not a reasonable way to measure the thrust? If not exactly why not?
No, but it is certainly not the only way, and claiming it is demonstrates that Shawyer does not understand Newtonian principles, right after he says it is important.

Somewhere here I thought I read that seeing a suspended cavity move to one side was perhaps the most unambiguous test of a real force. My suggestion for you is that you go talk to Shawyer and see what he really understands or doesn't since parsing written statements isn't always definitive to completely understanding a person's mind.
If you mean move to one side and stay there that would be unambiguous, but torsion pendulums should be even more sensitive.

I guess you haven't read his papers where he fails miserably at high school physics. There is no need to completely understand his mind, but repeated statements self contradictory statements also contrary to the most basic concepts in physics demonstrate that he either has no capacity at performing force measurements, or he is simply a scam artist.

There is something that you may not have thought of.  If for some reason the vacuum is accelerated in the opposite direction as some force on the cavity then the two may actually oppose each other (accelerating via some coupling to a vacuum and using it as a propellant while existing in an accelerating vacuum).  That would be very strange for that to happen but that possibility has remained in my mind for a while.  It could give some strange results for force measurements (locally and non-locally). 

It may be possible if this were the case that it is needed to tread water properly to propel oneself rather than thrashing around in the water.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 09/06/2017 06:22 pm
One of the great things about this thread was when folks were openly sharing data and conjecture. More data is what we seek. Tons of data from the experimenters would be a great present for the coming holiday system. As for arguing over who's right, wrong or meets a standard of assumed competency, I offer you this from Star Trek: The Next Generation:

Lt. Cmdr. Data: Of more immediate importance is your ability to work within groups.
Q of the Continuum: I'm not good in groups. It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 09/06/2017 06:24 pm
Your opinions of Mr. Shawyer aside, are you saying measuring the acceleration of a freely suspended cavity is not a reasonable way to measure the thrust? If not exactly why not?
No, but it is certainly not the only way, and claiming it is demonstrates that Shawyer does not understand Newtonian principles, right after he says it is important.

Somewhere here I thought I read that seeing a suspended cavity move to one side was perhaps the most unambiguous test of a real force. My suggestion for you is that you go talk to Shawyer and see what he really understands or doesn't since parsing written statements isn't always definitive to completely understanding a person's mind.
If you mean move to one side and stay there that would be unambiguous, but torsion pendulums should be even more sensitive.

I guess you haven't read his papers where he fails miserably at high school physics. There is no need to completely understand his mind, but repeated statements self contradictory statements also contrary to the most basic concepts in physics demonstrate that he either has no capacity at performing force measurements, or he is simply a scam artist.

I object to the word "artist". ;D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 09/06/2017 07:01 pm
9.  Thrust  measurement requires  a clear understanding  of Newtonian  principles,  as  applied to  a propellantless thruster.  Expecting  to  measure  thrust  as if EmDrive  is  a  conventional propulsion  system  will lead to  ambiguous  results.  Ideally,  thrust  should  be  calculated  by measuring  the  acceleration  of a  freely  suspended  thruster,  and  then  applying  Newton’s laws.
This in itself is enough reason to ignore everything Shawyer says. Shawyer has demonstrated that he can't even do the most basic of force balances, and simply makes logically contradictory claims. Shawyer fails his own criteria so hard here, it can't even be used as a joke.

This list seems intended to do a run around to make sure that no one can ever do a competent experiment that demonstrates once and for all that the emDrive does not work. You can bet that if someone ever met all of those criteria, Shawyer would change the statement "thrust is proportional to Q, but Q < 50000 is a cutoff below which it doesn't work" to raise this cutoff to something physically impossible to build.

I am disappointed to see that Monomorphic "liked" this post, since it means we will never see his results. He already was on the verge of getting some good data with good calibration runs that brought the noise very low, before he stopped for months to completely change his setup.

Your opinions of Mr. Shawyer aside, are you saying measuring the acceleration of a freely suspended cavity is not a reasonable way to measure the thrust? If not exactly why not?

Unless you are dealing with a rotary setup, free to continue rotating, you are not measuring acceleration, except in the most limited sense. The test setups currently being discussed can measure an initial force. That is any force greater than the basic resistance of the testbed. But as soon as the resistance of the setup matches or exceeds the annomolous force, at best you could measure a static force if any.

If there is any truth to the idea that an EmDrive will only truly produce acceleration or force while it is free to accelerate, there may be a kick of sorts as the EmDrive is initially turned on and any initial force would end as soon as the resistance of the tortion pendulum testbed or real world conditions, equals or exceeds the initial force produced. If it is accepted that there is any truth to this... What it really suggests is that the motion of the frustum relative to the resonant EM field inside the frustum is a necessary component for continued production of thrust... and just maybe that if any thrust is produced it is the result of the interaction between the resonant EM field inside the frustum and the induced electric and magnetic fields in the frustum walls (and end caps as a whole).., and the frustum's freedom to move/accelerate.

...

Just to throw a different wrench into the works...

Most of the theoretical open discussion, so far focuses either on bouncing photons or similarities between EM fields and gravitational fields and so on... many of these present very sexy possibilities, but really really slide into the void of extreme new physics.

From a more classical intuitive perspective and yet still requiring New Physics, even if only in interpretation... Even though the EM field originates from an introduction of EM radiation into the frustum, by an antenna or wave guide, as soon as the EM radiation is introduced it can no longer be thought of as propagating relative to the frustum in a physical sense. EM radiation always propagates at the speed of light without respect to the velocity of the frustum, antenna and/or waveguide. This means that even though the density distribution of any associated resonant EM field, is defined in part by the physical structure and shape of the frustum.., as a whole the EM field would move with the frustum at the speed of light, even where the frustum moves at classical velocities. Still the resonating EM field will interact with the frustum as a whole, inducing both electric and magnetic fields in the frustum walls, which do propagate through the frustum wall material at both, less than the speed of light and always relative to the frustum, whether it is inertially at rest or accelerating.

If the frustum is rigidly fixed in place a fixed resonant relationship would exist between the frustum and the resonant EM field within. If the frustum is allowed to move, and for arguments sake in the direction of theoretical thrust, the interaction between the EM field inside the frustum and the induced electric and magnetic fields in the frustum walls would fall out of resonance (or synchronization) by an amount determined by the difference in the speed of light and the speed that the currents and fields in the walls of the frustum, propagate though the conductive material the frustum incorporates. This might just result, in a very small Lentz law like effect, resulting in the frustum essentially attempting to slide off of or be pulled along by the resonant EM field within,

This would satisfy COM in that the push would be between the Resonant EM field within the frustum and the induced electric and magnetic fields in the frustum walls, based in the difference in the speed of light and the speed that the electric and magnetic fields can move through the frustum walls. This would also explain why the forces measured in credible tests to date have all been very small. It would also suggest that once a functional design is developed, the annomolus force/thrust produced should be dependent predominantly on the absolute field intensity and density of the resonant EM field inside the frustum, how well it induces electric and magnetic counterparts in the frustum walls and the affect that any motion of the frustum has on the balance between the two.

It also suggest that there should be a jerk when first turning an EmDrive on and that any further thrust would depend on whether the frustum is free to move at a rate sufficient to optimize the polarity difference between the resonant EM field and the induced electric and magnetic fields in the frustum walls... Or developing an array where power can be cycled on and off to a number of drives in a manner that can take advantage of the jerk occurring at turn on.

Great news for use in space from at least LEO where very small thrust levels would be valuable...., or even perhaps naval applications where power and cooling are not significant hurtles.

BTW this completely ignores this issue of over unity based on any king of constant uniform acceleration, because for a whole set of different arguments, I don't believe it is possible.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/06/2017 07:27 pm
I am disappointed to see that Monomorphic "liked" this post, since it means we will never see his results. He already was on the verge of getting some good data with good calibration runs that brought the noise very low, before he stopped for months to completely change his setup.

I liked the post simply because I am able to check off most of the requirements. As pointed out, I am still absent items 5 and 6. Item 9 is arguable since the torsion spring constant of my stand is very low compared to flexure bearing thrust balances.

As for item 6, I do have a design for a new small end-plate that can be aligned. All I need to do is send it to print.  I have concerns that it may leak too much RF, so I am on the fence about working on that for this round.   Item 5 will not be accomplished any time soon, so I don't plan on getting bogged down there. The current 0.15mm tolerance will have to do.

I have a hard deadline of Nov. 1 as I am scheduled to be presenting at a workshop. I'm trying to get as much accomplished before Oct 1, when I will stop modifying and start testing. Plan is to spend the month of October testing and analyzing the data. 

I expect to have the 30W amp working tomorrow. Then I need to work on the calibration coils. Then the new RF on/off logging system. Then I need to get the signal generator working via serial com.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 09/06/2017 07:35 pm
9.  Thrust  measurement requires  a clear understanding  of Newtonian  principles,  as  applied to  a propellantless thruster.  Expecting  to  measure  thrust  as if EmDrive  is  a  conventional propulsion  system  will lead to  ambiguous  results.  Ideally,  thrust  should  be  calculated  by measuring  the  acceleration  of a  freely  suspended  thruster,  and  then  applying  Newton’s laws.
This in itself is enough reason to ignore everything Shawyer says. Shawyer has demonstrated that he can't even do the most basic of force balances, and simply makes logically contradictory claims. Shawyer fails his own criteria so hard here, it can't even be used as a joke.

This list seems intended to do a run around to make sure that no one can ever do a competent experiment that demonstrates once and for all that the emDrive does not work. You can bet that if someone ever met all of those criteria, Shawyer would change the statement "thrust is proportional to Q, but Q < 50000 is a cutoff below which it doesn't work" to raise this cutoff to something physically impossible to build.

I am disappointed to see that Monomorphic "liked" this post, since it means we will never see his results. He already was on the verge of getting some good data with good calibration runs that brought the noise very low, before he stopped for months to completely change his setup.

Monomophic's experiment has already violated item 5,6,9. This means his experiment can not be used to  invalidate EmDrive, even if he measure zero thrust with precision. So is Navy's new experiment. I can not stop thinking of preemptive defense. But it could only be me.

PM -

I tend to agree that this list seems like a preemptive defense.  Regardless of an experiment's results this list can be used to discredit those results or at least open them to criticism.   We are already seeing some of that in the responses to Shawyer's original list.

However, I was troubled by some posts (NOT yours) which called in to question one DIYers intentions simply because he had "liked" the original post.   "Liking" a post does not necessarily mean agreement.   I was debating "liking" the original list  post myself as I thought it provided valuable insight into Shawyer's opinions of what would be necessary for a working EMDrive and what might affect its performance..   Not that I agreed with the points in the post or thought all (or any) were particularly useful or correct, but rather they provide a window into his thinking and possible approaches for "preemptive" defense. 

Jamie - Monomorphic - has been doing excellent work and while of course I along with everyone else would love to see lots of runs and data, building a test rig of that quality on a shoestring budget of time and money is nearly incredible.   I respect and admire both his efforts and his desire to build the best test fixture and DUT(s) possible.  Careful work takes time, thought, more time, input from a , more time and money etc.  I particularly think it is in-appropriate to imply that he might not publish results based on his "Liking" this list of attributes from Shawyer. 

graybeardsyseng
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: rfmwguy on 09/06/2017 08:20 pm
I am disappointed to see that Monomorphic "liked" this post, since it means we will never see his results. He already was on the verge of getting some good data with good calibration runs that brought the noise very low, before he stopped for months to completely change his setup.

I liked the post simply because I am able to check off most of the requirements. As pointed out, I am still absent items 5 and 6. Item 9 is arguable since the torsion spring constant of my stand is very low compared to flexure bearing thrust balances.

As for item 6, I do have a design for a new small end-plate that can be aligned. All I need to do is send it to print.  I have concerns that it may leak too much RF, so I am on the fence about working on that for this round.   Item 5 will not be accomplished any time soon, so I don't plan on getting bogged down there. The current 0.15mm tolerance will have to do.

I have a hard deadline of Nov. 1 as I am scheduled to be presenting at a workshop. I'm trying to get as much accomplished before Oct 1, when I will stop modifying and start testing. Plan is to spend the month of October testing and analyzing the data. 

I expect to have the 30W amp working tomorrow. Then I need to work on the calibration coils. Then the new RF on/off logging system. Then I need to get the signal generator working via serial com.
Nice to see you at it again. Pardon my silence these past few months. Will try to keep up with things a little more than I have been....which has been near null...or within the margin of uncertainty.

p.s. Retirement is fun
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 09/06/2017 08:27 pm

Nice to see you at it again. Pardon my silence these past few months. Will try to keep up with things a little more than I have been....which has been near null...or within the margin of uncertainty.

p.s. Retirement is fun
Welcome back Dave. You have been missed. NIAC Symposium in Denver at the end of the month. A few of us will be there.


PS: Retirement is the perfect antidote to an excess of entropy.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/06/2017 10:17 pm
...
Quote from: Hauke Hein
Asuming the H field moves the free elektron mass in the skindept available space between bigplate and smallplate my impression is it would generate a higher energy density around the smallplate area and a slightly lower around the big plate area just looking at the available space for the free elektrons in those spaces. Could this result in an inertia difference causing the Mach effect by shuttling those elektrons back and forth a tiny amount parallel to the z-axis in the conical walls of the frustum, causing a current between the capacitor plates?

This also seems connected to the ideas presented in Jean-Philippe Montillet's Estes Park paper.

Talking about Jean-Philippe Montillet

New published mathematical paper referencing the EM Drive "asymmetric resonant cavity (frustum)" by Jean-Philippe Montillet:

https://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=78934

p.1713 and following pages on "asymmetric resonant cavity (frustum)"
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 09/06/2017 11:51 pm
Thank you Dr. Rodal for the link! Late night reading is called for!

Shell


...
Quote from: Hauke Hein
Asuming the H field moves the free elektron mass in the skindept available space between bigplate and smallplate my impression is it would generate a higher energy density around the smallplate area and a slightly lower around the big plate area just looking at the available space for the free elektrons in those spaces. Could this result in an inertia difference causing the Mach effect by shuttling those elektrons back and forth a tiny amount parallel to the z-axis in the conical walls of the frustum, causing a current between the capacitor plates?

This also seems connected to the ideas presented in Jean-Philippe Montillet's Estes Park paper.

Talking about Jean-Philippe Montillet

New published mathematical paper referencing the EM Drive "asymmetric resonant cavity (frustum)" by Jean-Philippe Montillet:

https://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=78934

p.1713 and following pages on "asymmetric resonant cavity (frustum)"
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Flyby on 09/07/2017 07:58 am
did notice a small detail there :)

Quote
Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge the important discussions with Dr. José Rodal and Prof. Heidi Fearn (California State University Fullerton, physics department) on the Woodward effect and its derivation from general relativity.

I admit I'm in great distress here, when trying to make sense of the tsunami wave of formula's...
But somehow i get the feeling this paper is a major keystone.. Can some1 explain in a more comprehensive way what is going on there?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: kamill85 on 09/07/2017 11:35 am
I have a question related to the basic concept of the EMDrive. Lets assume standard physics, EM waves bound around, pressure evens out from A to B, drive does not  produce any thrust. Now, in theory, if there placed inside the cavity a space distortion effect, similar to gravitational lensing, would that make the forces uneven?

The question is a direct outcome from another question that I had: If we could convert our Sun, completely into a pure energy in form of a photon-laser-beam, say 1 meter in diameter, 0% dispersion, being completely released in 10 seconds from point A towards point B and somewhere between those points was Earth, maybe 300km away from where the beam was passing by - would the Earth move? Do photons have any mass "in transit"? If they don't, wouldn't it be possible, in "theory", to make a mini black-hole in a box, place a high Q mirror (double-sided) behind it (vertical towards BH), and a mirror in front of it (horizontal towards BH), then some lasers that would shoot the beam so it bounces off both mirrors, via BH space-curvature/lensing? Wouldn't that null out the force at vertical mirror and generate thrust at horizontal one?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/07/2017 12:35 pm
I admit I'm in great distress here, when trying to make sense of the tsunami wave of formula's...
But somehow i get the feeling this paper is a major keystone.. Can some1 explain in a more comprehensive way what is going on there?
It is another step on the road to develop a formal theoretical model but as in everything physical, the ultimate word as to whether it is an experimental artifact from "Roger" or something that can be useful lies with experiments and the ability to replicate them:

1) Monomorphic reporting at NSF:  he has set a deadline by the end of this October 2017, in preparation for a formal presentation of his work at a workshop early November 2017.

2) Prof. Tajmar's group at TU Dresden: they have been working all this year on a new torsional pendulum instrument that promises to be more accurate than his previous instruments.  Eliminating electromagnetic Lorentz-type interactions,  they even removed the old floor and constructed a large isolated concrete block that is the new foundation for their vacuum chamber. He also has procured major funding for a Ph.D. student. 

3) Mike McDonald's group at the USNAVY:
 https://info.aiaa.org/tac/PEG/NFPTC/Shared%20Documents/abstract_Mcdonald.pdf

It appears that all four of them (including Montillet) will be reporting at the same workshop, Nov. 2017.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 09/07/2017 12:37 pm
Thank you Dr. Rodal for the link! Late night reading is called for!

Shell


...
Quote from: Hauke Hein
Asuming the H field moves the free elektron mass in the skindept available space between bigplate and smallplate my impression is it would generate a higher energy density around the smallplate area and a slightly lower around the big plate area just looking at the available space for the free elektrons in those spaces. Could this result in an inertia difference causing the Mach effect by shuttling those elektrons back and forth a tiny amount parallel to the z-axis in the conical walls of the frustum, causing a current between the capacitor plates?

This also seems connected to the ideas presented in Jean-Philippe Montillet's Estes Park paper.

Talking about Jean-Philippe Montillet

New published mathematical paper referencing the EM Drive "asymmetric resonant cavity (frustum)" by Jean-Philippe Montillet:

https://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=78934

p.1713 and following pages on "asymmetric resonant cavity (frustum)"

I like the statement about imagination. However, it is probably not from dear old Albert.
https://www.quora.com/What-quotes-are-most-commonly-misattributed-to-Albert-Einstein

' “Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.”
This is another fake motivational/inspirational quote attributed to Einstein. The first recorded instance I found of this quote is from The Ultimate Quotable Einstein (2010) by Alice Calaprice and Freeman Dyson on p. 481, however Alice lists the quote under the “Probably Not By Einstein” section.
There is no evidence Einstein ever said this quote, and frankly it doesn't sound like something Einstein would say, as he was a highly logical individual.'
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Flyby on 09/07/2017 01:06 pm
Well, let me pull another quote then, that also fits in :

Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible..


https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/02/21/impossible/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/07/2017 02:37 pm
I particularly think it is in-appropriate to imply that he might not publish results based on his "Liking" this list of attributes from Shawyer. 
I was concerned about a good experimenter paying too much attention to a list that seems intended to delay publication of or preemptively dismiss any null results (and it appears I am not the only one that reads the list that way).

Monomorphic did an excellent job responding to this concern. Maybe I should have worded it a little differently, but I do not regret bringing it up.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Flyby on 09/07/2017 02:45 pm
1) Monomorphic reporting at NSF:  he has set a deadline by the end of this October 2017, in preparation for a formal presentation of his work at a workshop early November 2017.
I've been eagerly following Jamie's work, but I am a bit worried he keeps changing his setup (for ever?), without producing some data.
I'm also looking forward to what results Michelle Broyles and Paul March will produce.

2) Prof. Tajmar's group at TU Dresden: they have been working all this year on a new torsional pendulum instrument that promises to be more accurate than his previous instruments.  Eliminating electromagnetic Lorentz-type interactions,  they even removed the old floor and constructed a large isolated concrete block that is the new foundation for their vacuum chamber. He also has procured major funding for a Ph.D. student. 
I hope that Prof. Tajmar has updated his EMdrive design, because when comparing it with all other designs, there was most definitely something wrong with the dimensions (proportion cavity compared to waveguide)

3) Mike McDonald's group at the USNAVY:
 https://info.aiaa.org/tac/PEG/NFPTC/Shared%20Documents/abstract_Mcdonald.pdf

It appears that all four of them (including Montillet) will be reporting at the same workshop, Nov. 2017.
I've been reading the paper and could not find anything more then a "letter of intend" to replicate the Eaglework experiment.
However, I do recall Paul March saying he was not allowed to optimize their setup, due to budgetary restriction (dr White wanting direct results, supporting his Quantum Vacuum Virtual Plasma theory).
I can only hope that they (Mcdonald's group) DO take time to attempt optimization...

Like many of us here, we're all sitting on the edge of our seats,  hoping to get conclusive results someday, be them negative or positive...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/07/2017 03:02 pm
1) Monomorphic reporting at NSF:  he has set a deadline by the end of this October 2017, in preparation for a formal presentation of his work at a workshop early November 2017.
I've been eagerly following Jamie's work, but I am a bit worried he keeps changing his setup (for ever?), without producing some data.
I'm also looking forward to what results Michelle Broyles and Paul March will produce.


My understanding is that neither Michelle nor Paul plan to formally report any experimental results by this Nov 2017, unlike the others.


2) Prof. Tajmar's group at TU Dresden: they have been working all this year on a new torsional pendulum instrument that promises to be more accurate than his previous instruments.  Eliminating electromagnetic Lorentz-type interactions,  they even removed the old floor and constructed a large isolated concrete block that is the new foundation for their vacuum chamber. He also has procured major funding for a Ph.D. student. 
I hope that Prof. Tajmar has updated his EMdrive design, because when comparing it with all other designs, there was most definitely something wrong with the dimensions (proportion cavity compared to waveguide)
The group at TU Dresden is self-aware of the fabrication issues and extremely low Q=48 that plagued their initial experimental replication, which was performed under the advice of "Roger" years ago.  They plan to thoroughly address these shortcomings under present funding, new instrumentation, design and fabrication.  They plan to report on their progress in Nov 2017.

Quote
3) Mike McDonald's group at the USNAVY:
 https://info.aiaa.org/tac/PEG/NFPTC/Shared%20Documents/abstract_Mcdonald.pdf

It appears that all four of them (including Montillet) will be reporting at the same workshop, Nov. 2017.
I've been reading the paper and could not find anything more then a "letter of intend" to replicate the Eaglework experiment.
However, I do recall Paul March saying he was not allowed to optimize their setup, due to budgetary restriction (dr White wanting direct results, supporting his Quantum Vacuum Virtual Plasma theory).
I can only hope that they (Mcdonald's group) DO take time to attempt optimization...

Like many of us here, we're all sitting on the edge of our seats,  hoping to get conclusive results someday, be them negative or positive...
The work at the USNAVY by McDonald is focused on an initial scientific, rigorous, experimental verification to see whether the EM Drive is an experimental artifact or whether there is anything that can be useful for space propulsion.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/07/2017 04:08 pm
I believe that a healthy dose of imagination coupled with disciplined intuition is absolutely necessary for figuring out new things. Having a rock solid understanding of the basics and building on what we already know, in my view is more important than cracking the mathematical whip straight away on what is essentially a black box. You have to know what to calculate first, otherwise your ship has no rudder. I know that Einstein didn't have the math to describe his key insights at first. His thought experiments and intuitive mind led to his key insights, which were later put through the mathematical crank that already existed, and changed the world.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/07/2017 05:04 pm
I have a question related to the basic concept of the EMDrive. Lets assume standard physics, EM waves bound around, pressure evens out from A to B, drive does not  produce any thrust. Now, in theory, if there placed inside the cavity a space distortion effect, similar to gravitational lensing, would that make the forces uneven?

The question is a direct outcome from another question that I had: If we could convert our Sun, completely into a pure energy in form of a photon-laser-beam, say 1 meter in diameter, 0% dispersion, being completely released in 10 seconds from point A towards point B and somewhere between those points was Earth, maybe 300km away from where the beam was passing by - would the Earth move? Do photons have any mass "in transit"? If they don't, wouldn't it be possible, in "theory", to make a mini black-hole in a box, place a high Q mirror (double-sided) behind it (vertical towards BH), and a mirror in front of it (horizontal towards BH), then some lasers that would shoot the beam so it bounces off both mirrors, via BH space-curvature/lensing? Wouldn't that null out the force at vertical mirror and generate thrust at horizontal one?

Yes, the earth would move as it's being vaporized. A photon has no "rest mass" but has an effective mass equal to its energy/c^2 thus a beam will get bent by gravity. Right now, I think our best bet to get to the stars is probably the Mach effect which is certainly exotic enough.

Good luck to the Fearn/Rodal/Eubanks/Long/Woodward/March/Hudson team trying to maximize the effect  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 09/07/2017 05:20 pm
I agree. The fact these devices exist and some show fairly good theoretical and experimental tracks (the MEGA is low thrust but very consistent) is exciting indeed.

And things are improving for the Emdrive too, with several new well funded institutional results upcoming. If they are negative doesn't matter in the great scheme of things, because knowledge and certitude is always better than incertitude and not knowing. But if there's something still there after careful scrubbing of the experimental data, this period of time we are living will go down in history.

We are understandably weary of waiting and that may take a toll on our patience and dealings with other points of view than our own, but science is most often a slow, grueling and deliberate dialectic process. 

Nevertheless we do know more than before and things are finally happening as they should: letting experiments and data do the talking.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 09/07/2017 06:23 pm
I have a question related to the basic concept of the EMDrive. Lets assume standard physics, EM waves bound around, pressure evens out from A to B, drive does not  produce any thrust. Now, in theory, if there placed inside the cavity a space distortion effect, similar to gravitational lensing, would that make the forces uneven?

The question is a direct outcome from another question that I had: If we could convert our Sun, completely into a pure energy in form of a photon-laser-beam, say 1 meter in diameter, 0% dispersion, being completely released in 10 seconds from point A towards point B and somewhere between those points was Earth, maybe 300km away from where the beam was passing by - would the Earth move? Do photons have any mass "in transit"? If they don't, wouldn't it be possible, in "theory", to make a mini black-hole in a box, place a high Q mirror (double-sided) behind it (vertical towards BH), and a mirror in front of it (horizontal towards BH), then some lasers that would shoot the beam so it bounces off both mirrors, via BH space-curvature/lensing? Wouldn't that null out the force at vertical mirror and generate thrust at horizontal one?

Yes, the earth would move as it's being vaporized. A photon has no "rest mass" but has an effective mass equal to its energy/c^2 thus a beam will get bent by gravity. Right now, I think our best bet to get to the stars is probably the Mach effect which is certainly exotic enough.

Good luck to the Fearn/Rodal/Eubanks/Long/Woodward/March/Hudson team trying to maximize the effect  :)
An electron-positron pair can be created from two photons.  Effective mass becoming rest mass.  If both anti-matter and matter have gravity then one might ask why the photons don't.  I don't think it has been tested if anti-matter has gravity/anti-gravity or not.  Probably just normal gravity else some strange effects.

Edit: The bending of light is actually twice that Einstein predicted at first via gravity.  Turns out there is another relativistic effects that increases the bending.  Bending of space+time.   
Quote from: http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm
(It should be mentioned that many subsequent observations, summarized below, have independently confirmed the angular deflection predicted by general relativity, i.e., twice the "Newtonian" value.)

Quote from: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6197/do-two-beams-of-light-attract-each-other-in-general-theory-of-relativity
Similarly, antiparallel (opposite direction) light beams attract each other by four times the naive (pressureless or Newtonian) expectation, while parallel (same direction) light beams do not attract each other at all. A good paper to start with is: Tolman R.C., Ehrenfest P., and Podolsky B., Phys. Rev. 37 (1931) 602.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: kamill85 on 09/07/2017 06:57 pm
I have a question related to the basic concept of the EMDrive. Lets assume standard physics, EM waves bound around, pressure evens out from A to B, drive does not  produce any thrust. Now, in theory, if there placed inside the cavity a space distortion effect, similar to gravitational lensing, would that make the forces uneven?

The question is a direct outcome from another question that I had: If we could convert our Sun, completely into a pure energy in form of a photon-laser-beam, say 1 meter in diameter, 0% dispersion, being completely released in 10 seconds from point A towards point B and somewhere between those points was Earth, maybe 300km away from where the beam was passing by - would the Earth move? Do photons have any mass "in transit"? If they don't, wouldn't it be possible, in "theory", to make a mini black-hole in a box, place a high Q mirror (double-sided) behind it (vertical towards BH), and a mirror in front of it (horizontal towards BH), then some lasers that would shoot the beam so it bounces off both mirrors, via BH space-curvature/lensing? Wouldn't that null out the force at vertical mirror and generate thrust at horizontal one?

Yes, the earth would move as it's being vaporized. A photon has no "rest mass" but has an effective mass equal to its energy/c^2 thus a beam will get bent by gravity. Right now, I think our best bet to get to the stars is probably the Mach effect which is certainly exotic enough.

Good luck to the Fearn/Rodal/Eubanks/Long/Woodward/March/Hudson team trying to maximize the effect  :)

Thanks. By the way, did you mean beam would by bent in the presence of a gravity or the Earth would be attracted to the beam because the beam generated gravitational pull while passing by?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 09/07/2017 07:00 pm
I have a question related to the basic concept of the EMDrive. Lets assume standard physics, EM waves bound around, pressure evens out from A to B, drive does not  produce any thrust. Now, in theory, if there placed inside the cavity a space distortion effect, similar to gravitational lensing, would that make the forces uneven?

The question is a direct outcome from another question that I had: If we could convert our Sun, completely into a pure energy in form of a photon-laser-beam, say 1 meter in diameter, 0% dispersion, being completely released in 10 seconds from point A towards point B and somewhere between those points was Earth, maybe 300km away from where the beam was passing by - would the Earth move? Do photons have any mass "in transit"? If they don't, wouldn't it be possible, in "theory", to make a mini black-hole in a box, place a high Q mirror (double-sided) behind it (vertical towards BH), and a mirror in front of it (horizontal towards BH), then some lasers that would shoot the beam so it bounces off both mirrors, via BH space-curvature/lensing? Wouldn't that null out the force at vertical mirror and generate thrust at horizontal one?

Yes, the earth would move as it's being vaporized. A photon has no "rest mass" but has an effective mass equal to its energy/c^2 thus a beam will get bent by gravity. Right now, I think our best bet to get to the stars is probably the Mach effect which is certainly exotic enough.

Good luck to the Fearn/Rodal/Eubanks/Long/Woodward/March/Hudson team trying to maximize the effect  :)
An electron-positron pair can be created from two photons.  Effective mass becoming rest mass.  If both anti-matter and matter have gravity then one might ask why the photons don't.  I don't think it has been tested if anti-matter has gravity/anti-gravity or not.  Probably just normal gravity else some strange effects.

http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/67455

https://arxiv.org/abs/1308.1079
Quote
Antimatter interferometry for gravity measurements

Paul Hamilton, Andrey Zhmoginov, Francis Robicheaux, Joel Fajans, Jonathan Wurtele, Holger Mueller

We describe a light-pulse atom interferometer that is suitable for any species of atom and even for electrons and protons as well as their antiparticles, in particular for testing the Einstein equivalence principle with antihydrogen. The design obviates the need for resonant lasers through far-off resonant Bragg beam splitters and makes efficient use of scarce atoms by magnetic confinement and atom recycling. We expect to reach an initial accuracy of better than 1% for the acceleration of free fall of antihydrogen, which can be improved to the part-per million level.

http://matterwave.physics.berkeley.edu/publications/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 09/07/2017 07:04 pm
I agree. The fact these devices exist and some show fairly good theoretical and experimental tracks (the MEGA is low thrust but very consistent) is exciting indeed.

You said MEGA produces consistent thrust among experiments. I am curious to take a look. Which experiment is the most detailed with photos and descriptions? Would you suggest one? Thank you!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 09/07/2017 07:14 pm
Dr. Rodal - As flyby asked a few posts back, most of us will need a summary of what the Montillet paper concludes a propos the EM drive.

I having read the text of the section relevant to the frustrum, it appears to be saying that the fluctuations in energy density within the conducting 'skin' of the copper are suitable to make the device a MET. Is that a reasonable one sentence summary?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/07/2017 07:20 pm
Dr. Rodal - As flyby asked a few posts back, most of us will need a summary of what the Montillet paper concludes a propos the EM drive.

I having read the text of the section relevant to the frustrum, it appears to be saying that the fluctuations in energy density within the conducting 'skin' of the copper are suitable to make the device a MET. Is that a reasonable one sentence summary?
That's a short summary of Montillet's theory.  Observe that Montillet distinguishes the Lorentz force from the triggering of the effect due to fluctuation of the energy density within the conducting 'skin' of the copper.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/07/2017 08:28 pm
My thoughts on Roger's list are:

1) a quality Cu thruster build should show, at room temperature, a Q loaded of at least 50,000,

2) the coupler location & design should deliver an impedance match with the Rf amp and a coupler coefficient very close to 1,

3) both end plates should allow alignment so they are orthogonal to the axis of the cavity and are parallel with each other,

4) surface polish and smoothness should be to professional astronomical standards, with no pits nor scratches,

5) small end diameter should not be cut off,  using standard microwave cutoff equations for a circular waveguide,

6) dielectrics should be avoided as they reduce Q and Force as proven by EW experimental data,

7) end plates should be spherical and have a common radius from the vertex of the frustum side walls,

8) interior surface must be protected from oxidation.

This is what is required to obtain specific force values of 300-500mN/kW. Cavities of lesser quality will produce lower values of specific thrust.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: rq3 on 09/07/2017 10:16 pm
My thoughts on Roger's list are:

1) a quality Cu thruster build should show, at room temperature, a Q loaded of at least 50,000,

2) the coupler location & design should deliver an impedance match with the Rf amp and a coupler coefficient very close to 1,

3) both end plates should allow alignment so they are orthogonal to the axis of the cavity and are parallel with each other,

4) surface polish and smoothness should be to professional astronomical standards, with no pits nor scratches,

5) small end diameter should not be cut off,  using standard microwave cutoff equations for a circular waveguide,

6) dielectrics should be avoided as they reduce Q and Force as proven by EW experimental data,

7) end plates should be spherical and have a common radius from the vertex of the frustum side walls,

8) interior surface must be protected from oxidation.

This is what is required to obtain specific force values of 300-500mN/kW. Cavities of lesser quality will produce lower values of specific thrust.

So, if I follow this "recipe", you guarantee I'll see 300-500 mN/kW force values? Any other thoughts? I can easily fabricate a frustum to "surface polish and smoothness should be to professional astronomical standards, with no pits nor scratches",
if 1/10 wave of HeNe laser is good enough? If that isn't good enough, please define "professional astronomical standards".

I can easily provide sub-micron gold flash to ensure "interior surface must be protected from oxidation". Or will this interfere with the "recipe"?

I have access to fully I/Q programmable signal sources, so is there any particular modulation format you'd like to see? I'm fully qualified to write the code for any modulation required. FM, AM, phase, pulsed? All together at the same time? In sequence? Any particular order? I can provide up to 10 KW of microwave drive from the source after TWT amplification.

I also have access to a vacuum chamber capable of taking a Volkswagon Beetle down to 3x10-9 Torr, and am fully qualified to ensure that the Beetle is vacuum qualified as regards materials. Anything else you need?

I'm afraid I won't be using particle board shelving and nylon fishing line to build the torsion balance, since neither are particularly good vacuum materials, but at 300 mN I don't anticipate any issues with whipping up a space qualified force measurement device with donations from my friends in the industrial world.

All I need from you is emphatic proof of the claims you have been making, and I'll light off my build this week end!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 09/07/2017 10:55 pm
I also have access to a vacuum chamber capable of taking a Volkswagon Beetle down to 3x10-9 Torr, and am fully qualified to ensure that the Beetle is vacuum qualified as regards materials. Anything else you need?

I'm afraid you're too late....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWh2qT9yiTo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWh2qT9yiTo)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThinkerX on 09/08/2017 12:52 am
I admit I'm in great distress here, when trying to make sense of the tsunami wave of formula's...
But somehow i get the feeling this paper is a major keystone.. Can some1 explain in a more comprehensive way what is going on there?
It is another step on the road to develop a formal theoretical model but as in everything physical, the ultimate word as to whether it is an experimental artifact from "Roger" or something that can be useful lies with experiments and the ability to replicate them:

1) Monomorphic reporting at NSF:  he has set a deadline by the end of this October 2017, in preparation for a formal presentation of his work at a workshop early November 2017.

2) Prof. Tajmar's group at TU Dresden: they have been working all this year on a new torsional pendulum instrument that promises to be more accurate than his previous instruments.  Eliminating electromagnetic Lorentz-type interactions,  they even removed the old floor and constructed a large isolated concrete block that is the new foundation for their vacuum chamber. He also has procured major funding for a Ph.D. student. 

3) Mike McDonald's group at the USNAVY:
 https://info.aiaa.org/tac/PEG/NFPTC/Shared%20Documents/abstract_Mcdonald.pdf

It appears that all four of them (including Montillet) will be reporting at the same workshop, Nov. 2017.

I must have missed something. 

Is this a another Estes Workshop or something else? 

Topics to be covered?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RonM on 09/08/2017 02:16 am
4) surface polish and smoothness should be to professional astronomical standards, with no pits nor scratches,

Maybe I'm missing something here from the world of waveguides, but why does the surface have to be smooth enough for professional optics when the EM drive uses microwaves?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 09/08/2017 05:16 am
Well, let me pull another quote then, that also fits in :

Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible..


https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/02/21/impossible/

If you ask for the impossible you will be disappointed... -- me
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: oyzw on 09/08/2017 07:31 am
Recently, CCTV interviewed Dr. Chen Yue of China Aerospace Science and Technology Group on the progress of research and development of emdrive. Dr. Chen Yue showed the emdrive device and research process to the public. It is reported that emdrive has been installed on experimental satellites, waiting for space testing.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 09/08/2017 08:09 am
Recently, CCTV interviewed Dr. Chen Yue of China Aerospace Science and Technology Group on the progress of research and development of emdrive. Dr. Chen Yue showed the emdrive device and research process to the public. It is reported that emdrive has been installed on experimental satellites, waiting for space testing.

Hi Oyzw,

Thank you for the update! Can you by chance provide us with the link to the news report or if some chinese news media wrote about it?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: oyzw on 09/08/2017 08:15 am
Recently, CCTV interviewed Dr. Chen Yue of China Aerospace Science and Technology Group on the progress of research and development of emdrive. Dr. Chen Yue showed the emdrive device and research process to the public. It is reported that emdrive has been installed on experimental satellites, waiting for space testing.

Hi Oyzw,

Thank you for the update! Can you by chance provide us with the link to the news report or if some chinese news media wrote about it?
Yes, of course.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 09/08/2017 08:21 am
Also if you can find the link for the video. Can you find it in some CCTV archive perhaps? I can send it to some people for translation.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: oyzw on 09/08/2017 08:21 am
Also if you can find the link for the video. Can you find it in some CCTV archive perhaps? I can send it to some people for translation.
http://tv.cctv.com/lm/jjbxs/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 09/08/2017 08:25 am
Also if you can find the link for the video. Can you find it in some CCTV archive perhaps? I can send it to some people for translation.
http://tv.cctv.com/lm/jjbxs/

Thank you Oyzw you rock!

I am asking around for the translation from chinese. Please do the same folks

I found link for YouTube starts around 18 minutes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPAf-yuwmNE
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: oyzw on 09/08/2017 08:36 am
Also if you can find the link for the video. Can you find it in some CCTV archive perhaps? I can send it to some people for translation.
http://tv.cctv.com/lm/jjbxs/

Thank you Oyzw you rock!

I am asking around for the translation from chinese. Please do the same folks
:) :)    This is my new cavity
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Flyby on 09/08/2017 09:42 am
Interesting indeed, but I'm surprised to notice the cylindrical shape of  Dr. Chen Yue's EMdrive...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 09/08/2017 09:54 am
Interesting indeed, but I'm surprised to notice the cylindrical shape of  Dr. Chen Yue's EMdrive...

Exactly I noticed that too.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Flyby on 09/08/2017 10:01 am
Well, let me pull another quote then, that also fits in :

Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible..


https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/02/21/impossible/

If you ask for the impossible you will be disappointed... -- me

Not as catchy as the above one, but .. yeah.. i can relate to that... :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 09/08/2017 11:51 am
Well, let me pull another quote then, that also fits in :

Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible..


https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/02/21/impossible/

It might no be from Escher, I read.  :o
I have it listed in my citations collection as: 'Only those who attempt the absurd...will achieve the impossible. I think...I think it's in my basement...Let me go upstairs and check.'

 :o 'You can't believe everything you read on the internet anymore.' Abraham Lincoln  ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 09/08/2017 11:54 am
Also if you can find the link for the video. Can you find it in some CCTV archive perhaps? I can send it to some people for translation.
http://tv.cctv.com/lm/jjbxs/

Thank you Oyzw you rock!

I am asking around for the translation from chinese. Please do the same folks
:) :)    This is my new cavity


Nice copper work!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/08/2017 12:23 pm
:) :)    This is my new cavity

Would you mind sharing the dimensions and operating mode?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/08/2017 12:30 pm
Interesting indeed, but I'm surprised to notice the cylindrical shape of  Dr. Chen Yue's EMdrive...

There also appears to be another mode very nearby.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/08/2017 01:25 pm
Recently, CCTV interviewed Dr. Chen Yue of China Aerospace Science and Technology Group on the progress of research and development of emdrive. Dr. Chen Yue showed the emdrive device and research process to the public. It is reported that emdrive has been installed on experimental satellites, waiting for space testing.
What does "Roger" [as TheTraveller refers to Shawyer] have to say about Dr. Chen Yue of China Aerospace Science and Technology Group instead of the tapered design promoted by Shawyer shows a cylindrical EM Drive both in these pictures, the China TV video, and most important in some of his patents?

It is interesting that "Roger" who has so much to say on "a list" [posted by TheTraveller as being authored by "Roger"] https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1719903#msg1719903 has been silent on the fact that Yue shows a cylindrical cavity, not even following his first commandment of having ends with unequal diameter.

How does "Roger" "theory" explain thrust by such a cylindrical cavity?  How does "Roger" explain that Dr. Yue is apparently not following "Roger's rules"?

If an EM Drive does not even need to have unequal end diameters, what makes an EM Drive in the first place?  Just being a closed electromagnetically resonant cavity?  Are there any known rules to this?  ::)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 09/08/2017 01:54 pm
Interesting indeed, but I'm surprised to notice the cylindrical shape of  Dr. Chen Yue's EMdrive...

There also appears to be another mode very nearby.
Regarding the amplitude in this diagram (however logarithmic-magnitude over frequency or linear-magnitude over frequency) i guess it's either strong over or likewise under coupled. Maybe this was posing for the camera only ;)

(I have several years of experience with a similar agilent VNA.)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/08/2017 02:10 pm
Recently, CCTV interviewed Dr. Chen Yue of China Aerospace Science and Technology Group on the progress of research and development of emdrive. Dr. Chen Yue showed the emdrive device and research process to the public. It is reported that emdrive has been installed on experimental satellites, waiting for space testing.
What does "Roger" have to say about Dr. Chen Yue of China Aerospace Science and Technology Group instead of the tapered design promoted by "Roger" shows a cylindrical EM Drive both in these pictures, the China TV video, and most important in some of his patents?

It is interesting that "Roger" who has so much to say on "a list" https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1719903#msg1719903 has been silent on the fact that Yue shows a cylindrical cavity, not even following his first commandment of having ends with unequal diameter.

How does "Roger" "theory" explain thrust by such a cylindrical cavity?  How does "Roger" explain that Dr. Yue is apparently not following "Roger's rules"?

If an EM Drive does not even need to have unequal end diameters, what makes an EM Drive an EM Drive in the first place?  Just being a closed electromagnetically resonant cavity?
您可能忘记了我曾上传过陈粤教授的专利,在圆柱腔体中设置了金属膜片,改变了电磁场形态,构成不对称电磁场形态,依然遵循共同的原理。

Thank you.  I do not remember Chen Yue's patent with such details. 

Are you referring to this document (posted by Flux_Capacitor)
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/691fd8a52a01660d076b/CN105947224A.pdf

English translation https://www.google.com/patents/CN105947224A?cl=en  ?

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=41732.0;attach=1398614;image)

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=41732.0;attach=1398626;image)

[0039] The electromagnetic propulsion module includes a resonant cavity inside an asymmetric structure, the use of electromagnetic propulsion module inside the resonator cavity asymmetric structure, produce uneven microwave radiation pressure, and then in the resonant cavity be unbalanced electromagnetic force to external output thrust. Asymmetric structure is preferable to adopt a resonant cavity electromagnetic propulsion resonant cavity, electromagnetic propulsion system around the resonant cavity electromagnetic propulsion structures, electromagnetic propulsion resonant cavity shown in FIG. 1, respectively. As can be seen, electromagnetic propulsion resonant cavity is divided into four faces: plane Sa, surface Sb, plane Sc, plane Sd, as shown in FIG. Sa mounted on a plane microwave power input device on a plane Sc plane fitted with microwave power extraction apparatus. Input to the feedback power control module from the microwave power extraction means to extract microwave power as a feedback power. Electromagnetic propulsion thrust output of the resonant cavity Preferred conditions: input microwave power frequency electromagnetic propulsion within 3dB bandwidth of the center frequency of the resonant cavity. Under the operating conditions of the effect of microwave power, electromagnetic propulsion resonant cavity can be unbalanced microwave radiation pressure, and thus in the resonant cavity be unbalanced electromagnetic force, thrust externally output, as shown in FIG. Select the lowest electromagnetic propulsion mode resonator center frequency f〇 electromagnetic propulsion system frequency. Semicylindrical cavity of the radius R (meters), length L (in meters) and preferably the relationship between the center frequency F0 (Unit GHz) between the semi-cylindrical cavity of:

[0040]

(http://ayuba.fr/images/emdrive/chen_yue_equation.png)

[0041] Preferably R = 86 mm, L = 117.7 mm, using the formula (1) f0 were solver to 2.45 GHz.

Simulation by X_Ray:

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=41732.0;attach=1398679;image)

Comment by X_Ray:

Quote
This cavity is related to the other patent (please compare the numbers ). An asymmetry should be present for the surface currents, the way along the curved face is much longer than at the flat surface while the total resistance of each path is given by an integral over the skin penetration depth times the resistance of the copper and the path length as well as the temperature of the local resistor. Because of the temperature grows faster at the middle bottom section (higher current density) the resistance grows faster in this region.(Not sure if this construction is usable fore constant thrust generation in space ;) )
 Does it make sense? ::)

What you describe sounds like a sort of bandpass filter. The periodic structure may better compared to the slotted cannae device.

Simulation by Monomorphic:

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=41732.0;attach=1398721;image)

Comment by Monomorphic:

Quote
Confirmed at 2.48Ghz. Though I used a half loop antenna mounted in the center.

While the cavity geometry is asymmetric, the e-fields are pretty uniform throughout the cavity. I'm not surprised they are having trouble getting thrust. What would TE013 look like in this geometry?

Comment by TheTraveller (in case he answers as to what "Roger" has to say):
Quote
Looks like TE011 mode in a 1/2 cylindrical "Pill Box" resonator. Doubt there is any "Shawyer Effect" thrust being generated.
(Bold added to quotation for emphasis)

We would very much appreciate it if you could upload  Chen Yue's patent again and explain how he sets up a metal diaphragm in the cylindrical cavity, to change the shape of the electromagnetic field into an asymmetric electromagnetic field, and hence still follow the common principle?  I do not understand the purpose of doing it that way instead of the way that Shawyer promotes it.

(It is very difficult, next to impossible, to search for old posts in this website)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star-Drive on 09/08/2017 03:00 pm
Jose':

 "I do not understand the purpose of doing it that way instead of the way that "Roger" promotes it."

How about finding ways to avoid infringements on Roger's EMdrive patents?

Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/08/2017 03:04 pm
Jose':

 "I do not understand the purpose of doing it that way instead of the way that "Roger" promotes it."

How about finding ways to avoid infringements on Roger's EMdrive patents?

Best, Paul M.
The problems with that explanation are as follows:

1) Shawyer's original patents for asymmetric resonant cavities of that vintage [not superconducting] were  UK patents (this refers to his patents before his association with Gilo, when finally Shawyer+Gilo applied for new patents with new designs with applicability outside the UK).  There appears to be no Chinese patent, or a Worldwide patent of that vintage design.  Therefore no infringement issue in China, (or in the USA concerning the designs followed by Monomorphic and other Do-It-Yourself) for UK patents.
In any case, I doubt that the Chinese Space Agency had at any time the intention to sell their EM Drives in the UK. Even if that would have been the case: Shawyer's patents of this vintage design have expired:

2) It appears that Shawyer's patents of that vintage (for example GB (11) 2 229 865(13)A 1990 ) have expired even in the UK, there is one  patent (2 334 761 (13) A 1999) close to expiration. Presently valid patents with significant life remaining (starting with his -13 year old already, and having just 7 more years of life assuming 20 year life- 2004 patent covering [Claim1: An engine comprising a gimbal mounted matrix of a number of superconducting microwave thrusters which are supplied with pulses of microwave energy via an array of switches and enclosed in a dewar which is maintained at low temperature by liquefied gas.]) appear to cover other things like designs for superconductivity, etc.  Such superconductive designs are not discussed by the Chinese patents that we are addressing.

Patent infringement law: you get a specific patent for the UK: then infringement applies in the UK.  If you like to discuss infringement you have to:

1) discuss presently valid patent claims.  Once the patent expires then there are no infringement issues.  This is basic patent law, as a monopoly is given to the inventor for a finite amount of time in exchange for the monopoly.  When the patent expires everybody is free to pursue the patent's design for commercial purposes.  The patent infringement issue applies to specific claims.
2) patents valid in the geographical locality where a patent was awarded.

Chinese are very much aware of patent law.  It seems to me that Yue must have had some other reason in mind to pursue this unusual design.  Also the presence and nature of the "internal diaphragm" mentioned by oyzw does not appear to have been obvious to either Monomorphic or X_Ray, as (please correct me if I am wrong) their simulations do not appear to include such an internal diaphragm providing asymmetry.

QUESTION: Is the geometrical and material design of the "internal diaphragm in Yue's design" clear to anybody reading this? If so please post !

Best,

JR
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/08/2017 03:46 pm
Dr. Rodal - As flyby asked a few posts back, most of us will need a summary of what the Montillet paper concludes a propos the EM drive.

I having read the text of the section relevant to the frustrum, it appears to be saying that the fluctuations in energy density within the conducting 'skin' of the copper are suitable to make the device a MET. Is that a reasonable one sentence summary?
That's a short summary of Montillet's theory.  Observe that Montillet distinguishes the Lorentz force from the triggering of the effect due to fluctuation of the energy density within the conducting 'skin' of the copper.

What broad suggestions could you share to go from trying to maximize the EMDrive by the usual assumptions to maximizing the fluctuation of energy density for the Mach effect? Would it look completely different? Thanks.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/08/2017 04:10 pm
Ok, everyone is of course entitled to their opinion but all this mocking of "Roger" has to stop now. It's unprofessional. Just explain where you think he is wrong and leave out the emotions please. Thanks.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/08/2017 04:19 pm
Ok, everyone is of course entitled to their opinion but all this mocking of "Roger" has to stop now. It's unprofessional. Just explain where you think he is wrong and leave out the emotions please. Thanks.
Are you referring to TheTraveller referring to "Roger" or to someone else? There has been no mocking on my part.  I was referring to documents and other correspondence posted by "TheTraveller" purporting that they were authored by "Roger."  The purpose of the quotation marks is to take no position as to who "Roger" is, but to just quote the original post.

If TheTraveller is stating that these were indeed authored by the real inventor of the EM Drive, then he should refer to him in those posts as Roger Shawyer instead of as "Roger".  Otherwise the reader has no way to tell whether indeed those documents were authored by the inventor of the EM Drive, or by some other "Roger", and when referring to such a post, the best thing is to use the same reference: TT referring to "Roger".

As to your call for professionalism and objection to using "Roger" in quotes, a poster alleging that a document or correspondence was authored by "Roger" should instead post the real name of the author, instead of a common first name that is shared by many other individuals, and a verifiable source for such a document that verifies who is the real author.  It would be more professional to cite the source for any such document or for the author himself/herself to post directly.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 09/08/2017 04:23 pm
Jose':

 "I do not understand the purpose of doing it that way instead of the way that "Roger" promotes it."

How about finding ways to avoid infringements on Roger's EMdrive patents?

Best, Paul M.
The problems with that explanation are as follows:

1) Shawyer's original patents for asymmetric resonant cavities of that vintage [not superconducting] were only UK patents (this refers to his patents before his association with Gilo, when finally Shawyer+Gilo applied for new patents with new designs with applicability outside the UK).  Not a Chinese patent, or a Worldwide patent of that vintage design.  No infringement issue in China, (or in the USA concerning the designs followed by Monomorphic and other Do-It-Yourself) for UK patents.
In any case, I doubt that the Chinese Space Agency had at any time the intention to sell their EM Drives in the UK. Even if that would have been the case: Shawyer's patents of this vintage design have expired:

2) It appears that Shawyer's patents of that vintage (for example GB (11) 2 229 865(13)A 1990 ) have expired even in the UK, there is one  patent (2 334 761 (13) A 1999) close to expiration. Presently valid patents with significant life remaining (starting with his -13 year old already, and having just 7 more years of life assuming 20 year life- 2004 patent covering [Claim1: An engine comprising a gimbal mounted matrix of a number of superconducting microwave thrusters which are supplied with pulses of microwave energy via an array of switches and enclosed in a dewar which is maintained at low temperature by liquefied gas.]) appear to cover other things like designs for superconductivity, etc.  Such superconductive designs are not discussed by the Chinese patents that we are addressing.

Patent infringement law: you get a specific patent for the UK: then infringement applies in the UK.  If you like to discuss infringement you have to:

1) discuss presently valid patent claims.  Once the patent expires then there are no infringement issues.  This is basic patent law, as a monopoly is given to the inventor for a finite amount of time in exchange for the monopoly.  When the patent expires everybody is free to pursue the patent's design for commercial purposes.  The patent infringement issue applies to specific claims.
2) patents valid in the geographical locality where a patent was awarded.

Chinese are very much aware of patent law.  It seems to me that Yue must have had some other reason in mind to pursue this unusual design.  Also the presence and nature of the "internal diaphragm" mentioned by oyzw does not appear to have been obvious to either Monomorphic or X_Ray, as (please correct me if I am wrong) their simulations do not appear to include such an internal diaphragm providing asymmetry.

QUESTION: Is the geometrical and material design of the "internal diaphragm in Yue's design" clear to anybody reading this? If so please post !

Best,

JR
JR,

May be off and it's just a guess but the first impression is it could be a multi-mode frequency cavity. You first establish a max Q (at least 63% max Q) stable resonating cavity and then flip and force to another mode with another frequency, thereby building off the cavity energies and side wall energies established in the E/B fields. This is one direction that I have looked at in some of my testing.  This could lead to a pulsed or impulsed Mach type effect flipping from a TE to a TM mode.

My Very Best,
Shell

PS: If you think about it and how you can build a high energy E-Field in a TE mode circulating parallel to the end-plates. (note: TE modes are not used in particle accelerators... only TM).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: wicoe on 09/08/2017 04:25 pm
Ok, everyone is of course entitled to their opinion but all this mocking of "Roger" has to stop now. It's unprofessional. Just explain where you think he is wrong and leave out the emotions please. Thanks.

Seriously?  How about not understanding basic high school physics and Newton/CoM/CoE laws?  A few examples:

- In a closed system, momentum must be conserved.  If you start off stationary and then gain momentum without interacting with any external objects/fields, you break CoM.  Stating that it's an "open system" without explaining which external fields/objects you're interacting with does not help (especially when you claim that "no new physics is needed", which means that you cannot resort to invisible/unknown fields, Mach effect, etc).

- When the sum of the forces acting upon an object points in one direction, the object will move in that direction, not on the opposite direction.  Claiming that the acceleration is caused by a "reaction force" acting upon the object is nonsense because a reaction force is what the object itself exerts on other (external) objects, and not something that is acting upon an object and can cause it to move.

- Claiming that the force can only be measured when the object "is free to accelerate" is nonsense.  How does it know if it's free to accelerate or not?

- Claiming that the thrust decreases with velocity: how does it know what velocity it's has, if it's not interacting with the environment?  What if we change the reference frame (or briefly turn it off and then turn it back on)?

etc etc.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/08/2017 04:28 pm
Recently, CCTV interviewed Dr. Chen Yue of China Aerospace Science and Technology Group on the progress of research and development of emdrive. Dr. Chen Yue showed the emdrive device and research process to the public. It is reported that emdrive has been installed on experimental satellites, waiting for space testing.
What does "Roger" have to say about Dr. Chen Yue of China Aerospace Science and Technology Group instead of the tapered design promoted by "Roger" shows a cylindrical EM Drive both in these pictures, the China TV video, and most important in some of his patents?

It is interesting that "Roger" who has so much to say on "a list" https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1719903#msg1719903 has been silent on the fact that Yue shows a cylindrical cavity, not even following his first commandment of having ends with unequal diameter.

How does "Roger" "theory" explain thrust by such a cylindrical cavity?  How does "Roger" explain that Dr. Yue is apparently not following "Roger's rules"?

If an EM Drive does not even need to have unequal end diameters, what makes an EM Drive an EM Drive in the first place?  Just being a closed electromagnetically resonant cavity?
您可能忘记了我曾上传过陈粤教授的专利,在圆柱腔体中设置了金属膜片,改变了电磁场形态,构成不对称电磁场形态,依然遵循共同的原理。

Thank you.  I do not remember Chen Yue's patent with such details. 

Are you referring to this document (posted by Flux_Capacitor)
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/691fd8a52a01660d076b/CN105947224A.pdf

English translation https://www.google.com/patents/CN105947224A?cl=en  ?

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=41732.0;attach=1398614;image)

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=41732.0;attach=1398626;image)

[0039] The electromagnetic propulsion module includes a resonant cavity inside an asymmetric structure, the use of electromagnetic propulsion module inside the resonator cavity asymmetric structure, produce uneven microwave radiation pressure, and then in the resonant cavity be unbalanced electromagnetic force to external output thrust. Asymmetric structure is preferable to adopt a resonant cavity electromagnetic propulsion resonant cavity, electromagnetic propulsion system around the resonant cavity electromagnetic propulsion structures, electromagnetic propulsion resonant cavity shown in FIG. 1, respectively. As can be seen, electromagnetic propulsion resonant cavity is divided into four faces: plane Sa, surface Sb, plane Sc, plane Sd, as shown in FIG. Sa mounted on a plane microwave power input device on a plane Sc plane fitted with microwave power extraction apparatus. Input to the feedback power control module from the microwave power extraction means to extract microwave power as a feedback power. Electromagnetic propulsion thrust output of the resonant cavity Preferred conditions: input microwave power frequency electromagnetic propulsion within 3dB bandwidth of the center frequency of the resonant cavity. Under the operating conditions of the effect of microwave power, electromagnetic propulsion resonant cavity can be unbalanced microwave radiation pressure, and thus in the resonant cavity be unbalanced electromagnetic force, thrust externally output, as shown in FIG. Select the lowest electromagnetic propulsion mode resonator center frequency f〇 electromagnetic propulsion system frequency. Semicylindrical cavity of the radius R (meters), length L (in meters) and preferably the relationship between the center frequency F0 (Unit GHz) between the semi-cylindrical cavity of:

[0040]

(http://ayuba.fr/images/emdrive/chen_yue_equation.png)

[0041] Preferably R = 86 mm, L = 117.7 mm, using the formula (1) f0 were solver to 2.45 GHz.

Simulation by X_Ray:

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=41732.0;attach=1398679;image)

Comment by X_Ray:

Quote
This cavity is related to the other patent (please compare the numbers ). An asymmetry should be present for the surface currents, the way along the curved face is much longer than at the flat surface while the total resistance of each path is given by an integral over the skin penetration depth times the resistance of the copper and the path length as well as the temperature of the local resistor. Because of the temperature grows faster at the middle bottom section (higher current density) the resistance grows faster in this region.(Not sure if this construction is usable fore constant thrust generation in space ;) )
 Does it make sense? ::)

What you describe sounds like a sort of bandpass filter. The periodic structure may better compared to the slotted cannae device.

Simulation by Monomorphic:

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=41732.0;attach=1398721;image)

Comment by Monomorphic:

Quote
Confirmed at 2.48Ghz. Though I used a half loop antenna mounted in the center.

While the cavity geometry is asymmetric, the e-fields are pretty uniform throughout the cavity. I'm not surprised they are having trouble getting thrust. What would TE013 look like in this geometry?

Comment by TheTraveller (in case he answers as to what "Roger" has to say):
Quote
Looks like TE011 mode in a 1/2 cylindrical "Pill Box" resonator. Doubt there is any "Shawyer Effect" thrust being generated.
(Bold added to quotation for emphasis)

We would very much appreciate it if you could upload  Chen Yue's patent again and explain how he sets up a metal diaphragm in the cylindrical cavity, to change the shape of the electromagnetic field into an asymmetric electromagnetic field, and hence still follow the common principle?  I do not understand the purpose of doing it that way instead of the way that Shawyer promotes it.

(It is very difficult, next to impossible, to search for old posts in this website)

The figure 4 your showed comes from another patent, this one:

CN application 105781921A (https://www.google.com/patents/CN105781921A?cl=en), Chen, Yue; Peng Weifeng & Bai Guangming et al., "Electromagnetic thruster cavity based on periodic structure", published 2016-07-20, assigned to China Academy of Space Technology

I think this figure 4 is the cylindrical cavity shown in the Chinese video. Not the first semicylinder from the other patent. Please note the "diaphragm" within this one. To my knowledge nobody understood this "diaphragm cavity" and made any simulation from it. X_RaY maybe?

Chinese version with figures attached.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/08/2017 04:30 pm
...

The figure 4 your showed comes from another patent, this one:

CN application 105781921A (https://www.google.com/patents/CN105781921A?cl=en), Chen, Yue; Peng Weifeng & Bai Guangming et al., "Electromagnetic thruster cavity based on periodic structure", published 2016-07-20, assigned to China Academy of Space Technology

I think this figure 4 is the cylindrical cavity shown in the Chinese video. Not the first semicylinder from the other patent. Please note the "diaphragm" within this one. To my knowledge nobody understood this "diaphragm cavity" and made any simulation from it. X_RaY maybe?

Chinese version with figures attached.
Excellent post!  Thank you for clarifying this.  Monomorphic and X_Ray:

could you please comment on whether your simulations included such an internal diaphragm and whether you were aware of it?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/08/2017 04:46 pm
I found my original post mentioning it, back to EM Drive Thread 9, page 49, December 26, 2016:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1623149#msg1623149

I reproduce the important text part (Chen Yue's main comments, translated) below:

Quote from: Chen Yue
[0016] The resonant cavity is rectangular, plate-shaped structural unit structure having a rectangular notch; interval each structural unit is less than the width of the structural units; bilaterally symmetrical structural unit and side walls of the contact cavity opened a gap.

[0017] The cylindrical cavity, a cyclic structure as a structural unit, each interval is less than the height of the ring structure of the cyclic structure.

[0018] The advantages of the present invention over the prior art in that:

[0019] I) of the present patent by introducing a periodic structure design, can effectively localized electromagnetic field in the vicinity of the periodic structure, in theory, can improve the degree greater degree of uneven distribution of the electromagnetic field, so the thrust generated by the power unit higher than the existing cavities the design of;

[0020] 2) the shape of the cavity is more flexible, the cavity may be rectangular or circular, ease of use and installation works, but only for the existing design or pyramidal frustum;

BRIEF DESCRIPTION

[0021] FIG. 1 is based on a rectangular plate-like cavity notched front view of the periodic structure;

[0022] FIG. 2 is based on a rectangular plate-like cavity notched periodic structure side view;

[0023] FIG. 3 is based on a rectangular cavity notched plate-like electric field distribution diagram of the periodic structure;

[0024] FIG. 4 is based on a cylindrical cavity ring periodic structures elevational view;

[0025] FIG. 5 is a cylindrical cavity based on cyclic periodic structures a top view;

[0026] FIG. 6 is a cylindrical cavity based on the electric field distribution diagram cyclic periodic structures.

[0028] I) the particular design of the periodic structure of the sheet-like (plate-like structure comprises a notch), a cyclic structure, each of the structural elements are arranged periodically in the local space of the cavity;

[0036] cyclic structure design cycle, a total of three rings, respectively an inner diameter of 69mm, 129mm, 189mm, ring thickness of 1mm, the height of the ring is 70mm, three-ring structure normal to Z, according to the theory of electromagnetic design, ring structure spacing is less than the height of the ring, take the 60_ in this case. The electric field distribution in Figure 6; ^

[0037] The present invention is not described in details known to those skilled in the art.

These cavities with internal diaphragms, different than frustums, have beee developped with one purpose in mind: To stack them. Many of them.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 09/08/2017 04:47 pm
As to Shawyer's patents, has anybody checked whether they are all active (before expiration, of course)? Patents must be maintained (by paying yearly fee) to stay active. Those fees are not cheap and they increase each year in many countries.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/08/2017 04:47 pm
Ok, everyone is of course entitled to their opinion but all this mocking of "Roger" has to stop now. It's unprofessional. Just explain where you think he is wrong and leave out the emotions please. Thanks.

Seriously?  How about not understanding basic high school physics and Newton/CoM/CoE laws?  A few examples:

- In a closed system, momentum must be conserved.  If you start off stationary and then gain momentum without interacting with any external objects/fields, you break CoM.  Stating that it's an "open system" without explaining which external fields/objects you're interacting with does not help (especially when you claim that "no new physics is needed", which means that you cannot resort to invisible/unknown fields, Mach effect, etc).

- When the sum of the forces acting upon an object points in one direction, the object will move in that direction, not on the opposite direction.  Claiming that the acceleration is caused by a "reaction force" acting upon the object is nonsense because a reaction force is what the object itself exerts on other (external) objects, and not something that is acting upon an object and can cause it to move.

- Claiming that the force can only be measured when the object "is free to accelerate" is nonsense.  How does it know if it's free to accelerate or not?

- Claiming that the thrust decreases with velocity: how does it know what velocity it's has, if it's not interacting with the environment?  What if we change the reference frame (or briefly turn it off and then turn it back on)?

etc etc.

The only nonsense is in rejecting lower energy photons being emitted via inelastic Compton Effect transferred momentum and energy to support velocity increase and KE gain.

It is the increased wavelength and reduced energy photon emission that balances CofM and CofE.

While the  physics of the inelastic Compton Effect may not be the stuff of high school physics, it is still very real, the mechanism behind radiation pressure, how impacting photons transfer momentum and energy to mass and how the reduced energy and monentum of the emitted photon maintains CofM and CofE.
.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/08/2017 04:48 pm
Moderation rules are to stop members from being abusive (etc) to each other - and that's the difference between "No, that's simply not correct" and "Wow, you're such an idiot!" <---for three points, guess which one is not allowed. ;D

If someone posts critiques about a non member, let's say "The NASA administrator" for the sake of argument, that's not a moderation issue.....but it has to be reasonably "fair" as the person is not here to defend themselves. Tough for EM Drive given most people apparently think it's a load of nonsense, so you may get more than the average number of "critiques".

So that's the guideline on the recent posts.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/08/2017 04:50 pm
...

These cavities with internal diaphragms, different than frustums, have beee developped with one purpose in mind: To stack them. Many of them.
Thank you.  So what is the geometric design and material of these internal diaphragms ?  Is there enough information for anyone (like Monomorphic or X_Ray) to conduct a software simulation (by Finite Element or Boundary Element methods)?

If not, can you give us your best estimate from your understanding?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/08/2017 05:08 pm
...

These cavities with internal diaphragms, different than frustums, have beee developped with one purpose in mind: To stack them. Many of them.
Thank you.  So what is the geometric design and material of these internal diaphragms ?  Is there enough information for anyone (like Monomorphic or X_Ray) to conduct a software simulation (by Finite Element or Boundary Element methods)?

If not, can you give us your best estimate from your understanding?

I can now confirm, cycling though the EM Drive Thread 9, that nobody simulated this cavity.

As for me, I don't pretend to understand how such a diaphragm works, other than its double purpose:
- provide asymmetry to the EM field, despite a symmetrical (cylindrical) shape of the cavity
- let the EM waves fill a first cavity then enter, propagate and populate the second cavity directly attached to it, and so on, in a recursive way

But as I understand the patent, it is not the cavity itself which is duplicated and connected to another cavity in series. It is the diaphragm structure which is duplicated several times, recursively ("periodic structure") within one cavity. Multiple "mini cavities" inside one cavity, sort of.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/08/2017 05:10 pm
Jose':

 "I do not understand the purpose of doing it that way instead of the way that "Roger" promotes it."

How about finding ways to avoid infringements on Roger's EMdrive patents?

Best, Paul M.

Paul,

At the end of the day it is ALL about $/N/kW of the entire system, which includes all support systems.

Time will tell if the Chinese approach can produce lower $/N/kW EmDrive systems than can the SPR approach.

Our best result to date is 55N/kW using a Cu cavity cooled with LHe, which we believe is around the temp achieveable using passive heat radiation in space. We believe designing EmDrives that do not need closed loop cryo coolers has reduced cost, mass, power & complexity advantages.

Future work will involve the investigation of using MgB3, at 39K, to coat all cavity interior surfaces as it offers lower Rs at our operational freq than Nb and very significantly increased H field capacity. We expect MgB2 will replace both Nb and YBCO. Some data is attached.

We are making good progress on our TRL 9 qualification program.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/08/2017 05:14 pm
...We are making good progress on our TRL 9 qualification program.

Quote
9. Actual system proven through successful mission operations.   Actual application of the technology in its final form and under mission conditions, such as those encountered in operational test and evaluation (OT&E). Examples include using the system under operational mission conditions.   OT&E (operational test and evaluation) reports.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/NASA_TRL_Meter.jpg)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_readiness_level
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/08/2017 05:18 pm
...

But as I understand the patent, it is not the cavity itself which is duplicated and connected to another cavity in series. It is the diaphragm structure which is duplicated several times, recursively ("periodic structure") within one cavity. Multiple "mini cavities" inside one cavity, sort of.

This is an excellent insight, and it gives a strong technical reason for the use of such diaphragms: the stacking of several cavities in a periodic design, in order to maximize theoretical thrust.

It is also conceivable that there could be parametric (nonlinear) interaction between the subsections, hence maximizing their interaction instead of just additive superposition between them.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/08/2017 05:20 pm
...

We are making good progress on our TRL 9 qualification program.

Quote
9. Actual system proven through successful mission operations.   Actual application of the technology in its final form and under mission conditions, such as those encountered in operational test and evaluation (OT&E). Examples include using the system under operational mission conditions.   OT&E (operational test and evaluation) reports.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/NASA_TRL_Meter.jpg)

We are currently holding at TRL 5, while exploring several designs and pathways to deliver complete bolt on go to market EmDrive thruster solutions.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/08/2017 05:25 pm
We are currently holding at TRL 5, while exploring several designs and pathways to deliver complete bolt on go to market EmDrive thruster solutions.

Glad for you Phil. But in this case, and especially for the members of this forum, why didn't you provide any single video of one of your "old" thrusters corresponding to TRL 1, 2, 3 or 4? Therefore a dated design for you. Or even a single photo of a cavity, partial cavity building, or of your test stand?

For the record, you announced your first EmDrive build three years ago. Then sadly, bad luck with disease, but also MANY iteration processes over 36 months. People here desserve at least one picture.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/08/2017 05:42 pm
Ok, everyone is of course entitled to their opinion but all this mocking of "Roger" has to stop now. It's unprofessional. Just explain where you think he is wrong and leave out the emotions please. Thanks.

Seriously?  How about not understanding basic high school physics and Newton/CoM/CoE laws?  A few examples:

- In a closed system, momentum must be conserved.  If you start off stationary and then gain momentum without interacting with any external objects/fields, you break CoM.  Stating that it's an "open system" without explaining which external fields/objects you're interacting with does not help (especially when you claim that "no new physics is needed", which means that you cannot resort to invisible/unknown fields, Mach effect, etc).

- When the sum of the forces acting upon an object points in one direction, the object will move in that direction, not on the opposite direction.  Claiming that the acceleration is caused by a "reaction force" acting upon the object is nonsense because a reaction force is what the object itself exerts on other (external) objects, and not something that is acting upon an object and can cause it to move.

- Claiming that the force can only be measured when the object "is free to accelerate" is nonsense.  How does it know if it's free to accelerate or not?

- Claiming that the thrust decreases with velocity: how does it know what velocity it's has, if it's not interacting with the environment?  What if we change the reference frame (or briefly turn it off and then turn it back on)?

etc etc.

The only nonsense is in rejecting lower energy photons being emitted via inelastic Compton Effect transferred momentum and energy to support velocity increase and KE gain.

It is the increased wavelength and reduced energy photon emission that balances CofM and CofE.

While the  physics of the inelastic Compton Effect may not be the stuff of high school physics, it is still very real, the mechanism behind radiation pressure, how impacting photons transfer momentum and energy to mass and how the reduced energy and monentum of the emitted photon maintains CofM and CofE.
.
You simply ignored most of the original post. Also, Compton effect does not somehow save conservation of momentum in the emDrive. (I'll skip the energy explanation for now, because if you don't get the trivial momentum issue, then you won't get the marginally less obvious energy issue.)

Start with an emDrive which is not moving (0 momentum), turn it on, wait a while, turn it off, wait for all internal RF to die out. If the device is moving, it has momentum, when before it had 0, meaning conservation of momentum is broken unless it interacted with something else (which would require new physics to define that something else). You can't say this momentum came from the photons, because the photons were generated by the device, and have since been absorbed.

Yes, radiation pressure is a thing, but the said radiation is not leaving the cavity. To repeat an analogy I used previously, you saying that radiation pressure conserves momentum in answer to questions about momentum conservation is equivalent to saying 1+1+1+1 = 5, and arguing that this is correct because 1+1=2.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/08/2017 05:53 pm
We are currently holding at TRL 5, while exploring several designs and pathways to deliver complete bolt on go to market EmDrive thruster solutions.

Glad for you Phil. But in this case, and especially for the members of this forum, why didn't you provide any single video of one of your "old" thrusters corresponding to TRL 1, 2, 3 or 4? Therefore a dated design for you. Or even a single photo of a cavity, partial cavity building, or of your test stand?

FC,

Shortly after I recovered enough from my Prostate Cancer issues, I was approached and engaged with a mid size aerospace company to produce an S band thruster that could generate 200mN using less than 4.2kWdc. From that stage onward I worked under a NDA.

Prior to that NDA I had built a 8mN/kW thruster but took no photos as it was just a gravity stack on end plates and cone. Was going to fit flanges and then take photos but the Rf amp failed and my Prostate Cancer and post surgery issues stopped any further work.

There are several patents in process and several papers in the works. When what is released is not my call.

I do intend to revisit my KISS thruster project as there may just be a way to build a 50k Q loaded thruster at low cost, ie under $5k. Maybe.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/08/2017 06:06 pm
Ok, everyone is of course entitled to their opinion but all this mocking of "Roger" has to stop now. It's unprofessional. Just explain where you think he is wrong and leave out the emotions please. Thanks.

Seriously?  How about not understanding basic high school physics and Newton/CoM/CoE laws?  A few examples:

- In a closed system, momentum must be conserved.  If you start off stationary and then gain momentum without interacting with any external objects/fields, you break CoM.  Stating that it's an "open system" without explaining which external fields/objects you're interacting with does not help (especially when you claim that "no new physics is needed", which means that you cannot resort to invisible/unknown fields, Mach effect, etc).

- When the sum of the forces acting upon an object points in one direction, the object will move in that direction, not on the opposite direction.  Claiming that the acceleration is caused by a "reaction force" acting upon the object is nonsense because a reaction force is what the object itself exerts on other (external) objects, and not something that is acting upon an object and can cause it to move.

- Claiming that the force can only be measured when the object "is free to accelerate" is nonsense.  How does it know if it's free to accelerate or not?

- Claiming that the thrust decreases with velocity: how does it know what velocity it's has, if it's not interacting with the environment?  What if we change the reference frame (or briefly turn it off and then turn it back on)?

etc etc.

The only nonsense is in rejecting lower energy photons being emitted via inelastic Compton Effect transferred momentum and energy to support velocity increase and KE gain.

It is the increased wavelength and reduced energy photon emission that balances CofM and CofE.

While the  physics of the inelastic Compton Effect may not be the stuff of high school physics, it is still very real, the mechanism behind radiation pressure, how impacting photons transfer momentum and energy to mass and how the reduced energy and monentum of the emitted photon maintains CofM and CofE.
.
You simply ignored most of the original post. Also, Compton effect does not somehow save conservation of momentum in the emDrive. (I'll skip the energy explanation for now, because if you don't get the trivial momentum issue, then you won't get the marginally less obvious energy issue.)

Start with an emDrive which is not moving (0 momentum), turn it on, wait a while, turn it off, wait for all internal RF to die out. If the device is moving, it has momentum, when before it had 0, meaning conservation of momentum is broken unless it interacted with something else (which would require new physics to define that something else). You can't say this momentum came from the photons, because the photons were generated by the device, and have since been absorbed.

Yes, radiation pressure is a thing, but the said radiation is not leaving the cavity. To repeat an analogy I used previously, you saying that radiation pressure conserves momentum in answer to questions about momentum conservation is equivalent to saying 1+1+1+1 = 5, and arguing that this is correct because 1+1=2.

Meberbs,

The EmDrive works.

Nothing leaves the cavity other than IR photons generated by ohmic heating in the cavity surfaces and some reflected Rf which is thermalised in a dummy load.

The cavity and photons are an open system which allows photon momentum and energy to be transferred to an accelerating cavity at the expense of decreased photon energy and momentum.

During self sustained cavity acceleration,  the internal photons are red shifted with lost photon energy equal to cavity gained KE.

As cavity gained KE is sourced from cavity energy, force is reduced as cavity KE gain increases. Force during acceleration is not constant.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/08/2017 06:12 pm
We are currently holding at TRL 5, while exploring several designs and pathways to deliver complete bolt on go to market EmDrive thruster solutions.

Glad for you Phil. But in this case, and especially for the members of this forum, why didn't you provide any single video of one of your "old" thrusters corresponding to TRL 1, 2, 3 or 4? Therefore a dated design for you. Or even a single photo of a cavity, partial cavity building, or of your test stand?

FC,

Shortly after I recovered enough from my Prostate Cancer issues, I was approached and engaged with a mid size aerospace company to produce an S band thruster that could generate 200mN using less than 4.2kWdc. From that stage onward I worked under a NDA.

Prior to that NDA I had built a 8mN/kW thruster but took no photos as it was just a gravity stack on end plates and cone. Was going to fit flanges and then take photos but the Rf amp failed and my Prostate Cancer and post surgery issues stopped any further work.

There are several patents in process and several papers in the works. When what is released is not my call.

I do intend to revisit my KISS thruster project as there may just be a way to build a 50k Q loaded thruster at low cost, ie under $5k. Maybe.

Fair enough:

- Your 8mn/kW first prototype with a unique defective amp, no photo during testing then lost in translation returning through the Chinese mail: a preposterous situation, but OK, this was a forgivable mistake.
- Your subsequent contract under NDA: OK, no need to present this secret version here.
- Therefore, all you have to do is build a simple thruster (you have the skill now, but no need for the advanced design under NDA, only a simple design between your first 8mN/kW prototype and the KISS thruster project — and no need to make a complicated low cost effective version for everyone, just one for yourself). Then: provide a clear picture of that simple cavity on a test bench, and a few measurements.

Then we will listen to you, carefully. As for now, you've lost everyone talking about achieving TRL9 "very soon" without a single evidence of a TRL1/2/3/4 working prototype (a real one, not a concept drawn on a sheet of paper, Shawyer's PPT slides nor spreadsheet formulae).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/08/2017 06:15 pm
The EmDrive works.

Nothing leaves the cavity.
Therefore momentum is not conserved.

The cavity and photons are an open system which allows photon momentum and energy to be transferred to an accelerating cavity at the expense of decreased photon energy and momentum.
Do you even know the definition of the phrase "open system"? because "nothing leaves the cavity" is basically the definition of a closed system. The photons are generated by the device, and eventually absorbed back by the device, so the drive + photons is clearly a closed system, and you can just look before it is turned on and after it is turned off when the photons don't even exist to avoid confusion. This was already addressed by wicoe (emphasis mine):

- In a closed system, momentum must be conserved.  If you start off stationary and then gain momentum without interacting with any external objects/fields, you break CoM.  Stating that it's an "open system" without explaining which external fields/objects you're interacting with does not help (especially when you claim that "no new physics is needed", which means that you cannot resort to invisible/unknown fields, Mach effect, etc).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 09/08/2017 06:19 pm


The figure 4 your showed comes from another patent, this one:

CN application 105781921A (https://www.google.com/patents/CN105781921A?cl=en), Chen, Yue; Peng Weifeng & Bai Guangming et al., "Electromagnetic thruster cavity based on periodic structure", published 2016-07-20, assigned to China Academy of Space Technology

I think this figure 4 is the cylindrical cavity shown in the Chinese video. Not the first semicylinder from the other patent. Please note the "diaphragm" within this one. To my knowledge nobody understood this "diaphragm cavity" and made any simulation from it. X_RaY maybe?

Chinese version with figures attached.
Maybe this?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1624391#msg1624391
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 09/08/2017 06:33 pm
Quite a day today on this forum. The approach of "Hurricane Chen" has amped things up.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 09/08/2017 06:39 pm
FC,

Shortly after I recovered enough from my Prostate Cancer issues, I was approached and engaged with a mid size aerospace company to produce an S band thruster that could generate 200mN using less than 4.2kWdc. From that stage onward I worked under a NDA.

Prior to that NDA I had built a 8mN/kW thruster but took no photos as it was just a gravity stack on end plates and cone. Was going to fit flanges and then take photos but the Rf amp failed and my Prostate Cancer and post surgery issues stopped any further work.

There are several patents in process and several papers in the works. When what is released is not my call.

I do intend to revisit my KISS thruster project as there may just be a way to build a 50k Q loaded thruster at low cost, ie under $5k. Maybe.

Between the broken promises, increasingly fantastic claims, and a seemingly permanent inability to provide evidence that a development effort is being made, it has become very difficult to give the benefit of the doubt.  :(
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/08/2017 07:04 pm
Quite a day today on this forum. The approach of "Hurricane Chen" has amped things up.
That's is the normal nature of human things, including R&D.  That's why the length of waiting lines never follows a steady average, and when you most need a taxi in NYC they are all occupied  ;)

(http://www.statisticsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/QueueLengthsOverTime.gif)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/08/2017 07:28 pm
Ok, everyone is of course entitled to their opinion but all this mocking of "Roger" has to stop now. It's unprofessional. Just explain where you think he is wrong and leave out the emotions please. Thanks.

Seriously?  How about not understanding basic high school physics and Newton/CoM/CoE laws?  A few examples:

- In a closed system, momentum must be conserved.  If you start off stationary and then gain momentum without interacting with any external objects/fields, you break CoM.  Stating that it's an "open system" without explaining which external fields/objects you're interacting with does not help (especially when you claim that "no new physics is needed", which means that you cannot resort to invisible/unknown fields, Mach effect, etc).

- When the sum of the forces acting upon an object points in one direction, the object will move in that direction, not on the opposite direction.  Claiming that the acceleration is caused by a "reaction force" acting upon the object is nonsense because a reaction force is what the object itself exerts on other (external) objects, and not something that is acting upon an object and can cause it to move.

- Claiming that the force can only be measured when the object "is free to accelerate" is nonsense.  How does it know if it's free to accelerate or not?

- Claiming that the thrust decreases with velocity: how does it know what velocity it's has, if it's not interacting with the environment?  What if we change the reference frame (or briefly turn it off and then turn it back on)?

etc etc.

Yes seriously. As for High School physics, since no one knows for sure how this thing works in spite of proposals from photon pressure to quantum vacuum or ' quantum gravity' to  Mach effects, I suggest that even basic questions regarding whether the system is open or closed is still up for debate. I'm just asking for a little humility and less hubris.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/08/2017 07:57 pm
We are currently holding at TRL 5, while exploring several designs and pathways to deliver complete bolt on go to market EmDrive thruster solutions.

Glad for you Phil. But in this case, and especially for the members of this forum, why didn't you provide any single video of one of your "old" thrusters corresponding to TRL 1, 2, 3 or 4? Therefore a dated design for you. Or even a single photo of a cavity, partial cavity building, or of your test stand?

FC,

Shortly after I recovered enough from my Prostate Cancer issues, I was approached and engaged with a mid size aerospace company to produce an S band thruster that could generate 200mN using less than 4.2kWdc. From that stage onward I worked under a NDA.

Prior to that NDA I had built a 8mN/kW thruster but took no photos as it was just a gravity stack on end plates and cone. Was going to fit flanges and then take photos but the Rf amp failed and my Prostate Cancer and post surgery issues stopped any further work.

There are several patents in process and several papers in the works. When what is released is not my call.

I do intend to revisit my KISS thruster project as there may just be a way to build a 50k Q loaded thruster at low cost, ie under $5k. Maybe.

Fair enough:

- Your 8mn/kW first prototype with a unique defective amp, no photo during testing then lost in translation returning through the Chinese mail: a preposterous situation, but OK, this was a forgivable mistake.
- Your subsequent contract under NDA: OK, no need to present this secret version here.
- Therefore, all you have to do is build a simple thruster (you have the skill now, but no need for the advanced design under NDA, only a simple design between your first 8mN/kW prototype and the KISS thruster project — and no need to make a complicated low cost effective version for everyone, just one for yourself). Then: provide a clear picture of that simple cavity on a test bench, and a few measurements.

Then we will listen to you, carefully. As for now, you've lost everyone talking about achieving TRL9 "very soon" without a single evidence of a TRL1/2/3/4 working prototype (a real one, not a concept drawn on a sheet of paper, Shawyer's PPT slides nor spreadsheet formulae).

FC,

I have made it very clear that I'm engaged in for profit R&D as is Roger, Gilo Industries Group and several others. I'm sure you understand why, pre commercial product release, there will be no disclosure.

Do hope what I share is of value.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RonM on 09/08/2017 08:02 pm
Yes seriously. As for High School physics, since no one knows for sure how this thing works in spite of proposals from photon pressure to quantum vacuum or ' quantum gravity' to  Mach effects, I suggest that even basic questions regarding whether the system is open or closed is still up for debate. I'm just asking for a little humility and less hubris.

What we need is more data. Page after page debating theories and tips for optimizing systems, but no conclusive proof EM drives work. If anyone wants to be taken seriously, you need to show some proof. Let's see some test runs and results. Not just one run and change the configuration, but several runs to build up statistical significance. Then change the orientation of the drive and do another series. Let's see some real experimentation and results above the signal-to-noise level.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 09/08/2017 08:08 pm
Quite a day today on this forum. The approach of "Hurricane Chen" has amped things up.
That's is the normal nature of human things, including R&D.  That's why the length of waiting lines never follows a steady average, and when you most need a taxi in NYC they are all occupied  ;)

And here I am happily retired and you remind me of my  LeanSixSigma days. No fair! ::)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/08/2017 08:09 pm
The EmDrive works.

Nothing leaves the cavity.
Therefore momentum is not conserved.

The cavity and photons are an open system which allows photon momentum and energy to be transferred to an accelerating cavity at the expense of decreased photon energy and momentum.
Do you even know the definition of the phrase "open system"? because "nothing leaves the cavity" is basically the definition of a closed system. The photons are generated by the device, and eventually absorbed back by the device, so the drive + photons is clearly a closed system, and you can just look before it is turned on and after it is turned off when the photons don't even exist to avoid confusion. This was already addressed by wicoe (emphasis mine):

- In a closed system, momentum must be conserved.  If you start off stationary and then gain momentum without interacting with any external objects/fields, you break CoM.  Stating that it's an "open system" without explaining which external fields/objects you're interacting with does not help (especially when you claim that "no new physics is needed", which means that you cannot resort to invisible/unknown fields, Mach effect, etc).

Meberbs,

So you continue to ignore Special Relativity, which makes it very clear the photons and cavity have seperate frames, thus are an open system and allow photon momentum and energy to be transferred to cavity mass while obeying CofM and CofE via lost photon momentum and energy?

This is not difficult to understand.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/08/2017 08:20 pm
FC,

Shortly after I recovered enough from my Prostate Cancer issues, I was approached and engaged with a mid size aerospace company to produce an S band thruster that could generate 200mN using less than 4.2kWdc. From that stage onward I worked under a NDA.

Prior to that NDA I had built a 8mN/kW thruster but took no photos as it was just a gravity stack on end plates and cone. Was going to fit flanges and then take photos but the Rf amp failed and my Prostate Cancer and post surgery issues stopped any further work.

There are several patents in process and several papers in the works. When what is released is not my call.

I do intend to revisit my KISS thruster project as there may just be a way to build a 50k Q loaded thruster at low cost, ie under $5k. Maybe.

Between the broken promises, increasingly fantastic claims, and a seemingly permanent inability to provide evidence that a development effort is being made, it has become very difficult to give the benefit of the doubt.  :(

Hi RS,

If what I share is of value to you in furthering your understanding of why and how the EmDrive works,  that is good.

We expect to be able to offer a complete bolt on TRL 9 EmDrive system product in a few years. Roger/Gilo Industries, the Chinese or one of 5 other groups I know of may beat us to the market.

Both Roger and I will continue to work with Jamie as his work should deliver the proof you all seek. That is as long as he doesn't get sucked by commercial interests that are starting to realise EmDrives do work and can be designed to replace all existing Ion Drives. Lot of money in the Ion Drive market.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/08/2017 08:22 pm
Yes seriously. As for High School physics, since no one knows for sure how this thing works in spite of proposals from photon pressure to quantum vacuum or ' quantum gravity' to  Mach effects, I suggest that even basic questions regarding whether the system is open or closed is still up for debate. I'm just asking for a little humility and less hubris.

What we need is more data. Page after page debating theories and tips for optimizing systems, but no conclusive proof EM drives work. If anyone wants to be taken seriously, you need to show some proof. Let's see some test runs and results. Not just one run and change the configuration, but several runs to build up statistical significance. Then change the orientation of the drive and do another series. Let's see some real experimentation and results above the signal-to-noise level.

It's a lot more complicated than that when some folks make a career out of throwing water on good data and keep moving the bar. The charge that there no good data for EMDrive Mega drive is wearing thin.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/08/2017 08:24 pm
So you continue to ignore Special Relativity, which makes it very clear the photons and cavity have seperate frames, thus are an open system and allow photon momentum and energy to be transferred to cavity mass while obeying CofM and CofE via lost photon momentum and energy?

This is not difficult to understand.
It is apparently difficult for you to understand. What do you think "open system" means?

Special relativity has nothing to do with what has a "separate frame." Me and a basketball I had tossed are moving at different speeds, so you could say that we have different rest frames. This has nothing to do with special relativity. It also has nothing to do with whether the system of me+baskeball is open or closed. (hint, it depends on if I am pushing on anything else)

P.S. Others are doing a good job pointing out the complete lack of evidence provided by you, but I want to note that you "being under NDA" doesn't make sense. If anything it is the company buying from you that should be under NDA, with maybe restrictions on you identifying them, although even that wouldn't be typical.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 09/08/2017 08:49 pm
Seeing the flurry of interesting media evidence emerging from China, actual experimental data by some brave experimenters and news of more institutional replications, I'd encourage everyone to reduce the noise in the channel to a minimum.

If someone doesn't understand or agree with someone else, that's perfectly fine, please just try to avoid repetition of the same ideas again and again.

This channel is a really valuable venue where lots of us can find a condensed view of everything Emdrive, and we should try to keep it as clean as possible.

Thanks and keep up the good posts!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 09/08/2017 08:52 pm
The EmDrive works.

Nothing leaves the cavity.
Therefore momentum is not conserved.

The cavity and photons are an open system which allows photon momentum and energy to be transferred to an accelerating cavity at the expense of decreased photon energy and momentum.
Do you even know the definition of the phrase "open system"? because "nothing leaves the cavity" is basically the definition of a closed system. The photons are generated by the device, and eventually absorbed back by the device, so the drive + photons is clearly a closed system, and you can just look before it is turned on and after it is turned off when the photons don't even exist to avoid confusion. This was already addressed by wicoe (emphasis mine):

- In a closed system, momentum must be conserved.  If you start off stationary and then gain momentum without interacting with any external objects/fields, you break CoM.  Stating that it's an "open system" without explaining which external fields/objects you're interacting with does not help (especially when you claim that "no new physics is needed", which means that you cannot resort to invisible/unknown fields, Mach effect, etc).

Meberbs,

So you continue to ignore Special Relativity, which makes it very clear the photons and cavity have seperate frames, thus are an open system and allow photon momentum and energy to be transferred to cavity mass while obeying CofM and CofE via lost photon momentum and energy?

This is not difficult to understand.

TT,

One of the problems with this argument is that whether you are talking about photons as bouncing balls or even EM waves, transferring momentum to the walls of a container, no one has shown how the net transfer of momentum can wind up as anything but null.

There have been several theoretical speculations that move deep into New Physics, incorporating everything from manipulating mass and/or inertia, spacetime curvature, even the quantum vacuum, but until a well funded lab that is not behind a "cone of silence" has a functional device to work with, there is little chance, that if an EmDrive does work, how it works will be nailed down and publicly published.

More to the point of your argument and present with significant certainty, since you can't or won't provide design detail of any of your as yet publically unproven drives, maybe you could just explain exactly how you have measured and proven how EM radiation pressure is the underlying mechanism. Not how you speculate or imagine it to be, how you have measured and proven it.

Even if you have a funtioning device you are unwilling to unveil, how have you measured the "photon" momentum transfer you claim, as the functional mechanism of operation, should not be covered by an NDA.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: kamill85 on 09/08/2017 09:49 pm
We are currently holding at TRL 5, while exploring several designs and pathways to deliver complete bolt on go to market EmDrive thruster solutions.

Glad for you Phil. But in this case, and especially for the members of this forum, why didn't you provide any single video of one of your "old" thrusters corresponding to TRL 1, 2, 3 or 4? Therefore a dated design for you. Or even a single photo of a cavity, partial cavity building, or of your test stand?

FC,

Shortly after I recovered enough from my Prostate Cancer issues, I was approached and engaged with a mid size aerospace company to produce an S band thruster that could generate 200mN using less than 4.2kWdc. From that stage onward I worked under a NDA.

Prior to that NDA I had built a 8mN/kW thruster but took no photos as it was just a gravity stack on end plates and cone. Was going to fit flanges and then take photos but the Rf amp failed and my Prostate Cancer and post surgery issues stopped any further work.

There are several patents in process and several papers in the works. When what is released is not my call.

I do intend to revisit my KISS thruster project as there may just be a way to build a 50k Q loaded thruster at low cost, ie under $5k. Maybe.

Fair enough:

- Your 8mn/kW first prototype with a unique defective amp, no photo during testing then lost in translation returning through the Chinese mail: a preposterous situation, but OK, this was a forgivable mistake.
- Your subsequent contract under NDA: OK, no need to present this secret version here.
- Therefore, all you have to do is build a simple thruster (you have the skill now, but no need for the advanced design under NDA, only a simple design between your first 8mN/kW prototype and the KISS thruster project — and no need to make a complicated low cost effective version for everyone, just one for yourself). Then: provide a clear picture of that simple cavity on a test bench, and a few measurements.

Then we will listen to you, carefully. As for now, you've lost everyone talking about achieving TRL9 "very soon" without a single evidence of a TRL1/2/3/4 working prototype (a real one, not a concept drawn on a sheet of paper, Shawyer's PPT slides nor spreadsheet formulae).

FC,

I have made it very clear that I'm engaged in for profit R&D as is Roger, Gilo Industries Group and several others. I'm sure you understand why, pre commercial product release, there will be no disclosure.

Do hope what I share is of value.

I'm sure there are more than few well qualified people on this Forum that would gladly sign any NDA to visit your lab and see for themselves how the 55N/kW drive works. There always seems to be something that "prevents" you from providing any real evidence. I personally do not know any person that did not take a single picture or a video while doing some engineering work, you are the only one. Moreover, this might be an unpopular opinion, but from all your posts across years, I deducted that most likely you did not make a single build, ever, let alone make one that produces any thrust.

On the EMDrive it self - is it possible that when frequency matches certain cavity diameter/shape, a region of space within the cavity is under such stress that space becomes very slightly bent? Could even tiniest space curvature result in uneven net force on either end?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/08/2017 10:07 pm
I finished the new calibration arm. :D  This replaces the more cumbersome version mounted on the tripod and also adds a dual function of RF on/off logging to the Analogue Digital Converter (ADC). Since the RF system is isolated on the torsional pendulum, but the ADC logging system is off the pendulum, properly logging RF on/off has been tedious as before I was doing so manually. This new system uses a 2.4GHz antenna positioned very close the the frustum. The small bit of RF leaking out during tests is detected using an RF power detector and sent to the ADC. I also have the ability to amplify this leaked RF signal if necessary. This basically finishes the planned alterations for the torsional pendulum test stand. Now I'm just wrapping up the wiring for the new 30W amplifier.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: otlski on 09/08/2017 11:33 pm

I have made it very clear that I'm engaged in for profit R&D as is Roger, Gilo Industries Group and several others. I'm sure you understand why, pre commercial product release, there will be no disclosure.

Do hope what I share is of value.

It is difficult to understand why Roger would help breed a competitor (you, TT) and potentially lose his first to market position.  Does he not have to answer to his investors and partners?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/08/2017 11:54 pm
There's no way to profit from this working (if it does) because if it does, much bigger interests are going to make that impossible. Everybody is going to be making them, and better.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: otlski on 09/09/2017 01:10 am
There's no way to profit from this working (if it does) because if it does, much bigger interests are going to make that impossible. Everybody is going to be making them, and better.

Agreed on all counts.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/09/2017 01:40 am
Dr Chen Yue's recent interview about the CAST EmDrive from the CCTV show is now available on YouTube. As I don't understand Chinese, I don't know though if Chen Yue speaks of the research about RF resonant cavities in another part of the show.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mdcer1QQLrA

I activated the option to let anyone with a YouTube account add a transcript directly in YouTube. Hope someone fluent in both Chinese and English will do it.
https://www.youtube.com/timedtext_video?v=Mdcer1QQLrA&ref=share
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: jay343 on 09/09/2017 03:31 am
RIP Jerry E. Pournelle. He seemed to be genuinely excited that you folks may well be opening a future like the ones he loved to write about.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 09/09/2017 03:51 am
RIP Jerry E. Pournelle. He seemed to be genuinely excited that you folks may well be opening a future like the ones he loved to write about.

Yes, I thought of this as soon as I learned of his passing, all while we are having more news from China and elsewhere. He dedicated some thoughts to this in his blog last year:

https://www.jerrypournelle.com/chaosmanor/china-claims-orbital-test-of-em-drive/

He was apparently aware and following what was going on. RIP.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: cosmo on 09/09/2017 05:42 am
We are currently holding at TRL 5, while exploring several designs and pathways to deliver complete bolt on go to market EmDrive thruster solutions.

Glad for you Phil. But in this case, and especially for the members of this forum, why didn't you provide any single video of one of your "old" thrusters corresponding to TRL 1, 2, 3 or 4? Therefore a dated design for you. Or even a single photo of a cavity, partial cavity building, or of your test stand?

FC,

Shortly after I recovered enough from my Prostate Cancer issues, I was approached and engaged with a mid size aerospace company to produce an S band thruster that could generate 200mN using less than 4.2kWdc. From that stage onward I worked under a NDA.

Prior to that NDA I had built a 8mN/kW thruster but took no photos as it was just a gravity stack on end plates and cone. Was going to fit flanges and then take photos but the Rf amp failed and my Prostate Cancer and post surgery issues stopped any further work.

There are several patents in process and several papers in the works. When what is released is not my call.

I do intend to revisit my KISS thruster project as there may just be a way to build a 50k Q loaded thruster at low cost, ie under $5k. Maybe.

Hi TT,
In your message above, you state that "Prior to that NDA I had built a 8mN/kW thruster but took no photos as it was just a gravity stack on end plates and cone.".   If I read this correctly, then with this stack of parts (sitting on a scale?) you were able to measure  8mN/kW?  This does not seem to jive with the requirement that the unit be free to accelerate.  Can you please elaborate on this?  As this was disclosed prior to NDA's can we get additional details on the methodology of measuring the 8mN/kW?  Was this reported data based on a change in the scale reading with the device operating?
Thank you,
Kurt

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mark7777777 on 09/09/2017 06:40 am
Dr Chen Yue's recent interview about the CAST EmDrive from the CCTV show is now available on YouTube. As I don't understand Chinese, I don't know though if Chen Yue speaks of the research about RF resonant cavities in another part of the show.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mdcer1QQLrA

I activated the option to let anyone with a YouTube account add a transcript directly in YouTube. Hope someone fluent in both Chinese and English will do it.
https://www.youtube.com/timedtext_video?v=Mdcer1QQLrA&ref=share

Here's a suggested machine translation method if someone has the time to do it:

https://techwiser.com/transcribe-youtube-video/

Then https://translate.google.com/ after.



Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/09/2017 09:00 am
Dr Chen Yue's recent interview about the CAST EmDrive from the CCTV show is now available on YouTube. As I don't understand Chinese, I don't know though if Chen Yue speaks of the research about RF resonant cavities in another part of the show.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mdcer1QQLrA

I activated the option to let anyone with a YouTube account add a transcript directly in YouTube. Hope someone fluent in both Chinese and English will do it.
https://www.youtube.com/timedtext_video?v=Mdcer1QQLrA&ref=share

Here's a suggested machine translation method if someone has the time to do it:

https://techwiser.com/transcribe-youtube-video/

Then https://translate.google.com/ after.

Automatic translation from Chinese to English always gives gibberish.
Although it can be quite funny sometimes. An example of automatic translation from English to Chinese:

Original:

(https://media.giphy.com/media/avgwsxUlcROy4/giphy.gif)

Translated:

(https://i.redditmedia.com/iqxJbM99QhBtn6_PnSAxUAxYl0wEVEn4dJbUPVWL2Ic.jpg?w=320&s=d396ab2a5fbd716b0e0b5229f3b75ca6)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 09/09/2017 11:47 am
Here is a rerun of the cylindrical cavity model with metal ring structure in higher quality. I think it's a TE022 where the lower lobes are deformed what leads to asymmetric conditions..


Quote from:  Chen Yue
[0016] The resonant cavity is rectangular, plate-shaped structural unit structure having a rectangular notch; interval each structural unit is less than the width of the structural units; bilaterally symmetrical structural unit and side walls of the contact cavity opened a gap.

[0017] The cylindrical cavity, a cyclic structure as a structural unit, each interval is less than the height of the ring structure of the cyclic structure.

[0018] The advantages of the present invention over the prior art in that:

[0019] I) of the present patent by introducing a periodic structure design, can effectively localized electromagnetic field in the vicinity of the periodic structure, in theory, can improve the degree greater degree of uneven distribution of the electromagnetic field, so the thrust generated by the power unit higher than the existing cavities the design of;

[0020] 2) the shape of the cavity is more flexible, the cavity may be rectangular or circular, ease of use and installation works, but only for the existing design or pyramidal frustum;

BRIEF DESCRIPTION

[0021] FIG. 1 is based on a rectangular plate-like cavity notched front view of the periodic structure;

[0022] FIG. 2 is based on a rectangular plate-like cavity notched periodic structure side view;

[0023] FIG. 3 is based on a rectangular cavity notched plate-like electric field distribution diagram of the periodic structure;

[0024] FIG. 4 is based on a cylindrical cavity ring periodic structures elevational view;

[0025] FIG. 5 is a cylindrical cavity based on cyclic periodic structures a top view;

[0026] FIG. 6 is a cylindrical cavity based on the electric field distribution diagram cyclic periodic structures.

[0028] I) the particular design of the periodic structure of the sheet-like (plate-like structure comprises a notch), a cyclic structure, each of the structural elements are arranged periodically in the local space of the cavity;

[0036] cyclic structure design cycle, a total of three rings, respectively an inner diameter of 69mm, 129mm, 189mm, ring thickness of 1mm, the height of the ring is 70mm, three-ring structure normal to Z, according to the theory of electromagnetic design, ring structure spacing is less than the height of the ring, take the 60_ in this case. The electric field distribution in Figure 6; ^

[0037] The present invention is not described in details known to those skilled in the art.

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=41732.0;attach=1398626;image)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/09/2017 12:40 pm
Here is a rerun of the cylindrical cavity model with metal ring structure in higher quality. I think it's a TE022 where the lower lobes are deformed what leads to asymmetric conditions..

...
This is quite different (concerning the behavior of the electromagnetic field) from the concept of Roger Shawyer, the experiments at NASA Eagleworks and the Do-It-Yourself experiments.  It is closer to Cannae's design, but still different from either of them.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Notsosureofit on 09/09/2017 03:17 pm
I'm wondering if this type of cylindrical geometry might lend itself to an analytical solution ?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/09/2017 04:22 pm
We are currently holding at TRL 5, while exploring several designs and pathways to deliver complete bolt on go to market EmDrive thruster solutions.

Glad for you Phil. But in this case, and especially for the members of this forum, why didn't you provide any single video of one of your "old" thrusters corresponding to TRL 1, 2, 3 or 4? Therefore a dated design for you. Or even a single photo of a cavity, partial cavity building, or of your test stand?

FC,

Shortly after I recovered enough from my Prostate Cancer issues, I was approached and engaged with a mid size aerospace company to produce an S band thruster that could generate 200mN using less than 4.2kWdc. From that stage onward I worked under a NDA.

Prior to that NDA I had built a 8mN/kW thruster but took no photos as it was just a gravity stack on end plates and cone. Was going to fit flanges and then take photos but the Rf amp failed and my Prostate Cancer and post surgery issues stopped any further work.

There are several patents in process and several papers in the works. When what is released is not my call.

I do intend to revisit my KISS thruster project as there may just be a way to build a 50k Q loaded thruster at low cost, ie under $5k. Maybe.

Hi TT,
In your message above, you state that "Prior to that NDA I had built a 8mN/kW thruster but took no photos as it was just a gravity stack on end plates and cone.".   If I read this correctly, then with this stack of parts (sitting on a scale?) you were able to measure  8mN/kW?  This does not seem to jive with the requirement that the unit be free to accelerate.  Can you please elaborate on this?  As this was disclosed prior to NDA's can we get additional details on the methodology of measuring the 8mN/kW?  Was this reported data based on a change in the scale reading with the device operating?
Thank you,
Kurt

Hi Kurt,

The 8mN/kW thruater used adjustable duty cycle and reputation rate pulsed Rf, which can show what looks like a static force when working against a spring constant load, such as a scale. These scales do allow some movement or acceleration to occur.

Roger's Experimental and Demonstrator technical papers explain this pulsed Rf effect and show that force generation can be measured using scales:

http://www.emdrive.com/FeasibilityStudytechnicalreportissue2.pdf
http://www.emdrive.com/DemonstratorTechnicalReportIssue2.pdf

What happens is a continuous string of short pulses of Rf produces a continuous string of short pulses of acceleration, which are observed by the scale as continuous static thrust when in fact it is not.

For the 8mN/kW thruster tests, a 3kg max scale with a resolution of +-0.01g was used.

As per the 1st link, Roger did report on the duty cycle and rep rate of his Rf pulses, attached, which I duplicated. His pulsed Rf was caused by the 1/2 wave rectified power supply that powered his 2.45GHz magnetron. I used a single freq rf gen and 100W rf amp that had a facility to pulse the Rf output.

Roger also showed how the load cell on his scale responded to the pulses of acceleration as per the last 2 attachments. I did plan to mod my scale and record the output of the load cells but other events stopped that from happening.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 09/09/2017 04:49 pm
Much excitement since TT published the list of ?9 tips for EMdrive construction, but i don't think the following has been mentioned here.

On thing struck me comparing this to recent output from Shawyer's recent Shrivenham presentation. There he spoke of ''second generation" (I think that was the term) thrusters being high thrust, low acceleration in the context of supertanker propulsion.

To all intents and purposes, supertanker propulsion is a zero acceleration environment. I can't square this with the requirement that the frustrum be free to accelerate on a test stand to measure force.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/09/2017 05:01 pm
Much excitement since TT published the list of ?9 tips for EMdrive construction, but i don't think the following has been mentioned here.

On thing struck me comparing this to recent output from Shawyer's recent Shrivenham presentation. There he spoke of ''second generation" (I think that was the term) thrusters being high thrust, low acceleration in the context of supertanker propulsion.

To all intents and purposes, supertanker propulsion is a zero acceleration environment. I can't square this with the requirement that the frustrum be free to accelerate on a test stand to measure force.

Hi Rert,

Roger uses pulsed Rf as I do. Please review my last post just before yours.

To levitate a mass or push a supertanker requires the use of pulsed Rf, which is really a continuous string of very short bursts of acceleration with a short rest period between.

When that technique is applied in space, interesting things happen as a new inertial rest frame is created between each short burst of acceleration. That rest frame can then be used to measure velocity and KE increase during the next short burst of acceleration.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/09/2017 05:02 pm
So you continue to ignore Special Relativity, which makes it very clear the photons and cavity have seperate frames, thus are an open system and allow photon momentum and energy to be transferred to cavity mass while obeying CofM and CofE via lost photon momentum and energy?

This is not difficult to understand.
It is apparently difficult for you to understand. What do you think "open system" means?

Special relativity has nothing to do with what has a "separate frame." Me and a basketball I had tossed are moving at different speeds, so you could say that we have different rest frames. This has nothing to do with special relativity. It also has nothing to do with whether the system of me+baskeball is open or closed. (hint, it depends on if I am pushing on anything else)

P.S. Others are doing a good job pointing out the complete lack of evidence provided by you, but I want to note that you "being under NDA" doesn't make sense. If anything it is the company buying from you that should be under NDA, with maybe restrictions on you identifying them, although even that wouldn't be typical.

You can't equate the way light works to basketballs in simple classical reference frames. So TT is partly correct.
TT saying he is under an NDA agreement makes perfect sense especially if he has been paid by some company.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: wicoe on 09/09/2017 05:19 pm
When that technique is applied in space, interesting things happen as a new inertial rest frame is created between each short burst of acceleration.

Am I the only one who is confused by these kinds of statements?  Reference frames are not created, they are abstract concepts.  You can "create" a reference frame by simply thinking about it (i.e. take a ref. frame in which an object is initially at rest, but when it starts accelerating, the frame is still there, but it is not necessarily "attached" to the object).  A special type of ref frames are inertial ref frames, in which all objects which have a zero net force applied to them are not accelerating.  Inertial frames are useful for CoM/CoE calculations.  If you associate a ref frame with an accelerating object, it becomes a non-inertial frame, and you can no longer treat it as inertial when doing your calculations.

You can't equate the way light works to basketballs in simple classical reference frames. So TT is partly correct.

What is a simple classical reference frame?  Are there other reference frames besides "simple classical"?  Inertial reference frames are perfectly suitable for both Newtonian mechanics and Special Relativity.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/09/2017 05:21 pm
So you continue to ignore Special Relativity, which makes it very clear the photons and cavity have seperate frames, thus are an open system and allow photon momentum and energy to be transferred to cavity mass while obeying CofM and CofE via lost photon momentum and energy?

This is not difficult to understand.
It is apparently difficult for you to understand. What do you think "open system" means?

Special relativity has nothing to do with what has a "separate frame." Me and a basketball I had tossed are moving at different speeds, so you could say that we have different rest frames. This has nothing to do with special relativity. It also has nothing to do with whether the system of me+baskeball is open or closed. (hint, it depends on if I am pushing on anything else)

P.S. Others are doing a good job pointing out the complete lack of evidence provided by you, but I want to note that you "being under NDA" doesn't make sense. If anything it is the company buying from you that should be under NDA, with maybe restrictions on you identifying them, although even that wouldn't be typical.

You can't equate the way light works to basketballs in simple classical reference frames. So TT is partly correct.

Hi Bob,

What happens to the photons trapped inside the cavity is explained by microwave physics and the Compton Effect that defines each time a photon impacts an orbital electron of a metallic atom both CofE and CofM are in effect.

Roger has stated many times that if the cavity is not accelerating relative to the trapped photons, NO FORCE IS GENERATED. Roger has also stated that the cavity needs an external force to be applied to initiale small end forward acceleration.

So the question should be: Why does acceleration produce an asymmetric force that supports self sustained acceleration?

To be VERY CLEAR. A non accelerating cavity, relative to the trapped photons, WILL NOT GENERATE ANY FORCE NOR WILL IT INITIATE ACCELERATION.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: wicoe on 09/09/2017 05:27 pm
To be VERY CLEAR. A non accelerating cavity, relative to the trapped photons, WILL NOT GENERATE ANY FORCE NOR WILL IT INITIATE ACCELERATION.

How can an object accelerate "relative to the trapped photons"?  Acceleration only makes sense relative to a certain reference frame.  You cannot associate a reference frame with a photon because it always propagates with the same speed in ANY reference frame.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/09/2017 05:28 pm
When that technique is applied in space, interesting things happen as a new inertial rest frame is created between each short burst of acceleration.

Am I the only one who is confused by these kinds of statements?  Reference frames are not created, they are abstract concepts.  You can "create" a reference frame by simply thinking about it (i.e. take a ref. frame in which an object is initially at rest, but when it starts accelerating, the frame is still there, but it is not necessarily "attached" to the object).  A special type of ref frames are inertial ref frames, in which all objects which have a zero net force applied to them are not accelerating.  Inertial frames are useful for CoM/CoE calculations.  If you associate a ref frame with an accelerating object, it becomes a non-inertial frame, and you can no longer treat it as inertial when doing your calculations.

You can't equate the way light works to basketballs in simple classical reference frames. So TT is partly correct.

What is a simple classical reference frame?  Are there other reference frames besides "simple classical"?  Inertial reference frames are perfectly suitable for both Newtonian mechanics and Special Relativity.

Hi Wicoe,

When an object's mass stops accelerating, the velocity of the mass is then constant and thus a new inertial reference frames is created, which is different to the inertial reference frame of the mass pre acceleration.

If that explanation doesn't work for you,  please explain the above sequence in your words.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/09/2017 05:29 pm
So you continue to ignore Special Relativity, which makes it very clear the photons and cavity have seperate frames, thus are an open system and allow photon momentum and energy to be transferred to cavity mass while obeying CofM and CofE via lost photon momentum and energy?

This is not difficult to understand.
It is apparently difficult for you to understand. What do you think "open system" means?

Special relativity has nothing to do with what has a "separate frame." Me and a basketball I had tossed are moving at different speeds, so you could say that we have different rest frames. This has nothing to do with special relativity. It also has nothing to do with whether the system of me+baskeball is open or closed. (hint, it depends on if I am pushing on anything else)

P.S. Others are doing a good job pointing out the complete lack of evidence provided by you, but I want to note that you "being under NDA" doesn't make sense. If anything it is the company buying from you that should be under NDA, with maybe restrictions on you identifying them, although even that wouldn't be typical.

You can't equate the way light works to basketballs in simple classical reference frames. So TT is partly correct.

Hi Bob,

What happens to the photons trapped inside the cavity is explained by microwave physics and the Compton Effect that defines each time a photon impacts an orbital electron of a metallic atom both CofE and CofM are in effect.

Roger has stated many times that if the cavity is not accelerating relative to the trapped photons, NO FORCE IS GENERATED. Roger has also stated that the cavity needs an external force to be applied to initiale small end forward acceleration.

So the question should be: Why does acceleration produce an asymmetric force that supports self sustained acceleration?

To be VERY CLEAR. A non accelerating cavity, relative to the trapped photons, WILL NOT GENERATE ANY FORCE NOR WILL IT INITIATE ACCELERATION.

That complicates things and I doubt that. Otherwise you would need some auxiliary device to get it started in space.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/09/2017 05:31 pm
To be VERY CLEAR. A non accelerating cavity, relative to the trapped photons, WILL NOT GENERATE ANY FORCE NOR WILL IT INITIATE ACCELERATION.

How can an object accelerate "relative to the trapped photons"?  Acceleration only makes sense relative to a certain reference frame.  You cannot associate a reference frame with a photon because it always propagates with the same speed in ANY reference frame.

Hi Wicoe,

Acceleration of the cavity, relative to the trapped photons, generates red Doppler shifted photons at the small end and blue Doppler shifted photons at the big end.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/09/2017 05:34 pm
That complicates things and I doubt that. Otherwise you would need some auxiliary device to get it started in space.

Hi Bob,

It is correct. An external force is needed to move the cavity from Idle Mode to Motor Mode. Clearly explained in Roger's various papers.

In a non accelerating cavity there are no Doppler shifted photons and without Doppler shifted photons there is no force generated, no acceleration and no self sustaining Doppler shifted photons.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RonM on 09/09/2017 05:37 pm
When that technique is applied in space, interesting things happen as a new inertial rest frame is created between each short burst of acceleration. That rest frame can then be used to measure velocity and KE increase during the next short burst of acceleration.

To be VERY CLEAR. A non accelerating cavity, relative to the trapped photons, WILL NOT GENERATE ANY FORCE NOR WILL IT INITIATE ACCELERATION.

That complicates things and I doubt that. Otherwise you would need some auxiliary device to get it started in space.

Good point, Bob012345. If the EM drive is accelerating in short bursts and it does not initiate acceleration by itself, what is creating the initial acceleration to get each burst started?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: wicoe on 09/09/2017 05:39 pm
Acceleration of the cavity, relative to the trapped photons, generates red Doppler shifted photons at the small end and blue Doppler shifted photons at the big end.

Thanks!  So you need a constant external force to be applied to the EmDrive to cause acceleration and generate the doppler shift difference?  And of course, the EmDrive will exert an equal but opposite reaction force onto the source of that force... or is it going to "help" the external force and act in the same direction, thus amplifying it?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/09/2017 05:40 pm
When that technique is applied in space, interesting things happen as a new inertial rest frame is created between each short burst of acceleration. That rest frame can then be used to measure velocity and KE increase during the next short burst of acceleration.

To be VERY CLEAR. A non accelerating cavity, relative to the trapped photons, WILL NOT GENERATE ANY FORCE NOR WILL IT INITIATE ACCELERATION.

That complicates things and I doubt that. Otherwise you would need some auxiliary device to get it started in space.

Good point, Bob012345. If the EM drive is accelerating in short bursts and it does not initiate acceleration by itself, what is creating the initial acceleration to get each burst started?

Hi Ron,

Vibration by various ships systems will provide the necessary very short external acceleration force.

Or maybe fit a mechanical vibrator to the big end plate?

The necessity of the acceleration force is very real.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/09/2017 05:41 pm
When that technique is applied in space, interesting things happen as a new inertial rest frame is created between each short burst of acceleration. That rest frame can then be used to measure velocity and KE increase during the next short burst of acceleration.

To be VERY CLEAR. A non accelerating cavity, relative to the trapped photons, WILL NOT GENERATE ANY FORCE NOR WILL IT INITIATE ACCELERATION.

That complicates things and I doubt that. Otherwise you would need some auxiliary device to get it started in space.

Good point, Bob012345. If the EM drive is accelerating in short bursts and it does not initiate acceleration by itself, what is creating the initial acceleration to get each burst started?

If it works I think it works without such complications.  I think that's just a function of the Shawyer theory which I'm not endorsing.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/09/2017 05:42 pm
When that technique is applied in space, interesting things happen as a new inertial rest frame is created between each short burst of acceleration. That rest frame can then be used to measure velocity and KE increase during the next short burst of acceleration.

To be VERY CLEAR. A non accelerating cavity, relative to the trapped photons, WILL NOT GENERATE ANY FORCE NOR WILL IT INITIATE ACCELERATION.

That complicates things and I doubt that. Otherwise you would need some auxiliary device to get it started in space.

Good point, Bob012345. If the EM drive is accelerating in short bursts and it does not initiate acceleration by itself, what is creating the initial acceleration to get each burst started?

Hi Ron,

Vibration by various ships systems will provide the necessary very short external acceleration force.

Or maybe fit a mechanical vibrator to the big end plate?

The necessity of the acceleration force is very real.

Basically, you are turning this into a Mach effect thruster! Maybe that's just how it works anyway.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/09/2017 05:43 pm
Acceleration of the cavity, relative to the trapped photons, generates red Doppler shifted photons at the small end and blue Doppler shifted photons at the big end.

Thanks!  So you need a constant external force to be applied to the EmDrive to cause acceleration and generate the doppler shift difference?  And of course, the EmDrive will exert an equal but opposite reaction force onto the source of that force... or is it going to "help" the external force and act in the same direction, thus amplifying it?

Hi Wicoe,

Only need a very short time period external force to initiate acceleration. After internal Doppler shifts start, the cavity generates it's own force to support further acceleration.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/09/2017 05:46 pm
When that technique is applied in space, interesting things happen as a new inertial rest frame is created between each short burst of acceleration. That rest frame can then be used to measure velocity and KE increase during the next short burst of acceleration.

To be VERY CLEAR. A non accelerating cavity, relative to the trapped photons, WILL NOT GENERATE ANY FORCE NOR WILL IT INITIATE ACCELERATION.

That complicates things and I doubt that. Otherwise you would need some auxiliary device to get it started in space.

Good point, Bob012345. If the EM drive is accelerating in short bursts and it does not initiate acceleration by itself, what is creating the initial acceleration to get each burst started?

If it works I think it works without such complications.  I think that's just a function of the Shawyer theory which I'm not endorsing.

Hi Bob,

Without an initial short external force that causes initial acceleration, how will initial cavity Doppler shifts occur?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/09/2017 05:49 pm
So you continue to ignore Special Relativity, which makes it very clear the photons and cavity have seperate frames, thus are an open system and allow photon momentum and energy to be transferred to cavity mass while obeying CofM and CofE via lost photon momentum and energy?

This is not difficult to understand.
It is apparently difficult for you to understand. What do you think "open system" means?

Special relativity has nothing to do with what has a "separate frame." Me and a basketball I had tossed are moving at different speeds, so you could say that we have different rest frames. This has nothing to do with special relativity. It also has nothing to do with whether the system of me+baskeball is open or closed. (hint, it depends on if I am pushing on anything else)

P.S. Others are doing a good job pointing out the complete lack of evidence provided by you, but I want to note that you "being under NDA" doesn't make sense. If anything it is the company buying from you that should be under NDA, with maybe restrictions on you identifying them, although even that wouldn't be typical.

You can't equate the way light works to basketballs in simple classical reference frames. So TT is partly correct.

Hi Bob,

What happens to the photons trapped inside the cavity is explained by microwave physics and the Compton Effect that defines each time a photon impacts an orbital electron of a metallic atom both CofE and CofM are in effect.

Roger has stated many times that if the cavity is not accelerating relative to the trapped photons, NO FORCE IS GENERATED. Roger has also stated that the cavity needs an external force to be applied to initiale small end forward acceleration.

So the question should be: Why does acceleration produce an asymmetric force that supports self sustained acceleration?

To be VERY CLEAR. A non accelerating cavity, relative to the trapped photons, WILL NOT GENERATE ANY FORCE NOR WILL IT INITIATE ACCELERATION.

TT, Why don't you answer my question from before before going off on another tangent:  What do you think "open system" means?

Or if that is too hard for you try these:
What is the total momentum of a cavity at rest before you turn it on?
What is the total momentum of the cavity after it has accelerated some amount and then been turned off (lets say a 10 kg cavity and 5m/s velocity)?
After the cavity is off, is there anything else in the universe that has different momentum than before the drive was turned on?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/09/2017 05:55 pm
Giys,

To support the need for an initial accelerative force to trigger EmDrive self generated accelerative force, here is what Roger states.

Please review page 3, section 4 of this document:
http://www.emdrive.com/EmDriveForceMeasurement.pdf

where Roger states:

Quote
4.  Practical  static  measurement  techniques

A  number of  methods  have  been  used  in  the  UK,  the  US  and  China  to  measure  the forces  produced  by  an  EmDrive  thruster.

In  each  successful  case,  the  EmDrive  force data  has  been  superimposed  on  an  increasing  or decreasing  background  force, generated  by  the  test  equipment  itself.

Indeed,  in  the  UK  when  the  background  force  changes were  eliminated,  in  an  effort to  improve  force  measurement  resolution,  no  EmDrive  force  was  measured.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/09/2017 06:06 pm
TT, Why don't you answer my question from before before going off on another tangent:  What do you think "open system" means?

Or if that is too hard for you try these:
What is the total momentum of a cavity at rest before you turn it on?
What is the total momentum of the cavity after it has accelerated some amount and then been turned off (lets say a 10 kg cavity and 5m/s velocity)?
After the cavity is off, is there anything else in the universe that has different momentum than before the drive was turned on?

Meberbs,

Please refer to the image I posted earlier about the subject of open systems. To me it is self explanatory.

As to referencing momentum to distant bodies, as far as I understand it, that is an unproven theory. It really surprises me why you would try to use a unproven theory in our discussions?

Especially as doing a multiple number of short busts of acceleration, creating constant velocity interial rest frames between, is totally with-in existing physics.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: wicoe on 09/09/2017 06:11 pm
Please refer to the image I posted earlier about the subject of open systems. To me it is self explanatory.

Sorry, it does not look self-explanatory to me.. would you care to elaborate?  Using words, not images.

As to referencing momentum to distant bodies, as far as I understand it, that is an unproven theory. It really surprises me why you would try to use a unproven theory in our discussions?

Especially as doing a multiple number of short busts of acceleration, creating constant velocity interial rest frames between, is totally with-in existing physics.

Why do you keep referring to ref frames as "being created"?  They are abstract concepts, they are not created nor destroyed.  Regardless of the way you apply power to the "EmDrive", those reference frames can be "created" in your mind, by simply thinking about them and doing calculations.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/09/2017 06:18 pm
TT, Why don't you answer my question from before before going off on another tangent:  What do you think "open system" means?

Or if that is too hard for you try these:
What is the total momentum of a cavity at rest before you turn it on?
What is the total momentum of the cavity after it has accelerated some amount and then been turned off (lets say a 10 kg cavity and 5m/s velocity)?
After the cavity is off, is there anything else in the universe that has different momentum than before the drive was turned on?

Meberbs,

Please refer to the image I posted earlier about the subject of open systems. To me it is self explanatory.
That image does not include a definition of the phrase "open system." it does however indicate that the person who made it does not know what "open system" means. So again, can you define this phrase, or do you have no idea what you are talking about?

As to referencing momentum to distant bodies, as far as I understand it, that is an unproven theory. It really surprises me why you would try to use a unproven theory in our discussions?
What in the world are you talking about? I asked you trivial questions, about high school level Newtonian physics.

Especially as doing a multiple number of short busts of acceleration, creating constant velocity interial rest frames between, is totally with-in existing physics.
As wicoe stated previously, this sentence in nonsensical. The phrase "creating a rest frame" does not have any meaning in the same way that "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" is grammatically correct, but nonsensical.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/09/2017 06:27 pm
It is natural to conjecture whether the Chinese EM Drive is a deception or a real program (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_deception). 


However, if it is deception, it is an elaborate one (as shown by the more complicated electromagnetic fields in https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1721229#msg1721229 ), and more importantly it is being played (for now) on the CCP and related funding sources, not directly on the West. 

It does not appear to be a project that emanated from or interacted with Prof. Yang's research.  It appears completely independent: very different designs, and different beginnings.

The Chinese sources did not even bother to put English captions on the video, so it cannot be claimed that they are playing this directly to the West.  At most it is indirect.

I guess that Reagan's Star Wars could be mentioned by skeptics as a recent program that the news (New York Times) claimed to involve deliberate deception on the Soviets (see for example: http://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/18/us/lies-and-rigged-star-wars-test-fooled-the-kremlin-and-congress.html?mcubz=0)

Quote
Officials in the "Star Wars" project rigged a crucial 1984 test and faked other data in a program of deception that misled Congress as well as the intended target, the Soviet Union, four former Reagan Administration officials said.

The deception program was designed to feed the Kremlin half-truths and lies about the project, the former Administration officials said. It helped persuade the Soviets to spend tens of billions of dollars to counter the American effort to develop a space-based shield against nuclear attack proposed by former President Ronald Reagan in 1983, they said.


One big difference with Star Wars, is that it is relatively very cheap to do this EM Drive R&D (in comparison with the Star Wars project), so even as a deception, it does not make much sense because it would not divert much defense money to seriously investigate the EM Drive in the West.  There are much better ways to produce deception than by a program that a number of people are currently investigating in their own homes... You could not do a Do-It-Yourself with Star Wars.  Getting the Soviets to spend a lot of money in their Buran -with the thought that it could be used to deploy large payloads in LEO needing cosmonauts or needing repair- servicing- diverted a huge amount of money (15 billion rubles).  The cost of these EM Drives is nothing by comparison.  In FY 2015, Pentagon and related spending totaled $598 billion.



Also the Chinese satellite being shown on Chinese TV produces 30,000 watts, so they have a good amount of power, 30 kW to play with, apparently!

My conclusion is that it is much more probable that this is not a deception.  That the Chinese saw the EM Drive as a lottery ticket,  as an out-of-the-money option: an R&D project that is very cheap to investigate and that has an unlikely big payoff.  If the likely (*) outcome takes place that it does not work in space, then they lost very little in money.  If it does work, then they reap a huge payoff for a very small amount of money. 

(*) Why likely? due to the lack of an accepted theoretical explanation as to why it should work
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/09/2017 06:35 pm
Please refer to the image I posted earlier about the subject of open systems. To me it is self explanatory.

Sorry, it does not look self-explanatory to me.. would you care to elaborate?  Using words, not images.

As to referencing momentum to distant bodies, as far as I understand it, that is an unproven theory. It really surprises me why you would try to use a unproven theory in our discussions?

Especially as doing a multiple number of short busts of acceleration, creating constant velocity interial rest frames between, is totally with-in existing physics.

Why do you keep referring to ref frames as "being created"?  They are abstract concepts, they are not created nor destroyed.  Regardless of the way you apply power to the "EmDrive", those reference frames can be "created" in your mind, by simply thinking about them and doing calculations.

Hi Wicoe,

Totally agree that ALL constant velocity inertial reference frames are abstract concepts, yet we use them to measure real velocity relative to two of these abstract frames

None of the above invalidates using the last rest frame before acceleration starts to measure the change in velocity vs the rest frame after acceleration has finished.

As to Roger's open system, what i believe he is saying is the trapped photons can transfer momentum and KE to the cavity without the photons velocity altering.

He also states that an observer on the cavity interior surface will not observe any alteration in the photon velocity as cavity velocity alters. Last time I looked that was what Einstein said when defining special relativity.

The trick of course is to be able to generate an asymmetric force inside the cavity that supports continual cavity acceleration.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/09/2017 06:43 pm
TT, Why don't you answer my question from before before going off on another tangent:  What do you think "open system" means?

Or if that is too hard for you try these:
What is the total momentum of a cavity at rest before you turn it on?
What is the total momentum of the cavity after it has accelerated some amount and then been turned off (lets say a 10 kg cavity and 5m/s velocity)?
After the cavity is off, is there anything else in the universe that has different momentum than before the drive was turned on?

Meberbs,

Please refer to the image I posted earlier about the subject of open systems. To me it is self explanatory.
That image does not include a definition of the phrase "open system." it does however indicate that the person who made it does not know what "open system" means. So again, can you define this phrase, or do you have no idea what you are talking about?

As to referencing momentum to distant bodies, as far as I understand it, that is an unproven theory. It really surprises me why you would try to use a unproven theory in our discussions?
What in the world are you talking about? I asked you trivial questions, about high school level Newtonian physics.

Especially as doing a multiple number of short busts of acceleration, creating constant velocity interial rest frames between, is totally with-in existing physics.
As wicoe stated previously, this sentence in nonsensical. The phrase "creating a rest frame" does not have any meaning in the same way that "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" is grammatically correct, but nonsensical.

Meberbs,

To calc momentum we need to know mass and velocity. To know velocity we need another inertial reference frame.

Simple to then use the inertial frame of our mass pre acceleration vs the post acceleration inertial reference frame to calc gained momentum.

As for Open Systems this works for me:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_and_closed_systems_in_social_science

Quote
Ludwig Bertalanffy describes two types of systems:

open systems and closed systems.

The open systems are systems that allow interactions between their internal elements and the environment.

An open system is defined as a “system in exchange of matter with its environment, presenting import and export, building-up and breaking-down of its material components.”[1]

Closed systems, on the other hand, are held to be isolated from their environment.

Equilibrium thermodynamics, for example, is a field of study that applies to closed systems.

The sun will be rising shortly and I need sleep. Nite, nite.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/09/2017 07:06 pm
...

As for Open Systems this works for me:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_and_closed_systems_in_social_science

...

A definition of open and closed systems from Social Sciences works for you, to explain the EM Drive's motion according to Shawyer?


Quote from: Wikipedia
Social science is a major category of academic disciplines, concerned with society and the relationships among individuals within a society. It in turn has many branches, each of which is considered a "social science". The social sciences include economics, political science, human geography, demography, psychology, sociology, anthropology, archaeology, jurisprudence, history, and linguistics.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_science

Using a definition from Social Sciences because the EM Drive is perceived by you as a Social Science phenomenon rather than a Natural Science phenomenon?  Does Shawyer agree with that?

For the thermodynamics definition of open and closed systems see:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_system#In_thermodynamics

(https://image.slidesharecdn.com/sociology-141120212313-conversion-gate02/95/sociology-8-638.jpg?cb=1416518697)


(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/The_Scientific_Universe.png)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: wicoe on 09/09/2017 07:11 pm
The open systems are systems that allow interactions between their internal elements and the environment.

If the EmDrive is an "open system", can you please describe what kind of interactions occur between the elements of the EmDrive and the environment?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/09/2017 07:18 pm
To calc momentum we need to know mass and velocity. To know velocity we need another inertial reference frame.
I gave you both mass and velocity. In giving you velocity I was giving you a defined inertial frame to do the calculations in. Yet, you did not answer the questions.

Simple to then use the inertial frame of our mass pre acceleration vs the post acceleration inertial reference frame to calc gained momentum.
Just do the calculations in one frame. Conservation of momentum is defined for a single frame, meaning you don't switch frames mid calculation.

As for Open Systems this works for me:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_and_closed_systems_in_social_science
Since you did not provide a definition in your own words and quoted significantly more from the article than the one line that defines an open system, it seems that you still don't actually understand what an open system is.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 09/09/2017 08:54 pm

My conclusion is that it is much more probable that this is not a deception.  That the Chinese saw the EM Drive as a lottery ticket,  as an out-of-the-money option: an R&D project that is very cheap to investigate and that has an unlikely big payoff.  If the likely (*) outcome takes place that it does not work in space, then they lost very little in money.  If it does work, then they reap a huge payoff for a very small amount of money. 

(*) Why likely? due to the lack of an accepted theoretical explanation as to why it should work

Agree on all fronts.

For me this is not a military deception, or it would be an extremely poor one.

It's either real or an internal scam.

It can be an internal fraud, though. That is not unheard of (remember the straddle bus affair? http://fortune.com/2017/07/04/straddling-bus-arrests-investment-scam/ ). But given the public visibility of the effort (this is already in the official media over there), I doubt it has not passed some basic checkups.

I guess only time will tell.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/09/2017 09:40 pm
To be VERY CLEAR. A non accelerating cavity, relative to the trapped photons, WILL NOT GENERATE ANY FORCE NOR WILL IT INITIATE ACCELERATION.

How can an object accelerate "relative to the trapped photons"?  Acceleration only makes sense relative to a certain reference frame.  You cannot associate a reference frame with a photon because it always propagates with the same speed in ANY reference frame.

A couple things. An EMdrive (or anything else like my phone's accelerometer) just sitting on a test stand is accelerating up at 1g TT. Perhaps it's better to have the cavity oriented vertically? Also, a system of 2 (or more) nonparallel (not going in the same direction) photons has a rest frame, where total momentum is zero. You can accelerate relative to that. The key is to forget about single photons and use the invariant mass of the system of counterpropagating photons instead.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/09/2017 09:51 pm
So you continue to ignore Special Relativity, which makes it very clear the photons and cavity have seperate frames, thus are an open system and allow photon momentum and energy to be transferred to cavity mass while obeying CofM and CofE via lost photon momentum and energy?

This is not difficult to understand.
It is apparently difficult for you to understand. What do you think "open system" means?

Special relativity has nothing to do with what has a "separate frame." Me and a basketball I had tossed are moving at different speeds, so you could say that we have different rest frames. This has nothing to do with special relativity. It also has nothing to do with whether the system of me+baskeball is open or closed. (hint, it depends on if I am pushing on anything else)

P.S. Others are doing a good job pointing out the complete lack of evidence provided by you, but I want to note that you "being under NDA" doesn't make sense. If anything it is the company buying from you that should be under NDA, with maybe restrictions on you identifying them, although even that wouldn't be typical.

You can't equate the way light works to basketballs in simple classical reference frames. So TT is partly correct.

Hi Bob,

What happens to the photons trapped inside the cavity is explained by microwave physics and the Compton Effect that defines each time a photon impacts an orbital electron of a metallic atom both CofE and CofM are in effect.

Roger has stated many times that if the cavity is not accelerating relative to the trapped photons, NO FORCE IS GENERATED. Roger has also stated that the cavity needs an external force to be applied to initiale small end forward acceleration.

So the question should be: Why does acceleration produce an asymmetric force that supports self sustained acceleration?

To be VERY CLEAR. A non accelerating cavity, relative to the trapped photons, WILL NOT GENERATE ANY FORCE NOR WILL IT INITIATE ACCELERATION.

That complicates things and I doubt that. Otherwise you would need some auxiliary device to get it started in space.

If you really think about it, there is no such thing as a truly inertial frame anywhere in the universe. They exist on paper only. You can asymptotically approach something akin to an inertial frame, or perfectly flat space, and you'll never ever find a pure inertial frame. Gravity has infinite range, there's energy everywhere too.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: moreno7798 on 09/09/2017 11:53 pm
When that technique is applied in space, interesting things happen as a new inertial rest frame is created between each short burst of acceleration. That rest frame can then be used to measure velocity and KE increase during the next short burst of acceleration.

To be VERY CLEAR. A non accelerating cavity, relative to the trapped photons, WILL NOT GENERATE ANY FORCE NOR WILL IT INITIATE ACCELERATION.

That complicates things and I doubt that. Otherwise you would need some auxiliary device to get it started in space.

Good point, Bob012345. If the EM drive is accelerating in short bursts and it does not initiate acceleration by itself, what is creating the initial acceleration to get each burst started?

If it works I think it works without such complications.  I think that's just a function of the Shawyer theory which I'm not endorsing.

I agree. I believe in the end it is going to be Dr. White's theory that is going to be the correct one in which the drive is basically interacting with the interstellar medium at the quantum level essentially making it an open system.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 09/10/2017 12:11 am
If you really think about it, there is no such thing as a truly inertial frame anywhere in the universe. They exist on paper only. You can asymptotically approach something akin to an inertial frame, or perfectly flat space, and you'll never ever find a pure inertial frame. Gravity has infinite range, there's energy everywhere too.

Surely only to the size of the observable universe in it's currently visible state?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/10/2017 12:18 am
If you really think about it, there is no such thing as a truly inertial frame anywhere in the universe. They exist on paper only. You can asymptotically approach something akin to an inertial frame, or perfectly flat space, and you'll never ever find a pure inertial frame. Gravity has infinite range, there's energy everywhere too.

Surely only to the size of the observable universe in it's currently visible state?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology#Why_gravity_is_weak_and_the_cosmological_constant_is_small
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 09/10/2017 12:43 am
If you really think about it, there is no such thing as a truly inertial frame anywhere in the universe. They exist on paper only. You can asymptotically approach something akin to an inertial frame, or perfectly flat space, and you'll never ever find a pure inertial frame. Gravity has infinite range, there's energy everywhere too.

Surely only to the size of the observable universe in it's currently visible state?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology#Why_gravity_is_weak_and_the_cosmological_constant_is_small

I don't grok it.  :( How is this believed to manifest itself alongside the speed of gravitation being the same as the speed of light?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/10/2017 01:04 am
If you really think about it, there is no such thing as a truly inertial frame anywhere in the universe. They exist on paper only. You can asymptotically approach something akin to an inertial frame, or perfectly flat space, and you'll never ever find a pure inertial frame. Gravity has infinite range, there's energy everywhere too.

Surely only to the size of the observable universe in it's currently visible state?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology#Why_gravity_is_weak_and_the_cosmological_constant_is_small

I don't grok it.  :( How is this believed to manifest itself alongside the speed of gravitation being the same as the speed of light
In these M-theories the extra dimension(s) are not far away at the edge of the Universe but they are next to you.  You have to imagine ourselves and all particles we are familiar with as being only on the membrane in which we live in, unaware of the extra dimension(s) perpendicular to us, only gravity being able to leak through.   Imagine yourself being an ant living on the surface of a huge ball having a diameter measuring billions of light years, unaware of the three-dimensional space around you, but gravity being able to leak through the 3D space perpendicular to the surface of the ball.  Thus gravity does not have to travel to the edge of the Universe to leak, but it is leaking all around us into unobservable dimensions that are next to you (not far away).  Thus there is no time issue involved with gravity having to travel long distances constrained to the speed of light, because gravity does not have to travel big circles on the ball but just a very small distance perpendicular to the surface.   And we have no means to sense or experience those dimensions perpendicular to us because we are made of particles and fields that are constrained to exist on the surface alone.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 09/10/2017 02:53 am
I agree. I believe in the end it is going to be Dr. White's theory that is going to be the correct one in which the drive is basically interacting with the interstellar medium at the quantum level essentially making it an open system.

Possibly, but did you read this?

http://www.jbis.org.uk/paper.php?p=2016.69.331 (http://www.jbis.org.uk/paper.php?p=2016.69.331)

The abstract is all you need, to know how it turned out.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 09/10/2017 03:02 am
If you really think about it, there is no such thing as a truly inertial frame anywhere in the universe. They exist on paper only. You can asymptotically approach something akin to an inertial frame, or perfectly flat space, and you'll never ever find a pure inertial frame. Gravity has infinite range, there's energy everywhere too.

Surely only to the size of the observable universe in it's currently visible state?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology#Why_gravity_is_weak_and_the_cosmological_constant_is_small

I don't grok it.  :( How is this believed to manifest itself alongside the speed of gravitation being the same as the speed of light
In these M-theories the extra dimension(s) are not far away at the edge of the Universe but they are next to you.  You have to imagine ourselves and all particles we are familiar with as being only on the membrane in which we live in, unaware of the extra dimension(s) perpendicular to us, only gravity being able to leak through.   Imagine yourself being an ant living on the surface of a huge ball having a diameter measuring billions of light years, unaware of the three-dimensional space around you, but gravity being able to leak through the 3D space perpendicular to the surface of the ball.  Thus gravity does not have to travel to the edge of the Universe to leak, but it is leaking all around us into unobservable dimensions that are next to you (not far away).  Thus there is no time issue involved with gravity having to travel long distances constrained to the speed of light, because gravity does not have to travel big circles on the ball but just a very small distance perpendicular to the surface.   And we have no means to sense or experience those dimensions perpendicular to us because we are made of particles and fields that are constrained to exist on the surface alone.

Just saying, there is no physical or experimental evidence of more than 4 dimensions, or 5 dimensions if you consider "scale" a dynamically limited dimension as in the Kaluza-metric.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/10/2017 04:08 am
...
Just saying, there is no physical or experimental evidence of more than 4 dimensions, or 5 dimensions if you consider "scale" a dynamically limited dimension as in the Kaluza-metric.
That's perfectly consistent with M-theory since electromagnetic, weak and strong forces are all well confined within this brane!  Ultimately the best possible physical evidence would have to do with gravitons, and the limit for this can be well beyond any physical collider, not possible for several generations. That's why many physicists are concentrating on black hole thermodynamics-information issues, etc.

To use such arguments against M-theory would be like Aristotle against the Greek philosophers Leucippus and Democritus who first developed the concept of the atom in the 5th century B.C.  Aristotle and other prominent thinkers of the time strongly opposed their idea of the atom.  Aristotle was wrong.  But of course there was no possible way for physical experiments in the 5th century B.C. to prove the existence of the atoms.  Similarly there is no possible way to prove or falsify string theory at this moment in time, as it was not possible to prove or disprove the existence of the atoms in the 5th century BC.  That didn't make Democritus wrong for thinking of the atom centuries before it was possible to prove its experimental existence.  Fortunately we had people that thought about that, way before it was possible to experimentally prove it ;) 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 09/10/2017 05:02 am
As to whether the EM Drive is an open or closed system. See Appendix B (Below) from P.W. Milonni's, The Quantum Vacuum. This derivation shows that an atom in a thermal field can experience a frictional force, proportional to the velocity.

In a zero-point field (ZPF) however, the spectral energy density, ρ(ω) ~ ω3. When this condition is met, the force, F goes to zero. In the case of the EM Drive, it's not operating at zero temperature, so the entire thing is immersed in a thermal field. All the atoms are "open" to interact with the thermal field, both inside and outside the frustum. The MW's inside the frustum, assure that the thermal field inside is not symmetrical to the thermal field outside.

The question is, what is the spectral energy density of the thermal field inside and outside the frustum? And: Is it the optimal spectrum for stimulated emission in copper?



Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/10/2017 12:42 pm
As to whether the EM Drive is an open or closed system. See Appendix B (Below) from P.W. Milonni's, The Quantum Vacuum. This derivation shows that an atom in a thermal field can experience a frictional force, proportional to the velocity.
{…}

According to your point of view, a "closed system" cannot exist (aside from the whole universe). Indeed, any electromagnetic or even any mechanical device doing some work produces and radiate heat.

The question boils down to this: Can a specific effect relying on an asymmetric heating of a closed device, coupled with the propagation of photons or charged particles within this device, can lead to a thrust force able to accelerate the device with an efficiency greater than the efficiency of a perfect photon rocket?

Said otherwise: can the effect be greater than the momentum of the infrared photons (i.e. heat) expelled out of the closed device?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 09/10/2017 12:59 pm
Here is a rerun of the cylindrical cavity model with metal ring structure in higher quality. I think it's a TE022 where the lower lobes are deformed what leads to asymmetric conditions..


Quote from:  Chen Yue


[0037] The present invention is not described in details known to those skilled in the art.

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=41732.0;attach=1398626;image)

Very nice work...

Since we all are poking a stick at what we see on the Chinese Drive.

I see what looks like an RF feed into the sidewall near the top endplate, not the center of the end plate of the device like you excited. I would not expect them to feed the coax through to the center area like you show, you'll have issues running a coax through the EM fields.

Is it possible for you to model that design? A loop will be needed locking into the B field enhancing a TE mode.

My Very Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 09/10/2017 02:20 pm
Here is a rerun of the cylindrical cavity model with metal ring structure in higher quality. I think it's a TE022 where the lower lobes are deformed what leads to asymmetric conditions..


Quote from:  Chen Yue


[0037] The present invention is not described in details known to those skilled in the art.

(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1446975;image)
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=41732.0;attach=1398626;image)

Very nice work...

Since we all are poking a stick at what we see on the Chinese Drive.

I see what looks like an RF feed into the sidewall near the top endplate, not the center of the end plate of the device like you excited. I would not expect them to feed the coax through to the center area like you show, you'll have issues running a coax through the EM fields.

Is it possible for you to model that design? A loop will be needed locking into the B field enhancing a TE mode.

My Very Best,
Shell
Hi Michelle,
i noted that but at the moment i have another problem with that. The cavity i modeled seems too large compared to the one in the picture. Also in the english translation of the chinese patent the dimensions are in diameter.
At the time i set up the model i used the dimensions direct from the text to be diameters, but then the cavity don't looks like that in the sketch attached.
I thought there maybe was a translation error and therefore i swiched to use the values as radii. So the resonator looks similar to the sketch.

Based on the new picture i am not sure if this was the right decision.
 
Of course i can model it with a source near the sidewall but first we should solve the discrepancy with the diameter.

Quote from:  Chen Yue
[0036] cyclic structure design cycle, a total of three rings, respectively an inner diameter of 69mm, 129mm, 189mm, ring thickness of 1mm, the height of the ring is 70mm, three-ring structure normal to Z, according to the theory of electromagnetic design, ring structure spacing is less than the height of the ring, take the 60_ in this case. The electric field distribution in Figure 6; ^
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 09/10/2017 03:05 pm
Here is a rerun of the cylindrical cavity model with metal ring structure in higher quality. I think it's a TE022 where the lower lobes are deformed what leads to asymmetric conditions..


Quote from:  Chen Yue


[0037] The present invention is not described in details known to those skilled in the art.

(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1446975;image)
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=41732.0;attach=1398626;image)

Very nice work...

Since we all are poking a stick at what we see on the Chinese Drive.

I see what looks like an RF feed into the sidewall near the top endplate, not the center of the end plate of the device like you excited. I would not expect them to feed the coax through to the center area like you show, you'll have issues running a coax through the EM fields.

Is it possible for you to model that design? A loop will be needed locking into the B field enhancing a TE mode.

My Very Best,
Shell
Hi Michelle,
i noted that but at the moment i have another problem with that. The cavity i modeled seems too large compared to the one in the picture. Also in the english translation of the chinese patent the dimensions are in diameter.
At the time i set up the model i used the dimensions direct from the text to be diameters, but then the cavity don't looks like that in the sketch attached.
I thought there maybe was a translation error and therefore i swiched to use the values as radii. So the resonator looks similar to the sketch.

Based on the new picture i am not sure if this was the right decision.
 
Of course i can model it with a source near the sidewall but first we should solve the discrepancy with the diameter.

Quote from:  Chen Yue
[0036] cyclic structure design cycle, a total of three rings, respectively an inner diameter of 69mm, 129mm, 189mm, ring thickness of 1mm, the height of the ring is 70mm, three-ring structure normal to Z, according to the theory of electromagnetic design, ring structure spacing is less than the height of the ring, take the 60_ in this case. The electric field distribution in Figure 6; ^
Also we don't know if the pillbox cavity orientation is correct. In the video captured picture he could have the rings towards the top of the pillbox. There are lots of unknowns just trying to decipher what this is.

But think about this approach Xray, maybe we can just use the ratios of those numbers instead of the finite numbers he provided? Frequency will shift but as long as we tune to the chamber and the antenna creating our standing wave structures, they will still be the same modes.

My Very Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/10/2017 03:23 pm
Yes, it strikes me how Chinese scientific papers and patents about the EmDrive seem vague about dimensions (remember the debate about Juan Yang's cavity height and aspect ratio?). Figures not being homothetic representations of the actual device, questions about numbers being radii or diameters, absence of some critical lengths, etc. Sadly, such lack of precision about EmDrive experiments also plagues the West, as Tajmar's 2015 initial paper also mistook radii for diameters and was quite vague about the exact internal plate-to-plate height, and used a cavity designed to resonate properly above 3GHz with a commercial 2.45GHz magnetron! As if the quest to falsify the EmDrive needed nonchalantly added to the experimental difficulty and controversy.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/10/2017 03:35 pm
Yes, it strikes me how Chinese scientific papers and patents about the EmDrive seem vague about dimensions (remember the debate about Juan Yang's cavity height and aspect ratio?). Figures not being homothetic representations of the actual device, questions about numbers being radii or diameters, absence of some critical lengths, etc. Sadly, such lack of precision about EmDrive experiments also plagues the West, as Tajmar's 2015 initial paper also mistook radii for diameters and was quite vague about the exact internal plate-to-plate height, and used a cavity designed to resonate properly above 3GHz with a commercial 2.45GHz magnetron! As if the quest to falsify the EmDrive needed nonchalantly added to the experimental difficulty and controversy.
And more strikingly, all of this while the 2015 TU Dresden report repeatedly thanks Shawyer for his guidance and advice during the project.  A project which resulted in the lowest Q for an EM Drive on experimental records (much lower than the Q obtained in Do-It-Yourself experiments): Q=48, while TT posts now guidelines from "Roger" (impossible for me to independently ascertain whether these guidelines were indeed authored by Shawyer) demanding << Manufacturing  tolerance  should  be  around  ±0.01mm>> and <<a  Q  of at  least 50,000>> for such cavities, which is 1,000 times greater than the Q for the TU Dresden EM Drive done, according to the report, under guidance from Shawyer  :o

(*) one minor caveat.  I would not generalize to << such lack of precision about EmDrive experiments also plagues the West>> as it is not plaguing the West.  That is just one case.  The work by X_Ray and Monomorphic has been quite precise in comparison, and Paul March + Eagleworks has been extremely cooperative with information on precision and information.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/10/2017 03:52 pm
Yes, it strikes me how Chinese scientific papers and patents about the EmDrive seem vague about dimensions (remember the debate about Juan Yang's cavity height and aspect ratio?). Figures not being homothetic representations of the actual device, questions about numbers being radii or diameters, absence of some critical lengths, etc. Sadly, such lack of precision about EmDrive experiments also plagues the West, as Tajmar's 2015 initial paper also mistook radii for diameters and was quite vague about the exact internal plate-to-plate height, and used a cavity designed to resonate properly above 3GHz with a commercial 2.45GHz magnetron! As if the quest to falsify the EmDrive needed nonchalantly added to the experimental difficulty and controversy.
And more strikingly, all of this while the 2015 TU Dresden report repeatedly thanks Shawyer for his guidance and advice during the project.  A project which resulted in the lowest Q for an EM Drive on experimental records (much lower than the Q obtained in Do-It-Yourself experiments): Q=48, while TT posts now guidelines from "Roger" (impossible for me to independently ascertain whether these guidelines were indeed authored by Shawyer) demanding << Manufacturing  tolerance  should  be  around  ±0.01mm>> and <<a  Q  of at  least 50,000>> for such cavities, which is 1,000 times greater than the Q for the TU Dresden EM Drive done, according to the report, under guidance from Shawyer  :o

As you met Martin Tajmar at the Estes Park conference, do you know what he had to say about the reason for such failure in the Q factor of his resonant cavity?

My three hypotheses:
1- completely wrong and poor design, partly due to the giant hole in the side wall (WR340 waveguide the size of the cavity height)
or
2- poor reflectivity of copper plate surfaces due to their rapid oxidization
or
3- cavity operating not at optimal resonance, as the microwave generator was a 2.45GHz commercial magnetron, whereas Tajmar later stated his cavity was designed to operate over 3GHz

I think (1) played a role in the anomalous force measured laterally whereas it shouldn't had to

I also think (2) is evident as a rapid decay of the Q factor was observed through time by Tajmar.

But even as soon as the device was built with shinny surfaces, the Q was already catastrophic from the very beginning. So I thin (3) is the most critical cause.

Did Tajmar discovered that his cavity was not able to operate properly with a 2.45GHz source before or after he started designing and testing it? Tajmar said that they had to use a commercial magnetron instead of a tuneable professional microwave generator due to lack of funding. Maybe Shawyer early proposed the design to be operated with such a generator that Tajmar later discovered he couldn't afford?

If Shawyer proposed a 2.45GHz magnetron to use with this design, I agree it's pathetic. But if the story I have just imagined went this way, it is just not Shawyer's fault, despite being still a pathetic story.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/10/2017 04:00 pm
Yes, it strikes me how Chinese scientific papers and patents about the EmDrive seem vague about dimensions (remember the debate about Juan Yang's cavity height and aspect ratio?). Figures not being homothetic representations of the actual device, questions about numbers being radii or diameters, absence of some critical lengths, etc. Sadly, such lack of precision about EmDrive experiments also plagues the West, as Tajmar's 2015 initial paper also mistook radii for diameters and was quite vague about the exact internal plate-to-plate height, and used a cavity designed to resonate properly above 3GHz with a commercial 2.45GHz magnetron! As if the quest to falsify the EmDrive needed nonchalantly added to the experimental difficulty and controversy.
And more strikingly, all of this while the 2015 TU Dresden report repeatedly thanks Shawyer for his guidance and advice during the project.  A project which resulted in the lowest Q for an EM Drive on experimental records (much lower than the Q obtained in Do-It-Yourself experiments): Q=48, while TT posts now guidelines from "Roger" (impossible for me to independently ascertain whether these guidelines were indeed authored by Shawyer) demanding << Manufacturing  tolerance  should  be  around  ±0.01mm>> and <<a  Q  of at  least 50,000>> for such cavities, which is 1,000 times greater than the Q for the TU Dresden EM Drive done, according to the report, under guidance from Shawyer  :o

As you met Martin Tajmar at the Estes Park conference, do you know what he had to say about the reason for such failure in the Q factor of his resonant cavity?

...

He was very open about it, and completely consistent with what he wrote in the TU Dresden report:

Quote
The Q factor measurement was then done using a spectrum analyzer (see Fig. 3a). Unfortunately, the absorption peak at the resonance we were aiming at was smaller then expected (probably also due to misalignments after soldering). We calculated the Q factor using the difference of the frequencies on both sides of the peak  (f1, f2) as well as the resonance frequency f0: 8.48GHz4.2GHz45.2GHz44.2120=−=−=fffQ(1)    This Q factor is of course much smaller compared to the models from Shawyer, Yang and Brady (which was in the range of 10,000 – 100,000). A much larger resonance peak appeared above 3 GHz, but as we did not have a variable frequency microwave source we had to stick to Q≈50. As our magnetron had an output power of 700 W, we expected a thrust of 98.2 μN according to Shawyer’s models. This was much higher than the resolution of our measurement equipment (< 0.1 μN) and we therefore decided to go ahead with testing and explore this low Q factor regime

(17) Direct Thrust Measurements of an EM Drive and Evaluation of Possible Side-Effects. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280576708_Direct_Thrust_Measurements_of_an_EM_Drive_and_Evaluation_of_Possible_Side-Effects [accessed Sep 10, 2017].
Bold added for emphasis

It is striking that Shawyer advised on this work, and that Shawyer later used this Q=48 measurement in his plots of measured thrust vs Shawyer-predicted-thrust vs Q, vis-a-vis the posted guidelines demanding << Manufacturing  tolerance  should  be  around  ±0.01mm>> and <<a  Q  of at  least 50,000>> for such cavities

According to these recent guidelines of Q>50,000 not only the TU Dresden work disappears but also NASA Eagleworks and a test by SPR Ltd.in the plot shown in the presentation (UK Defence Academy) reproduced below, which have Q<10,000=104 as shown in the plot below  ::)

So the recent guidelines *<<a  Q  of at  least 50,000>> may be interpreted "in order to get specific thrust exceeding 100 mN/kW" according to this plot
* https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1719903#msg1719903
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/10/2017 04:19 pm
Yes, it strikes me how Chinese scientific papers and patents about the EmDrive seem vague about dimensions (remember the debate about Juan Yang's cavity height and aspect ratio?). Figures not being homothetic representations of the actual device, questions about numbers being radii or diameters, absence of some critical lengths, etc. Sadly, such lack of precision about EmDrive experiments also plagues the West, as Tajmar's 2015 initial paper also mistook radii for diameters and was quite vague about the exact internal plate-to-plate height, and used a cavity designed to resonate properly above 3GHz with a commercial 2.45GHz magnetron! As if the quest to falsify the EmDrive needed nonchalantly added to the experimental difficulty and controversy.
And more strikingly, all of this while the 2015 TU Dresden report repeatedly thanks Shawyer for his guidance and advice during the project.  A project which resulted in the lowest Q for an EM Drive on experimental records (much lower than the Q obtained in Do-It-Yourself experiments): Q=48, while TT posts now guidelines from "Roger" (impossible for me to independently ascertain whether these guidelines were indeed authored by Shawyer) demanding << Manufacturing  tolerance  should  be  around  ±0.01mm>> and <<a  Q  of at  least 50,000>> for such cavities, which is 1,000 times greater than the Q for the TU Dresden EM Drive done, according to the report, under guidance from Shawyer  :o

As you met Martin Tajmar at the Estes Park conference, do you know what he had to say about the reason for such failure in the Q factor of his resonant cavity?

...

He was very open about it, and completely consistent with what he wrote in the TU Dresden report:

Quote
The Q factor measurement was then done using a spectrum analyzer (see Fig. 3a). Unfortunately, the absorption peak at the resonance we were aiming at was smaller then expected (probably also due to misalignments after soldering). We calculated the Q factor using the difference of the frequencies on both sides of the peak  (f1, f2) as well as the resonance frequency f0: 8.48GHz4.2GHz45.2GHz44.2120=−=−=fffQ(1)    This Q factor is of course much smaller compared to the models from Shawyer, Yang and Brady (which was in the range of 10,000 – 100,000). A much larger resonance peak appeared above 3 GHz, but as we did not have a variable frequency microwave source we had to stick to Q≈50. As our magnetron had an output power of 700 W, we expected a thrust of 98.2 μN according to Shawyer’s models. This was much higher than the resolution of our measurement equipment (< 0.1 μN) and we therefore decided to go ahead with testing and explore this low Q factor regime

(17) Direct Thrust Measurements of an EM Drive and Evaluation of Possible Side-Effects. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280576708_Direct_Thrust_Measurements_of_an_EM_Drive_and_Evaluation_of_Possible_Side-Effects [accessed Sep 10, 2017].
Bold added for emphasis

It is striking that Shawyer advised on this work, and that Shawyer later used this Q=48 measurement in his plots of measured thrust vs Shawyer-predicted-thrust vs Q, vis-a-vis the posted guidelines demanding << Manufacturing  tolerance  should  be  around  ±0.01mm>> and <<a  Q  of at  least 50,000>> for such cavities

According to these recent guidelines of Q>50,000 not only the TU Dresden work disappears but also NASA Eagleworks and a test by SPR Ltd.in the plot shown in the presentation (UK Defence Academy) reproduced below, which have Q<10,000=104 as shown in the plot below  ::)

So the recent guidelines *<<a  Q  of at  least 50,000>> may be interpreted "in order to get specific thrust exceeding 100 mN/kW" according to this plot
* https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1719903#msg1719903

Thank you for these exact quotes from Tajmar. Not being able to get a variable frequency microwave source in a professional university lab in Germany in 2015 is very disappointing, to say the least.

Not only Germany. When I think again about Paul March's conditions when he had to build the cavity for Eagleworks (a NASA-funded lab!) in his own living room at home, I feel sad for this research. Thinking also about the systematic orientation Harold White is pursuing according to his puppet theoretical QFT bias, ignoring obvious agnostic directions provided by data pointing toward AC or pulsed DC and dielectric-less operation… All this does not paint a glowing picture of this research.

The EmDrive is so much controversial therefore under-funded. But at this point it is like those professional labs have almost to resort to scissors, tape and cotton thread. Commercial microwave oven magnetrons and "supermarket oil" are not far away from this description. This is awful.

I really hope Paul March, Monomorphic and SeeShells will prove that a quality work with precise data can be done privately. Wondering what is the current state of R. W. Keyes's project BTW.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 09/10/2017 04:26 pm
As to whether the EM Drive is an open or closed system. See Appendix B (Below) from P.W. Milonni's, The Quantum Vacuum. This derivation shows that an atom in a thermal field can experience a frictional force, proportional to the velocity.
{…}

According to your point of view, a "closed system" cannot exist (aside from the whole universe). Indeed, any electromagnetic or even any mechanical device doing some work produces and radiate heat.

The question boils down to this: Can a specific effect relying on an asymmetric heating of a closed device, coupled with the propagation of photons or charged particles within this device, can lead to a thrust force able to accelerate the device with an efficiency greater than the efficiency of a perfect photon rocket?

Said otherwise: can the effect be greater than the momentum of the infrared photons (i.e. heat) expelled out of the closed device?

My model predicts that a gradient in the power dissipation will generate a thrust or more accurately, a gravito-electric field. None of the experiments except Shawyer's have demonstrated a thrust greater than a perfect photon rocket with an output power of Pout = Q*Pin, and thrust is not continuous, it's pulsed to recharge the Q.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/10/2017 04:38 pm
As to whether the EM Drive is an open or closed system. See Appendix B (Below) from P.W. Milonni's, The Quantum Vacuum. This derivation shows that an atom in a thermal field can experience a frictional force, proportional to the velocity.
{…}

According to your point of view, a "closed system" cannot exist (aside from the whole universe). Indeed, any electromagnetic or even any mechanical device doing some work produces and radiate heat.

The question boils down to this: Can a specific effect relying on an asymmetric heating of a closed device, coupled with the propagation of photons or charged particles within this device, can lead to a thrust force able to accelerate the device with an efficiency greater than the efficiency of a perfect photon rocket?

Said otherwise: can the effect be greater than the momentum of the infrared photons (i.e. heat) expelled out of the closed device?

My model predicts that a gradient in the power dissipation will generate a thrust or more accurately, a gravito-electric field. None of the experiments except Shawyer's have demonstrated a thrust greater than a perfect photon rocket with an output power of Pout = Q*Pin, and thrust is not continuous, it's pulsed to recharge the Q.

Gravitoelectromagnetic effects are infinitely small, except near neutron stars and so-called black holes. So if you're right, i.e. that the EmDrive induces gravitoelectric frame-dragging, and as Rodal explained a few days ago about the extreme stiffness of spacetime, this technology absolutely cannot lead to lift engines able to design flying cars hovering in Earth's gravitational field. This could turn out to be practical for deep space missions though.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 09/10/2017 05:38 pm
FWIW the Cannae website is suspended at the moment, when I try to access it from the UK.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 09/10/2017 05:44 pm
As to whether the EM Drive is an open or closed system. See Appendix B (Below) from P.W. Milonni's, The Quantum Vacuum. This derivation shows that an atom in a thermal field can experience a frictional force, proportional to the velocity.
{…}

According to your point of view, a "closed system" cannot exist (aside from the whole universe). Indeed, any electromagnetic or even any mechanical device doing some work produces and radiate heat.

The question boils down to this: Can a specific effect relying on an asymmetric heating of a closed device, coupled with the propagation of photons or charged particles within this device, can lead to a thrust force able to accelerate the device with an efficiency greater than the efficiency of a perfect photon rocket?

Said otherwise: can the effect be greater than the momentum of the infrared photons (i.e. heat) expelled out of the closed device?

My model predicts that a gradient in the power dissipation will generate a thrust or more accurately, a gravito-electric field. None of the experiments except Shawyer's have demonstrated a thrust greater than a perfect photon rocket with an output power of Pout = Q*Pin, and thrust is not continuous, it's pulsed to recharge the Q.

I don't believe this is an accurate statement, "None of the experiments except Shawyer's have demonstrated a thrust greater than a perfect photon rocket..."

I may have missed or just don't remember the specific case, but while I admit that Shawyer has made many claims, I just can't remember any instance where he has published sufficient information about any past test, that the claims he makes can be attributed specifically and exclusively to the annomolous thrust everyone is chasing. Claims based on an unproven theoretical model aren't the same as experimental data. What we can observe and measure, always tops what we can imagine.., at least until we can experimentally observe and measure the results of what we have imagined.

Beyond that the "theory" centered on recharging or filling the frustum to a calculated Q potential, as an explanation of why pulsing or cycling a frustum on and off, creates a functional thrust, does not seem to have been proven. Even should anyone experimentally duplicate an observation consistent with his claims, the underlying mechanism, would remain "to be determined".

Shawyer and now others, may have stumbled on and continued to explore, an as yet to be clearly described and explained mechanism, resulting in even small useable thrust levels, from the introduction of EM radiation into a closed resonant cavity. That at present seems to me to be an engineering accomplishment, still waiting on a credible physical or theoretical explanation.

BTW None of the extraordinary claims of thrusts in N/Kw and greater range, even if observed behind one or more NDAs, have been publicly demonstrated, or published and confirmed by peer review.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/10/2017 05:48 pm
A box of photons, which is massive ((that's what mass is, it's confined energy, we see it all around us, and within us, by various means of confinement, for example in QCD with massless gluons *(most of your mass), or the Higgs mechanism for elementary particles, or photons in a box, or photons (intentionally plural) localized as a system by space and time in a really big box)) feels the same acceleration as their container, so the relative acceleration is the same. The box, and the system of photons contained within, feel the same acceleration, in the Earth's gravitational field, so they fall at the same rate (objects of different masses fall at the same rate, including a relatively light system of massive photons and the relatively heavy copper can holding them). The cavity and the contents don't accelerate relative to each other, which is what TT says must happen. BUT there's one more level of thought, or one more step down the rabbit hole, which actually does allow the massive contents of the cavity to accelerate relative to the cavity (and the Earth), and it's the partial standing wave. There is no way the EMdrive has a perfect standing wave inside. Recall that a standing wave is the superposition of two traveling waves. You only get a perfect standing wave if the two counterpropagating waves are exactly equal in amplitude and frequency. I've looked at how the time evolution of a partial standing wave caries on, and I see a constantly changing acceleration (jerk) happening as the wave evolves. If you want to think about this from a gravitoelectromagnetic point of view, imagine slicing the EMdrive into a series of surfaces each with an area decreasing from the large end to the small end. Use the equation for gravitational induction (the one that looks similar to the Maxwell Faraday equation, but for gravity instead), with this in mind and it seems very intuitive that you'd end up with a curled nonconservative oscillating value for gEMF on the left side of the equation. Remember that acceleration and gravity are equivalent. If you have a constantly changing gravitational field, you have a constantly changing acceleration. This isn't warping of space. A changing gravitational field would exist and superimpose with the gravitational field of the surrounding environment (in the weak gravity regime which is most of the universe). A changing gravitational field should propagate out into space, which at first glance would make you think of a gravitational wave rocket, or a graviton rocket, but this doesn't fit the bill because a g rocket would do no better than a photon rocket, and if you believe the data (Eagleworks or Shawyer) an EMdrive outperforms a photon rocket, so that idea is out; what's left is considering that gravity in the linear regime obeys the law of superposition, and that an EMdrive must be adding and subtracting from the gravity from the Earth (and the gravitational influences present here coming from everywhere else). This way of thinking creates an open system and explains the apparent gain in momentum from apparently nothing non numerically, just in concept. These are all concepts I have rattling around (thanks to the paper by John Swain about gravitational transformers from last year that opened some doors), and there's no new information in all this, and may have nothing to do with reality as a whole, although each individual part is grounded in reality. It's putting together concepts that already exist into a systems thinking approach to understanding how something might work, which can be formalized using the tools that already exist. Everything with mass/energy effects spacetime and is effected by spacetime, even a tiny thing like an electron or photons, so I don't have a problem with thinking that an asymmetrical cavity resonator is capable of having useful gravitational interaction, including inducing alternating gravity itself.

Note the sudden movements here. Note the comments about changing energy density during all this. Image credit to the forum author.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/265298/standing-waves-due-to-two-counter-propagating-travelling-waves-of-different-ampl

A thought experiment. Imagine by some means that we don't need to figure out why just yet (we just accept that it's happening in our minds), what would be the effect on the surrounding spacetime and orbiting satellites, if the gravitational field of the Earth were suddenly sinusoidally oscillating, and you standing there suddenly began measuring accelerations between .5g and 1.5g using an accelerometer?

Now the "just yet" part; what could possibly cause such a thing to happen? What shape would the Earth need to be in order to be doing this crazy stuff in one direction only instead of all directions?


* http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/HowTheProtonAndNeutronGotTheirMasses/


I understand the gif doesn't have fixed ends. It's just to convey a general concept.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/10/2017 06:07 pm
Dr Chen Yue's recent interview about the CAST EmDrive from the CCTV show is now available on YouTube. As I don't understand Chinese, I don't know though if Chen Yue speaks of the research about RF resonant cavities in another part of the show.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mdcer1QQLrA

I activated the option to let anyone with a YouTube account add a transcript directly in YouTube. Hope someone fluent in both Chinese and English will do it.
https://www.youtube.com/timedtext_video?v=Mdcer1QQLrA&ref=share

translation posted by https://www.reddit.com/user/iiiiuuuu

Quote
Google translate: Tracking the world's cutting-edge technology, in some technical areas to achieve technology beyond, which is aerospace technology group five in the development of communications satellites in the inevitable choice. Chen Yue 2008 graduate, came to the Space Technology Group five homes responsible for the control of communications satellite development work. Work for more than two years, he went to the courtyard to carry out communication satellite no material electromagnetic propulsion research, when the study there is still a huge controversy.
Aerospace Science and Technology Group, deputy director of the five designers Chen Yue: the most important point is that this technology may now scientific principles, not yet fully clear the case, in the project R & D, is not a great risk , Is there a reason for the existence of the wrong, this is the main controversial point.
In the space of communication satellites need to adjust the attitude and track to maintain, so the satellite will carry a large number of propellants, the traditional way of chemical propulsion is propelled by oxidation to produce thrust. And now on the satellite began to use the electric propulsion method, it is to carry the working fluid ionization, and then spray out the ion to produce thrust, the two kinds of propulsion methods are required to carry the working fluid, that is, propellant and gas.
Chen Yue: the image that is stored inside the tank inside the liquid or gas, once the use of these workers light, then the engine can no longer be used, life to the. And now we advance this way, this electromagnetic propulsion, it is as long as there is electricity, as long as the equipment can work properly, it can work, can produce thrust.
Without any technology, experience can learn from, there is no reference to any foreign information, the technology both at home and abroad, are in the technical trials of the initial stage, Chen Yue and his team is facing a huge challenge.
In order to encourage young people to innovate, Aerospace Science and Technology Group set up five special research and development fund, Dr. growth fund to give financial support, but also for the core staff for three years do not do business assessment, and personnel, laboratory equipment to give strong support to ensure that they Concentrate on doing technical research.
Chen Yue: through our hospital science and technology independent research and development fund, our independent research and development of the Fund, to support us, so that we can no heart, do not have to worry about the conditions of protection in this case, To do this thing, it can be said that this is like a hatch, if not the original hatching conditions, we will not have this progress now.
Reporters learned that, at present, on behalf of China's communications satellites to reach the international advanced level of the East Red five satellite platform a number of key technologies to achieve a major breakthrough, to be verified on the track. Dongfanghong 5 platform full star power to 30000 watts, the payload of more than 2000 kg, carrying the number of transponders to reach 120, some technical indicators than the level of developed countries. Dongfanghong 5 platform above the vast majority of products, to achieve the true sense of the localization, independent control, no longer dependent on imports.

https://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/6z0mmt/please_help_translate_the_video_of_dr_chen_yues/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: demofsky on 09/10/2017 11:29 pm
A basic question comes up for me looking at X_RaYs notional model of the new Chinese EM Drive.  The assumption has always been that asymmetry is the root cause of thrust hence the fustrum.  Looking at the model, it seems to optimize more for distorting modes within the cavity.  The fustrum distorts modes as an obvious side effect of its asymmetry. But what if distorted modes is the main show here??
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/10/2017 11:34 pm
A basic question comes up for me looking at X_RaYs notional model of the new Chinese EM Drive.  The assumption has always been that asymmetry is the root cause of thrust hence the fustrum.  Looking at the model, it seems to optimize more for distorting modes within the cavity.  The fustrum distorts modes as an obvious side effect of its asymmetry. But what if distorted modes is the main show here??
If that would be so, then out the window would go the main prescription from Shawyer, for all the decades he has been writing about this: asymmetry between the big and small ends.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/11/2017 01:02 am
From what I was thinking about above, the same thing is happening in a MET (just talking about the device, not Mach effects theory). A changing energy density (capacitor being charged and discharged) is being jerked around (back and forth in the case of a MET) by a PZT. The return journey doesn't look like a good design feature to have, although if you think about it, it's inevitable in a resonant system. I'm thinking really hard about why the addition of the rubber pad (from the book Making Starships) greatly increased the thrust. That's a good way to absorb energy and reduce the return energy by reducing r. That rubber pad is dissipative. That's the asymmetry. This is an electromechanical version of the EMdrive. They're analogous.

Pics included for research purposes.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 09/11/2017 02:36 am
Dr Chen Yue's recent interview about the CAST EmDrive from the CCTV show is now available on YouTube. As I don't understand Chinese, I don't know though if Chen Yue speaks of the research about RF resonant cavities in another part of the show.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mdcer1QQLrA

I activated the option to let anyone with a YouTube account add a transcript directly in YouTube. Hope someone fluent in both Chinese and English will do it.
https://www.youtube.com/timedtext_video?v=Mdcer1QQLrA&ref=share

translation posted by https://www.reddit.com/user/iiiiuuuu

Quote
Google translate: Tracking the world's cutting-edge technology, in some technical areas to achieve technology beyond, which is aerospace technology group five in the development of communications satellites in the inevitable choice. Chen Yue 2008 graduate, came to the Space Technology Group five homes responsible for the control of communications satellite development work. Work for more than two years, he went to the courtyard to carry out communication satellite no material electromagnetic propulsion research, when the study there is still a huge controversy.
Aerospace Science and Technology Group, deputy director of the five designers Chen Yue: the most important point is that this technology may now scientific principles, not yet fully clear the case, in the project R & D, is not a great risk , Is there a reason for the existence of the wrong, this is the main controversial point.
In the space of communication satellites need to adjust the attitude and track to maintain, so the satellite will carry a large number of propellants, the traditional way of chemical propulsion is propelled by oxidation to produce thrust. And now on the satellite began to use the electric propulsion method, it is to carry the working fluid ionization, and then spray out the ion to produce thrust, the two kinds of propulsion methods are required to carry the working fluid, that is, propellant and gas.
Chen Yue: the image that is stored inside the tank inside the liquid or gas, once the use of these workers light, then the engine can no longer be used, life to the. And now we advance this way, this electromagnetic propulsion, it is as long as there is electricity, as long as the equipment can work properly, it can work, can produce thrust.
Without any technology, experience can learn from, there is no reference to any foreign information, the technology both at home and abroad, are in the technical trials of the initial stage, Chen Yue and his team is facing a huge challenge.
In order to encourage young people to innovate, Aerospace Science and Technology Group set up five special research and development fund, Dr. growth fund to give financial support, but also for the core staff for three years do not do business assessment, and personnel, laboratory equipment to give strong support to ensure that they Concentrate on doing technical research.
Chen Yue: through our hospital science and technology independent research and development fund, our independent research and development of the Fund, to support us, so that we can no heart, do not have to worry about the conditions of protection in this case, To do this thing, it can be said that this is like a hatch, if not the original hatching conditions, we will not have this progress now.
Reporters learned that, at present, on behalf of China's communications satellites to reach the international advanced level of the East Red five satellite platform a number of key technologies to achieve a major breakthrough, to be verified on the track. Dongfanghong 5 platform full star power to 30000 watts, the payload of more than 2000 kg, carrying the number of transponders to reach 120, some technical indicators than the level of developed countries. Dongfanghong 5 platform above the vast majority of products, to achieve the true sense of the localization, independent control, no longer dependent on imports.

https://www.reddit.com/r/EmDrive/comments/6z0mmt/please_help_translate_the_video_of_dr_chen_yues/
Rodal,
not being an American I am not so deeply invested in who it is that leads the field. It is however, a moment when I can remind the Americans on this forum that they should avoid the extra expense incurred when compensating (as with the Apollo program) for someone else beating you to the great leap forward.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/11/2017 02:49 am
....
Rodal,
not being an American I am not so deeply invested in who it is that leads the field. It is however, a moment when I can remind the Americans on this forum that they should avoid the extra expense incurred when compensating (as with the Apollo program) for someone else beating you to the great leap forward.
Beating the USA ?

(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/12-as15-88-11866ab-1.jpg)

(http://www.leonarddavid.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/VIKING-MARS-40-POSTER-13494882_1620766031568528_5713658954133524576_n.jpg)

(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/7d/f0/59/7df0592b7a50f53fe27de94a04564557--solar-system-diagram-our-solar-system.jpg)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/11/2017 02:58 am
Rodal,
not being an American I am not so deeply invested in who it is that leads the field. It is however, a moment when I can remind the Americans on this forum that they should avoid the extra expense incurred when compensating (as with the Apollo program) for someone else beating you to the great leap forward.
No, because there's a great deal of research about this kind of thing that we don't know anything about, which over time we will come to know about, because it's becoming public knowledge due to the fact that people are smart and learn things, and there's a right time and pressure (economic, socioeconomic, and military) necessary for that to happen. If you know something that nobody else understands, and it gives you an advantage, then it's obvious that you will be quiet about what you know, and what your capabilities are, until the cat is out of the bag, otherwise you're stuck holding an investment that's going to be wasted. Yes this sounds like conspiracy theory bs. I get it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThinkerX on 09/11/2017 02:59 am
Quote
From what I was thinking about above, the same thing is happening in a MET (just talking about the device, not Mach effects theory). A changing energy density (capacitor being charged and discharged) is being jerked around (back and forth in the case of a MET) by a PZT. The return journey doesn't look like a good design feature to have, although if you think about it, it's inevitable in a resonant system. I'm thinking really hard about why the addition of the rubber pad (from the book Making Starships) greatly increased the thrust. That's a good way to absorb energy and reduce the return energy by reducing r. That rubber pad is dissipative. That's the asymmetry. This is an electromechanical version of the EMdrive. They're analogous.

Point of clarity:

Are you saying that both the EM Drive and the Woodward Mach Drive work the same way?  Or close to the same way? If so, wouldn't that make the EM Drive a variant of the Woodward Mach Engine? 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/11/2017 03:06 am
Quote
From what I was thinking about above, the same thing is happening in a MET (just talking about the device, not Mach effects theory). A changing energy density (capacitor being charged and discharged) is being jerked around (back and forth in the case of a MET) by a PZT. The return journey doesn't look like a good design feature to have, although if you think about it, it's inevitable in a resonant system. I'm thinking really hard about why the addition of the rubber pad (from the book Making Starships) greatly increased the thrust. That's a good way to absorb energy and reduce the return energy by reducing r. That rubber pad is dissipative. That's the asymmetry. This is an electromechanical version of the EMdrive. They're analogous.

Point of clarity:

Are you saying that both the EM Drive and the Woodward Mach Drive work the same way?  Or close to the same way? If so, wouldn't that make the EM Drive a variant of the Woodward Mach Engine?

I think so. I don't know which one came first. It doesn't matter to me.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 09/11/2017 07:34 am
The Great Leap Forward the Americans were behind on was Sputnik/ Gagarin.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 09/11/2017 08:12 am
The Great Leap Forward the Americans were behind on was Sputnik/ Gagarin.

The fear factor was definitely present. But it helped the USA to take it seriously. It looks like same will be with the EmDrive. I sense that some people here are actually more afraid if it works rather than not.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/11/2017 11:30 am
I understand why the addition of the dielectric disc was so important now. Imagine the disc at the right side of r=.6 (or the others, this one is just optimal from the group) in the gif above.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 09/11/2017 02:29 pm
From what I was thinking about above, the same thing is happening in a MET (just talking about the device, not Mach effects theory). A changing energy density (capacitor being charged and discharged) is being jerked around (back and forth in the case of a MET) by a PZT. The return journey doesn't look like a good design feature to have, although if you think about it, it's inevitable in a resonant system. I'm thinking really hard about why the addition of the rubber pad (from the book Making Starships) greatly increased the thrust. That's a good way to absorb energy and reduce the return energy by reducing r. That rubber pad is dissipative. That's the asymmetry. This is an electromechanical version of the EMdrive. They're analogous.

Pics included for research purposes.

May I suggest that the rubber pad allowed room for the copper block to move back and forth, thus allowed more intense vibration? If so, it can be replaced with a compressed spring.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/11/2017 03:19 pm
From what I was thinking about above, the same thing is happening in a MET (just talking about the device, not Mach effects theory). A changing energy density (capacitor being charged and discharged) is being jerked around (back and forth in the case of a MET) by a PZT. The return journey doesn't look like a good design feature to have, although if you think about it, it's inevitable in a resonant system. I'm thinking really hard about why the addition of the rubber pad (from the book Making Starships) greatly increased the thrust. That's a good way to absorb energy and reduce the return energy by reducing r. That rubber pad is dissipative. That's the asymmetry. This is an electromechanical version of the EMdrive. They're analogous.

Pics included for research purposes.

May I suggest that the rubber pad allowed room for the copper block to move back and forth, thus allowed more intense vibration? If so, it can be replaced with a compressed spring.
The purpose of this very thin rubber under ~3000 psi compressive stress is to provide a more uniform contact stress distribution between the brass mass and the holding bracket, so that there is uniform contact between the mating surfaces, and accommodate misalignment, imperfectly machined surfaces, and smooth the stress distribution.

These are the reasons why gaskets are used when fastening mating surfaces: it is commonplace.  One can find discussions of such gaskets in the proceedings of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) and the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA).  The ASME has regulations for nuclear powerplants on fastening mating surfaces.

 From contact mechanics it is known that when you fasten two bodies together you will have stress concentrations around the mating surfaces where the (fastener) forces are applied.  It is a thin rubber gasket between the mating surfaces (the holding bracket and the brass mass) to ensure good contact between the mating surfaces throughout the contact surface.  The screws are torqued such that the piezoelectric plates of the sandwich stack are compressed to industry standards (around 3,000 psi) since these piezoelectric plates need to be under initial compressive stress to perform (as is usual in Langevin stacks in piezoelectric transducers) because they are sintered ceramics (PZT) that are very brittle and cannot properly function under tensile stresses.

(http://machinedsgn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/BoltWithWasher.png)

(https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Riccardo_Carotenuto/publication/253127548/figure/fig1/AS:305795104296977@1449918642807/FIG-1-Schematic-view-of-a-Langevin-vibrator.png)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/11/2017 03:20 pm
From what I was thinking about above, the same thing is happening in a MET (just talking about the device, not Mach effects theory). A changing energy density (capacitor being charged and discharged) is being jerked around (back and forth in the case of a MET) by a PZT. The return journey doesn't look like a good design feature to have, although if you think about it, it's inevitable in a resonant system. I'm thinking really hard about why the addition of the rubber pad (from the book Making Starships) greatly increased the thrust. That's a good way to absorb energy and reduce the return energy by reducing r. That rubber pad is dissipative. That's the asymmetry. This is an electromechanical version of the EMdrive. They're analogous.

Pics included for research purposes.

May I suggest that the rubber pad allowed room for the copper block to move back and forth, thus allowed more intense vibration? If so, it can be replaced with a compressed spring.

It looks to me like the rubber pad is the dissipative element, serving the same function as the dielectric disc in an EMdrive. They're both lowering the amount of reflected energy by turning it into heat. They both serve to facilitate a partial standing wave.

If you really think about it, it's immediately obvious why a fully superconducting EMdrive is a BAD idea. You better have a load on it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 09/11/2017 05:34 pm
From what I was thinking about above, the same thing is happening in a MET (just talking about the device, not Mach effects theory). A changing energy density (capacitor being charged and discharged) is being jerked around (back and forth in the case of a MET) by a PZT. The return journey doesn't look like a good design feature to have, although if you think about it, it's inevitable in a resonant system. I'm thinking really hard about why the addition of the rubber pad (from the book Making Starships) greatly increased the thrust. That's a good way to absorb energy and reduce the return energy by reducing r. That rubber pad is dissipative. That's the asymmetry. This is an electromechanical version of the EMdrive. They're analogous.

Pics included for research purposes.

May I suggest that the rubber pad allowed room for the copper block to move back and forth, thus allowed more intense vibration? If so, it can be replaced with a compressed spring.

It looks to me like the rubber pad is the dissipative element, serving the same function as the dielectric disc in an EMdrive. They're both lowering the amount of reflected energy by turning it into heat. They both serve to facilitate a partial standing wave.

If you really think about it, it's immediately obvious why a fully superconducting EMdrive is a BAD idea. You better have a load on it.

Do you predict the "thrust" to change direction, if the rubber washer is installed on the other side (on the nut side, not on the bolt side)? From my understanding of how it worked, the "thrust" will likely change direction.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/11/2017 06:16 pm
When that technique is applied in space, interesting things happen as a new inertial rest frame is created between each short burst of acceleration. That rest frame can then be used to measure velocity and KE increase during the next short burst of acceleration.

To be VERY CLEAR. A non accelerating cavity, relative to the trapped photons, WILL NOT GENERATE ANY FORCE NOR WILL IT INITIATE ACCELERATION.

That complicates things and I doubt that. Otherwise you would need some auxiliary device to get it started in space.

Good point, Bob012345. If the EM drive is accelerating in short bursts and it does not initiate acceleration by itself, what is creating the initial acceleration to get each burst started?

If it works I think it works without such complications.  I think that's just a function of the Shawyer theory which I'm not endorsing.

I agree. I believe in the end it is going to be Dr. White's theory that is going to be the correct one in which the drive is basically interacting with the interstellar medium at the quantum level essentially making it an open system.

Sorry, but I feel that relying on the vacuum and virtual photons is no better than resorting to mysticism.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/11/2017 06:22 pm
...
Just saying, there is no physical or experimental evidence of more than 4 dimensions, or 5 dimensions if you consider "scale" a dynamically limited dimension as in the Kaluza-metric.
That's perfectly consistent with M-theory since electromagnetic, weak and strong forces are all well confined within this brane!  Ultimately the best possible physical evidence would have to do with gravitons, and the limit for this can be well beyond any physical collider, not possible for several generations. That's why many physicists are concentrating on black hole thermodynamics-information issues, etc.

To use such arguments against M-theory would be like Aristotle against the Greek philosophers Leucippus and Democritus who first developed the concept of the atom in the 5th century B.C.  Aristotle and other prominent thinkers of the time strongly opposed their idea of the atom.  Aristotle was wrong.  But of course there was no possible way for physical experiments in the 5th century B.C. to prove the existence of the atoms.  Similarly there is no possible way to prove or falsify string theory at this moment in time, as it was not possible to prove or disprove the existence of the atoms in the 5th century BC.  That didn't make Democritus wrong for thinking of the atom centuries before it was possible to prove its experimental existence.  Fortunately we had people that thought about that, way before it was possible to experimentally prove it ;)

No need make arguments against M-theory. It's proponents must make arguments it exists and so far, there really aren't any decent reasons beyond vague claims of how 'beautiful' such theories are. But that's completely subjective.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/11/2017 06:28 pm
...
Just saying, there is no physical or experimental evidence of more than 4 dimensions, or 5 dimensions if you consider "scale" a dynamically limited dimension as in the Kaluza-metric.
That's perfectly consistent with M-theory since electromagnetic, weak and strong forces are all well confined within this brane!  Ultimately the best possible physical evidence would have to do with gravitons, and the limit for this can be well beyond any physical collider, not possible for several generations. That's why many physicists are concentrating on black hole thermodynamics-information issues, etc.

To use such arguments against M-theory would be like Aristotle against the Greek philosophers Leucippus and Democritus who first developed the concept of the atom in the 5th century B.C.  Aristotle and other prominent thinkers of the time strongly opposed their idea of the atom.  Aristotle was wrong.  But of course there was no possible way for physical experiments in the 5th century B.C. to prove the existence of the atoms.  Similarly there is no possible way to prove or falsify string theory at this moment in time, as it was not possible to prove or disprove the existence of the atoms in the 5th century BC.  That didn't make Democritus wrong for thinking of the atom centuries before it was possible to prove its experimental existence.  Fortunately we had people that thought about that, way before it was possible to experimentally prove it ;)

No need make arguments against M-theory. It's proponents must make arguments it exists and so far, there really aren't any decent reasons beyond vague claims of how 'beautiful' such theories are. But that's completely subjective.
<<there really aren't any decent reasons beyond vague claims of how 'beautiful' such theories are. But that's completely subjective.>> ??? . M-theory nowadays is based on the AdS/CFT correspondence (or in matrix theory).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdS/CFT_correspondence

which is not vague, by objective standards.

For someone who has asked others to be humble, please notice the outstanding people behind AdS/CFT correspondence:  Gerard 't Hooft, Leonard Susskind, Juan Maldacena, Edward Witten  (both at the Institute of Advanced Studies in Princeton), Alexander Markovich Polyakov, and agreed to by Stephen Hawkings.

If you disagree, please let us know what quantum gravity version is less "vague" or what is your preferred alternative to the AdS/CFT correspondence, that in your words is not <<completely subjective.>>.

Also as to being <<completely subjective>>,  by 2015, Maldacena's article had over 10,000 citations, becoming the most highly cited article in the field of high energy physics.

Please let us know what article you can cite that has a greater number of citations in the field of high energy physics, since number of citations is one of the most acknowledged ways to objectively assess the importance of a publication.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/11/2017 06:49 pm
...
Just saying, there is no physical or experimental evidence of more than 4 dimensions, or 5 dimensions if you consider "scale" a dynamically limited dimension as in the Kaluza-metric.
That's perfectly consistent with M-theory since electromagnetic, weak and strong forces are all well confined within this brane!  Ultimately the best possible physical evidence would have to do with gravitons, and the limit for this can be well beyond any physical collider, not possible for several generations. That's why many physicists are concentrating on black hole thermodynamics-information issues, etc.

To use such arguments against M-theory would be like Aristotle against the Greek philosophers Leucippus and Democritus who first developed the concept of the atom in the 5th century B.C.  Aristotle and other prominent thinkers of the time strongly opposed their idea of the atom.  Aristotle was wrong.  But of course there was no possible way for physical experiments in the 5th century B.C. to prove the existence of the atoms.  Similarly there is no possible way to prove or falsify string theory at this moment in time, as it was not possible to prove or disprove the existence of the atoms in the 5th century BC.  That didn't make Democritus wrong for thinking of the atom centuries before it was possible to prove its experimental existence.  Fortunately we had people that thought about that, way before it was possible to experimentally prove it ;)

No need make arguments against M-theory. It's proponents must make arguments it exists and so far, there really aren't any decent reasons beyond vague claims of how 'beautiful' such theories are. But that's completely subjective.
<<there really aren't any decent reasons beyond vague claims of how 'beautiful' such theories are. But that's completely subjective.>> ??? reveals either lack of awareness or only a vague understanding of the AdS/CFT correspondence. M-theory nowadays is based on the AdS/CFT correspondence (or in matrix theory).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdS/CFT_correspondence

which is not vague, by objective standards.

For someone who has asked others to be humble, please notice the outstanding people behind AdS/CFT correspondence:  Gerard 't Hooft, Leonard Susskind, Juan Maldacena, Edward Witten  (both at the Institute of Advanced Studies in Princeton), Alexander Markovich Polyakov, and agreed to by Stephen Hawkings.

If you disagree, please let us know what quantum gravity version is less "vague" or what is your preferred alternative to the AdS/CFT correspondence, that in your words is not <<completely subjective.>>.

Also as to being <<completely subjective>>,  by 2015, Maldacena's article had over 10,000 citations, becoming the most highly cited article in the field of high energy physics.

Please let us know what article you can cite that has a greater number of citations in the field of high energy physics, since number of citations is one of the most acknowledged ways to objectively assess the importance of a publication.

This is a really high number of citations indeed, and the finest quantum bigwigs supporting it. Reminds me of the incredible large numbers of publications devoted to string theory over the past decades.

I'm curious about one thing: what does Jim Woodward, a true GR specialist who you work with, think of such things as "quantum gravity" theories? That is to say, the effective marriage of general relativity with quantum mechanics?

I am only interested in the practical aspects of these theories, that is to say: how to concretely build propellantless thrusters and enable spacetime engineering.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/11/2017 07:05 pm
...
This is a really high number of citations indeed, and the finest quantum bigwigs supporting it. Reminds me of the incredible large numbers of publications devoted to string theory over the past decades.

I'm curious about one thing: what does Jim Woodward, a true GR specialist who you work with, think of such things as "quantum gravity" theories? That is to say, the effective marriage of general relativity with quantum mechanics?

I am only interested in the practical aspects of these theories, that is to say: how to concretely build propellantless thrusters and enable spacetime engineering.

Sorry, it would be inappropriate for me to write or say anything on behalf of anyone else's opinions on any subject including quantum gravity.  They can speak and write for themselves and do not need me to convey their opinions  ;)
My opinions are my own.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/11/2017 07:21 pm
...
This is a really high number of citations indeed, and the finest quantum bigwigs supporting it. Reminds me of the incredible large numbers of publications devoted to string theory over the past decades.

I'm curious about one thing: what does Jim Woodward, a true GR specialist who you work with, think of such things as "quantum gravity" theories? That is to say, the effective marriage of general relativity with quantum mechanics?

I am only interested in the practical aspects of these theories, that is to say: how to concretely build propellantless thrusters and enable spacetime engineering.

Sorry, it would be inappropriate for me to write or say anything about anyone else's opinions on any subject including quantum gravity.  They can speak and write for themselves and do not need me to convey their opinions  ;)

Too bad then, since Dr Woodward doesn't write on any public forum like NSF, only privately or semi-privately. Not anyone –including physicists– is fond of brane collisions, information firewalls against evaporating black holes, ZPF, QVF, multiverse and all that kind of cosmic quantum things (to prevent any explanation of all the terms in the short list of examples I have just cited: they are not directly related together, I know). That's how I read Bob012345's last comments.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/11/2017 07:22 pm
...
Just saying, there is no physical or experimental evidence of more than 4 dimensions, or 5 dimensions if you consider "scale" a dynamically limited dimension as in the Kaluza-metric.
That's perfectly consistent with M-theory since electromagnetic, weak and strong forces are all well confined within this brane!  Ultimately the best possible physical evidence would have to do with gravitons, and the limit for this can be well beyond any physical collider, not possible for several generations. That's why many physicists are concentrating on black hole thermodynamics-information issues, etc.

To use such arguments against M-theory would be like Aristotle against the Greek philosophers Leucippus and Democritus who first developed the concept of the atom in the 5th century B.C.  Aristotle and other prominent thinkers of the time strongly opposed their idea of the atom.  Aristotle was wrong.  But of course there was no possible way for physical experiments in the 5th century B.C. to prove the existence of the atoms.  Similarly there is no possible way to prove or falsify string theory at this moment in time, as it was not possible to prove or disprove the existence of the atoms in the 5th century BC.  That didn't make Democritus wrong for thinking of the atom centuries before it was possible to prove its experimental existence.  Fortunately we had people that thought about that, way before it was possible to experimentally prove it ;)

No need make arguments against M-theory. It's proponents must make arguments it exists and so far, there really aren't any decent reasons beyond vague claims of how 'beautiful' such theories are. But that's completely subjective.
<<there really aren't any decent reasons beyond vague claims of how 'beautiful' such theories are. But that's completely subjective.>> ??? . M-theory nowadays is based on the AdS/CFT correspondence (or in matrix theory).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdS/CFT_correspondence

which is not vague, by objective standards.

For someone who has asked others to be humble, please notice the outstanding people behind AdS/CFT correspondence:  Gerard 't Hooft, Leonard Susskind, Juan Maldacena, Edward Witten  (both at the Institute of Advanced Studies in Princeton), Alexander Markovich Polyakov, and agreed to by Stephen Hawkings.

If you disagree, please let us know what quantum gravity version is less "vague" or what is your preferred alternative to the AdS/CFT correspondence, that in your words is not <<completely subjective.>>.

Also as to being <<completely subjective>>,  by 2015, Maldacena's article had over 10,000 citations, becoming the most highly cited article in the field of high energy physics.

Please let us know what article you can cite that has a greater number of citations in the field of high energy physics, since number of citations is one of the most acknowledged ways to objectively assess the importance of a publication.

I'm sorry if I offended you sensibilities. But all you're telling me is that the community is excited by certain mathematical techniques regarding a conjectured relationship between two kinds of physical theories. Then, you're making an argument from authority that I should just shut up and accept its significance unless I prepared to argue on their level which I admit I not. So, I'll shut up on M-theory.

What I will say is this, what you are doing regarding your work on the Mach effect with professors Woodward and Fearn and the rest of the team is where the important physics is. You and the team are doing significant work of far more importance than even Hawking, t' Hooft or Witten have ever done in my mind.  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 09/11/2017 07:28 pm
When that technique is applied in space, interesting things happen as a new inertial rest frame is created between each short burst of acceleration. That rest frame can then be used to measure velocity and KE increase during the next short burst of acceleration.

To be VERY CLEAR. A non accelerating cavity, relative to the trapped photons, WILL NOT GENERATE ANY FORCE NOR WILL IT INITIATE ACCELERATION.

That complicates things and I doubt that. Otherwise you would need some auxiliary device to get it started in space.

Good point, Bob012345. If the EM drive is accelerating in short bursts and it does not initiate acceleration by itself, what is creating the initial acceleration to get each burst started?

If it works I think it works without such complications.  I think that's just a function of the Shawyer theory which I'm not endorsing.

I agree. I believe in the end it is going to be Dr. White's theory that is going to be the correct one in which the drive is basically interacting with the interstellar medium at the quantum level essentially making it an open system.

Sorry, but I feel that relying on the vacuum and virtual photons is no better than resorting to mysticism.
It's all mystic Bob. You think somehow particles are real, a physical hunk of something? It's all just energy, in a different form.
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 09/11/2017 07:28 pm
As a lay observer, I'm not impressed by citation counts or famous names. 97% of scientists and the Pope can say they believe something, that doesn't make it a good theory. What may do that is an inevitable prediction of some observations, preferably in advance of their measurement, which turns out to be correct where earlier theories are wrong. My 2 cents.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/11/2017 07:36 pm
When that technique is applied in space, interesting things happen as a new inertial rest frame is created between each short burst of acceleration. That rest frame can then be used to measure velocity and KE increase during the next short burst of acceleration.

To be VERY CLEAR. A non accelerating cavity, relative to the trapped photons, WILL NOT GENERATE ANY FORCE NOR WILL IT INITIATE ACCELERATION.

That complicates things and I doubt that. Otherwise you would need some auxiliary device to get it started in space.

Good point, Bob012345. If the EM drive is accelerating in short bursts and it does not initiate acceleration by itself, what is creating the initial acceleration to get each burst started?

If it works I think it works without such complications.  I think that's just a function of the Shawyer theory which I'm not endorsing.

I agree. I believe in the end it is going to be Dr. White's theory that is going to be the correct one in which the drive is basically interacting with the interstellar medium at the quantum level essentially making it an open system.

Sorry, but I feel that relying on the vacuum and virtual photons is no better than resorting to mysticism.
It's all mystic Bob. You think somehow particles are real, a physical hunk of something? It's all just energy, in a different form.
Shell

At least we can measure particles and energy so energy is real. I'd be happy with a purely experimental and empirical version of physics but that's just my subjective opinion. People built great electrical machines before they knew about electrons. I hope people build great propellent-less thruster technology even if they don't understand why it works yet.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 09/11/2017 08:08 pm
As a lay observer, I'm not impressed by citation counts or famous names. 97% of scientists and the Pope can say they believe something, that doesn't make it a good theory. What may do that is an inevitable prediction of some observations, preferably in advance of their measurement, which turns out to be correct where earlier theories are wrong. My 2 cents.

It's human to give more credence to the opinions of the wise and powerful. It's bad science to settle the truth or falsehood of things on that alone.

Not all things under the Sun have been discovered. Not everything that happens around us has an explanation. There probably is a universe of unknown phenomena (just physics, nothing paranormal) we don't know because we haven't found the way to express and witness them. And some of them may be within the reach of a humble DIY experimenter.

While admitting some people do know a lot, way more than me or any other average citizen, I still side more with any modern Galileo checking if it moves, regardless, than with the Popes and Bishops.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 09/11/2017 09:22 pm
When that technique is applied in space, interesting things happen as a new inertial rest frame is created between each short burst of acceleration. That rest frame can then be used to measure velocity and KE increase during the next short burst of acceleration.

To be VERY CLEAR. A non accelerating cavity, relative to the trapped photons, WILL NOT GENERATE ANY FORCE NOR WILL IT INITIATE ACCELERATION.

That complicates things and I doubt that. Otherwise you would need some auxiliary device to get it started in space.

Good point, Bob012345. If the EM drive is accelerating in short bursts and it does not initiate acceleration by itself, what is creating the initial acceleration to get each burst started?

If it works I think it works without such complications.  I think that's just a function of the Shawyer theory which I'm not endorsing.

I agree. I believe in the end it is going to be Dr. White's theory that is going to be the correct one in which the drive is basically interacting with the interstellar medium at the quantum level essentially making it an open system.

Sorry, but I feel that relying on the vacuum and virtual photons is no better than resorting to mysticism.

There are very few clear descriptions of exactly what the quantum vacuum is and of what is imagined from what is predicted. Not all versions are mutually inclusive.

The idea that there is a quantum vacuum that exists fully independently with virtual photons, particles and a variety of fields, popping in and out of existence continuously, is a bit difficult to accept and reconcile with observable reality, other than as a function of mathematical models, generally because it is limited to a construct of the mind and beyond any ability to observe and confirm.

On the other hand, if by the quantum vacuum, one refers to the existence of, to varying degrees, strong, weak and electromagnetic field potentials that interact with material objects.., matter.., as a function of the boundary conditions of the fundamental particles, atoms and perhaps even perhaps the molecules an object is composed of, it becomes difficult to believe otherwise... Do those boundary condition interactions result in interactions between the quantum vacuum and matter that can be described as interactions with virtual photons or even virtual fundamental particles? There are mathematical models that suggests the answer is yes and may even be some indirect supporting evidence.

Can we learn to manipulate those interactions in a functionally useable manner? Maybe, maybe not.., we will see!

There are so many fundamental assumptions in physics as we understand it today, that might one day be described by just those sorts of interactions, that an open mind on this issue would seem best practice.


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/11/2017 09:29 pm
From what I was thinking about above, the same thing is happening in a MET (just talking about the device, not Mach effects theory). A changing energy density (capacitor being charged and discharged) is being jerked around (back and forth in the case of a MET) by a PZT. The return journey doesn't look like a good design feature to have, although if you think about it, it's inevitable in a resonant system. I'm thinking really hard about why the addition of the rubber pad (from the book Making Starships) greatly increased the thrust. That's a good way to absorb energy and reduce the return energy by reducing r. That rubber pad is dissipative. That's the asymmetry. This is an electromechanical version of the EMdrive. They're analogous.

Pics included for research purposes.

May I suggest that the rubber pad allowed room for the copper block to move back and forth, thus allowed more intense vibration? If so, it can be replaced with a compressed spring.

It looks to me like the rubber pad is the dissipative element, serving the same function as the dielectric disc in an EMdrive. They're both lowering the amount of reflected energy by turning it into heat. They both serve to facilitate a partial standing wave.

If you really think about it, it's immediately obvious why a fully superconducting EMdrive is a BAD idea. You better have a load on it.

Do you predict the "thrust" to change direction, if the rubber washer is installed on the other side (on the nut side, not on the bolt side)? From my understanding of how it worked, the "thrust" will likely change direction.

It looks like there's long bolts entering the aluminum end and going all the way through to the brass end and the mount and fastened with nuts on the back. It makes sense that if one were to reverse the bolts and attach the aluminum end to the mount with the rubber separator in between, that the thrust would follow the direction of the rubber gasket.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 09/11/2017 09:44 pm
...
Just saying, there is no physical or experimental evidence of more than 4 dimensions, or 5 dimensions if you consider "scale" a dynamically limited dimension as in the Kaluza-metric.
That's perfectly consistent with M-theory since electromagnetic, weak and strong forces are all well confined within this brane!  Ultimately the best possible physical evidence would have to do with gravitons, and the limit for this can be well beyond any physical collider, not possible for several generations. That's why many physicists are concentrating on black hole thermodynamics-information issues, etc.

To use such arguments against M-theory would be like Aristotle against the Greek philosophers Leucippus and Democritus who first developed the concept of the atom in the 5th century B.C.  Aristotle and other prominent thinkers of the time strongly opposed their idea of the atom.  Aristotle was wrong.  But of course there was no possible way for physical experiments in the 5th century B.C. to prove the existence of the atoms.  Similarly there is no possible way to prove or falsify string theory at this moment in time, as it was not possible to prove or disprove the existence of the atoms in the 5th century BC.  That didn't make Democritus wrong for thinking of the atom centuries before it was possible to prove its experimental existence.  Fortunately we had people that thought about that, way before it was possible to experimentally prove it ;)

No need make arguments against M-theory. It's proponents must make arguments it exists and so far, there really aren't any decent reasons beyond vague claims of how 'beautiful' such theories are. But that's completely subjective.
<<there really aren't any decent reasons beyond vague claims of how 'beautiful' such theories are. But that's completely subjective.>> ??? . M-theory nowadays is based on the AdS/CFT correspondence (or in matrix theory).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdS/CFT_correspondence

which is not vague, by objective standards.

For someone who has asked others to be humble, please notice the outstanding people behind AdS/CFT correspondence:  Gerard 't Hooft, Leonard Susskind, Juan Maldacena, Edward Witten  (both at the Institute of Advanced Studies in Princeton), Alexander Markovich Polyakov, and agreed to by Stephen Hawkings.

If you disagree, please let us know what quantum gravity version is less "vague" or what is your preferred alternative to the AdS/CFT correspondence, that in your words is not <<completely subjective.>>.

Also as to being <<completely subjective>>,  by 2015, Maldacena's article had over 10,000 citations, becoming the most highly cited article in the field of high energy physics.

Please let us know what article you can cite that has a greater number of citations in the field of high energy physics, since number of citations is one of the most acknowledged ways to objectively assess the importance of a publication.

Dr. Rodal,

I agree this seems like an argument from authority. Especially where the list of names you invoke all seem to be either involved with the origins or developement of string theory to varying extents. I haven't followed Hawlkings as it relates to this issue, but tagging his name on the end, is in many respects akin to invoking Einstein's name in other discussions.

As I believe someone else attempted to mention, in different words.., there are almost certainly many authorities working on gravitation both from the context of general relativity and quantum gravity (not associated with string theory) that are less enthusiastic with the viability of string theory, as representing the future, of any real understanding, of real world observations.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/11/2017 10:00 pm
I don't understand why people can simultaneously say that gravity isn't a force (it isn't) and at the same time gravitation is a member of the fundamental force club. Probably why it hasn't been quantized yet.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 09/11/2017 10:03 pm
Now if the string-therorists can propose an explanation as to how the Em-drive works, which can then be supported by experiments involving this so-far mysterious effect, that would advance their popularity among other physicists as well as helping to refine Em-drive efficiency.   XKCD on the scientific method (https://www.xkcd.com/397/)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/11/2017 10:03 pm
Patent GB 2493361 entitled High Q Microwave Radiation Thruster has now been granted to SPR by the UK Intellectual Property Office.

https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/PublicationNumber/GB2493361

The EmDrive design guidelines are also now online:
http://www.emdrive.com/GeneralPrinciples.pdf

Enjoy.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/11/2017 10:10 pm
....

I agree this seems like an argument from authority. Especially where the list of names you invoke all seem to be either involved with the origins or developement of string theory to varying extents. I haven't followed Hawlkings as it relates to this issue, but tagging his name on the end, is in many respects akin to invoking Einstein's name in other discussions.

As I believe someone else attempted to mention, in different words.., there are almost certainly many authorities working on gravitation both from the context of general relativity and quantum gravity (not associated with string theory) that are less enthusiastic with the viability of string theory, as representing the future, of any real understanding, of real world observations.
If you follow the "string" you will see that this whole thing started by me answering someone's honest question about the issue that gravitation travels at the speed of light.  Somehow this devolved into a free-for-all about the fashionable bashing of M-theory.   How does any of this bashing against M-theory, Witten, Susskind, Maldacena, etc. relate to the EM Drive, I have no idea.

Keep on bashing M-theory it it makes you feel good  ;)  Perhaps this should be done in a new thread to be titled "Let's bash string theory because I'm mad as hell against strings and branes and multiverses and I'm not going to take it anymore"  ::)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 09/11/2017 10:24 pm
....

I agree this seems like an argument from authority. Especially where the list of names you invoke all seem to be either involved with the origins or developement of string theory to varying extents. I haven't followed Hawlkings as it relates to this issue, but tagging his name on the end, is in many respects akin to invoking Einstein's name in other discussions.

As I believe someone else attempted to mention, in different words.., there are almost certainly many authorities working on gravitation both from the context of general relativity and quantum gravity (not associated with string theory) that are less enthusiastic with the viability of string theory, as representing the future, of any real understanding, of real world observations.
It is very fashionable nowadays for people to attack string theory in blogs.  None of the people posting here are breaking new ground with such criticisms:  you have the book and blog of Peter Woit http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/ and several others.  What I notice of course if that all of this criticism falls into an even greater hole than what is being criticized.  No viable superior alternative for quantum gravity is mentioned, and nobody here is arguing anything specific against the definite statements of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdS/CFT_correspondence. 

Just vague statements as "many working, many authorities, no authority, no Popes, no Cardinals, etc."

If you follow the "string" you will see that this whole thing started by me answering someone's honest question about the issue that gravitation travels at the speed of light.  Somehow this devolved into a free-for-all about the fashionable bashing of M-theory and string theory.   How does any of this bashing against M-theory, Witten, Susskind, Maldacena, etc. relate to the EM Drive, I have no idea.

I suppose that when Democritus proposed the atom there might as well be similar bashing against the atomists, since there was no experimental proof to come for the atom for several centuries nor any practical application.

Keep on bashing M-theory it it makes you feel good  ;)  Perhaps this should be done in a new thread to be titled "Let's bash string theory because I'm mad as hell against strings and branes and multiverses and I'm not going to take it anymore"  ::)
Sorry, I guess I started the bashing, but I "do" have an alternate model of QG published that is consistent with the Standard Model. I have no need for strings, except on my guitar. ;)




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/11/2017 10:31 pm
Yeah String Theories are one of those instances where the mathematical crank got turned with no underlying understanding of the reality of what's really going on. It's mathematically beautiful and doesn't make useful predictions. It's not even wrong. Basically, it's mathematical psychosis.

I do believe that a naked electron is a closed loop standing wave though which iirc isn't what String Theory says. I think it's the graviton that's the closed string.

It's interesting to me that you can take a closed string and rotate it edge on and you'll see an open string. It's all about perspective I suppose. Which is the preferred perspective I wonder? There isn't one.

That reminds me of a separate thing that I've been thinking about. So a photon (just one this time) has a spin that is parallel or antiparallel to the direction of propagation, and you can't catch up with a photon in order to see the spin go another direction relative to what you're seeing. That's a given. But if I have two (two now) counterpropagating photons, and this is really bugging me and I don't understand it yet, what is the helicity in the COM frame? I can outrun that. If I'm boosting relative to that, and I take what I see in a mirror, does it superimpose or is it different? None of this makes sense to me and I don't understand if I'm even asking myself a valid question. What I'm trying to do is make sense of what I was thinking about two years ago when I was crazy about chirality and thinking quantum mechanically and what I'm thinking now classically.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/12/2017 01:24 am
Guys,

To keep busy and start doing stuff I can share, have started a project to look in detail at the Interstellar Probe as per Roger's 2014/2015 peer reviewed paper.

1st goal is to reverse engineer the EmDrive, which should be doable as he stated freq, Df, YBCO cavity lining and Qu. Then assuming modes of TE011, TE012 and TE013 should be able to determine the cavity dimensions.

Will also work on his fairly detailed probe mass budget and 1.2MWt to 200kWe conversion efficiency, which seems very conservative. Plus will look at if the probe needs the closed loop cryo cooler vs using radiant cooling. From what I can see the cryo cooler consumes 150kWe, with 50kWe being converted into 29.6kWrf.

Should be able to improve on 1.2MWt resulting in 29.6kWrf.

As the probe's EmDrives drives run at 500MHz, the cavities will be much larger than the S band cavities I'm working with at present.

As this work is outside my NDA restrictions, I plan to build a 500MHz thruster with Rf system and do rotary test rig testing, the results of which will be shared on NSF and a web site I'll create which will be dedicated to this probe.

Just maybe I may be able to gain some funding to enable others to take the work forward and get the probe built.

BTW, the probe will be designed to carry at least 2t of science experiments and arrive at the target star system at local velocity, such that orbits around local system planets can be done. Goona need a really good AI to make that happen. Well beyond my capacity to design or build.

Target transit time is 10 years from launch until entering the target star system as defined by it's outer most planet.

Roger's paper with his probe details attached.

Should add we can disagree on theory forever.  Matters not for building EmDrives and generating thrust. How to do that is fairly well understood and seems to follow SPR theory, which at the end of the day may or may not be correct.

Should be fun,
Phil
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 09/12/2017 03:31 am

To keep busy and start doing stuff I can share, have started a project to look in detail at the Interstellar Probe as per Roger's 2014/2015 peer reviewed paper.


I'd be happy to see any evidence coming from you. So far we have been told wonders are happening somewhere, but none has resulted in documents we can consider as potential evidence.

Good luck, regardless.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 09/12/2017 04:16 am
I am starting to see more articles on the recent news from China CAST.

https://goo.gl/3jTJ6k

There will very likely be more coming our way. I also see that especially russian webs went quite crazy for the news from China.


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/12/2017 04:22 am
Roger is a clever engineer, damn me for not doing a reverse engineering on the Interstellar Probe's EmDrives as he gave all the needed bread crumbs.

Bd: 2.193m
Sd: 0.938m
Len: 1.060m
Df: 0.7725
Mode: TE013
Freq: 500MHz
Cu room temp Qu: 560k <<<< amazing Qu!!!!!
YBCO 77K Qu: 1.25x10^8 (125,000,000)
Specific Force: 645N/kW

Note Roger used 304N/kW as an average force to be conservative and to compensate for lost N as KE and velocity increases.

But those are BIG drives, well big compared to 2.45GHz S band drives.

This is going to be very interesting.
Phil
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/12/2017 04:26 am
I am starting to see more articles on the recent news from China CAST.

https://goo.gl/3jTJ6k

There will very likely be more coming our way. I also see that especially russian webs went quite crazy for the news from China.

Hi Chrochne,

Someone needs to tell them that NASA does have a working EmDrive or maybe a working White QV Thruster.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/12/2017 04:30 am

To keep busy and start doing stuff I can share, have started a project to look in detail at the Interstellar Probe as per Roger's 2014/2015 peer reviewed paper.


I'd be happy to see any evidence coming from you. So far we have been told wonders are happening somewhere, but none has resulted in documents we can consider as potential evidence.

Good luck, regardless.

Hi Tchernik,

This work is outside my NDAs and not something my client is interested in as per our contract.

So the 500MHz Interstallar Probe drive details will be publically released.

Initial cavity will be Cu at room temp, then cooled to 77K and finally 4K before moving on to a superconductor build.

Predicted Qu and specific force:

Cu @ room temp: Qu 5.56x10^5, SF 2.87N/kW
Cu @ 77K: Qu 1.57x10^6, SF 8.12N/kW
Cu @4K: Qu 2.80x10^6, SF 14.42N/kW
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: vladimirph on 09/12/2017 05:15 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=8&v=dCTasn_hq-o
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/12/2017 06:31 am
Patent GB 2493361 entitled High Q Microwave Radiation Thruster has now been granted to SPR by the UK Intellectual Property Office.

https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/PublicationNumber/GB2493361

The EmDrive design guidelines are also now online:
http://www.emdrive.com/GeneralPrinciples.pdf

Enjoy.

Lest we forget Roger Shawyer's next EmDrive patent application in the queue:

https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-find-publication-getPDF.pdf?PatentNo=GB2537119&DocType=A&JournalNumber=6647
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThinkerX on 09/12/2017 06:36 am
Quote
As this work is outside my NDA restrictions, I plan to build a 500MHz thruster with Rf system and do rotary test rig testing, the results of which will be shared on NSF and a web site I'll create which will be dedicated to this probe.

Do your NDA restrictions permit you to divulge the name of the company you are working for?

Also, if permissible, do the company math/engineer types agree with you and Roger as to how this device functions?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 09/12/2017 06:46 am
Here is a rerun of the cylindrical cavity model with metal ring structure in higher quality. I think it's a TE022 where the lower lobes are deformed what leads to asymmetric conditions..


Quote from:  Chen Yue
[0016] The resonant cavity is rectangular, plate-shaped structural unit structure having a rectangular notch; interval each structural unit is less than the width of the structural units; bilaterally symmetrical structural unit and side walls of the contact cavity opened a gap.

[0017] The cylindrical cavity, a cyclic structure as a structural unit, each interval is less than the height of the ring structure of the cyclic structure.

[0018] The advantages of the present invention over the prior art in that:

[0019] I) of the present patent by introducing a periodic structure design, can effectively localized electromagnetic field in the vicinity of the periodic structure, in theory, can improve the degree greater degree of uneven distribution of the electromagnetic field, so the thrust generated by the power unit higher than the existing cavities the design of;

[0020] 2) the shape of the cavity is more flexible, the cavity may be rectangular or circular, ease of use and installation works, but only for the existing design or pyramidal frustum;

BRIEF DESCRIPTION

[0021] FIG. 1 is based on a rectangular plate-like cavity notched front view of the periodic structure;

[0022] FIG. 2 is based on a rectangular plate-like cavity notched periodic structure side view;

[0023] FIG. 3 is based on a rectangular cavity notched plate-like electric field distribution diagram of the periodic structure;

[0024] FIG. 4 is based on a cylindrical cavity ring periodic structures elevational view;

[0025] FIG. 5 is a cylindrical cavity based on cyclic periodic structures a top view;

[0026] FIG. 6 is a cylindrical cavity based on the electric field distribution diagram cyclic periodic structures.

[0028] I) the particular design of the periodic structure of the sheet-like (plate-like structure comprises a notch), a cyclic structure, each of the structural elements are arranged periodically in the local space of the cavity;

[0036] cyclic structure design cycle, a total of three rings, respectively an inner diameter of 69mm, 129mm, 189mm, ring thickness of 1mm, the height of the ring is 70mm, three-ring structure normal to Z, according to the theory of electromagnetic design, ring structure spacing is less than the height of the ring, take the 60_ in this case. The electric field distribution in Figure 6; ^

[0037] The present invention is not described in details known to those skilled in the art.

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=41732.0;attach=1398626;image)
It is reminiscent of un-developed design ideas I sent to SPR Ltd. in 2014. The idea being that the path length of the absorbed RF energy is extended at the convoluted end, exaggerating the asymmetry and sustaining the inertia generated by the radiation pressure there.

The Chinese design is well conceived in my opinion, the extended delay before emission from the convoluted end being compensated for by a reduction in the overall length. A very neat solution.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/12/2017 06:56 am
Quote
As this work is outside my NDA restrictions, I plan to build a 500MHz thruster with Rf system and do rotary test rig testing, the results of which will be shared on NSF and a web site I'll create which will be dedicated to this probe.

Do your NDA restrictions permit you to divulge the name of the company you are working for?

Also, if permissible, do the company math/engineer types agree with you and Roger as to how this device functions?

It is my client's right to decide the time to commercially offer their Ion Drive replacement thruster. Would you really expect a commercial company to act any other way?

My spherical S band thruster, which I did reveal a early design, easily achieved their goal of 200mN at less than 4.2kWdc. That thruster is undergoing the process to achieve TRL 9.

As for if we engineers agree, well when we follow Roger's bread crumbs,  the SPR theory and my experience and design tools, yes we can follow a proven recipe to achieve thrust.

We measure longer guide wavelength at the small end and shorter guide wavelength at the big end as per theory.

We measure Q dropping as acceleration progressively increases velocity and KE. Which is not surprising as the same thing happens with accelerator cavities, ie cavity Q drops as particles are accelerated vs no beam current or no particles accelerated. There is no OU in EmDrive cavities as there is no OU in accelerator cavities. Input energy divides as ohmic wall losses or that exported to support the acceleration of mass.

So input energy per cycle = ohmic wall losses per cycle plus KE velocity losses per cycle. In both type of cavities, the energy loss to support acceleration drops cavity Q and stored energy.

Different dog but same leg action.

As I have said before, I have no 100% proof the SPR theory is correct but it sure fits how to design an EmDrive and dynamic tests do suggest that CofE is conserved as force is not constant and reduces as KE increases.

As for CofM and Newton 3, well that seems to happen inside the cavity during the short time the photon's live before they are thermalised. Data suggests they lose energy much quicker to ohmic losses than to KE losses,  which suggests there is a lot of efficiency improvements to be engineered in. Take note both Roger and I use pulsed Rf, note the attachment from his latest granted patent. The Rf pulse is 20% of 1 cavity TC and the normal cavity fill time is 5xTC. Curious minds might ask why only a Rf pulse for 4% of the normal cavity fill time?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/12/2017 07:24 am
As for if we engineers agree,
You are not an engineer. Engineers can perform a basic force balance, and know the difference between an open and closed system. Referring to yourself as an engineer when you can't do this is an insult to engineers.

We measure longer guide wavelength at the small end and shorter guide wavelength at the big end as per theory.

We measure Q dropping as acceleration progressively increases velocity and KE.
I am fairly certain you can't even describe the experimental setups for these measurements, let alone have actually done them. Especially the part about wavelength, which you have previously demonstrated an inability to even properly define.

There is no OU in EmDrive cavities
Per Shawyer's description of the emDrive, there is simply no way for energy to be conserved because there is no exhaust of any sort. No one will take you seriously if you keep making such trivially wrong statements. Go back to the last time I discussed CoE with you, and you failed to either provide an equation for calculating the adjusted velocity, or what the velocity would be after 1 second for a given set of conditions.

As I have said before, I have no 100% proof the SPR theory is correct but it sure fits how to design an EmDrive and dynamic tests do suggest that CofE is conserved as force is not constant and reduces as KE increases.
It is simply inconsistent with itself, therefore, it cannot be correct.

As for CofM and Newton 3, well that serms to happen inside the cavity during the short time the photon's live before they are thermalised. Data suggests they lose energy much quicker to ohmic losses than to KE losses,  which suggests there is a lot of efficiency improvements to be engineered in.
What in the world kind of data are you imagining?
 Go back to the last CoM conversation and try answering even the most basic question that you were asked.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/12/2017 07:37 am
As for if we engineers agree,
You are not an engineer. Engineers can perform a basic force balance, and know the difference between an open and closed system. Referring to yourself as an engineer when you can't do this is an insult to engineers.

We measure longer guide wavelength at the small end and shorter guide wavelength at the big end as per theory.

We measure Q dropping as acceleration progressively increases velocity and KE.
I am fairly certain you can't even describe the experimental setups for these measurements, let alone have actually done them. Especially the part about wavelength, which you have previously demonstrated an inability to even properly define.

There is no OU in EmDrive cavities
Per Shawyer's description of the emDrive, there is simply no way for energy to be conserved because there is no exhaust of any sort. No one will take you seriously if you keep making such trivially wrong statements. Go back to the last time I discussed CoE with you, and you failed to either provide an equation for calculating the adjusted velocity, or what the velocity would be after 1 second for a given set of conditions.

As I have said before, I have no 100% proof the SPR theory is correct but it sure fits how to design an EmDrive and dynamic tests do suggest that CofE is conserved as force is not constant and reduces as KE increases.
It is simply inconsistent with itself, therefore, it cannot be correct.

As for CofM and Newton 3, well that serms to happen inside the cavity during the short time the photon's live before they are thermalised. Data suggests they lose energy much quicker to ohmic losses than to KE losses,  which suggests there is a lot of efficiency improvements to be engineered in.
What in the world kind of data are you imagining?
 Go back to the last CoM conversation and try answering even the most basic question that you were asked.

Interesting personal insults coming from a guy that totally rejects all the experimental data and suggests Roger is a scammer.

Enjoy your life as we will no longer communicate. No point. I did try to explain.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/12/2017 08:02 am
Interesting personal insults coming from a guy that totally rejects all the experimental data and suggests Roger is a scammer.
You have repeatedly demonstrated you lack of understanding of basic physics, that is a fact, not an insult.

Your accusation of me rejecting experimental evidence is simply false. There are multiple null results that you are ignoring, and every non-null result has signals within the range that can be explained by systematic errors. Shawyer has not provided details to even assess his experiments.

Enjoy your life as we will no longer communicate. No point. I did try to explain.
You did not try. I have repeatedly asked specific simple questions which you have not answered.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mark7777777 on 09/12/2017 08:07 am
www.cannae.com is back up. No changes/additional content as far as I saw.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/12/2017 08:36 am
Guys,

This is Roger's take on theory,  which I agree with:

Quote
There may not  yet be  universal  agreement  how  EmDrive  works,  but  there  is  agreement  that  if  you  build a thruster  according  to  SPR  design  rules,  it does  work.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mark7777777 on 09/12/2017 08:43 am
Regarding Roger Shawyer's recently granted patent, https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/PublicationNumber/GB2493361 , is it true that the UK patent office will only patent something that works?

https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/13307/can-i-patent-a-time-machine
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/12/2017 09:06 am
Regarding Roger Shawyer's recently granted patent, https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Case/PublicationNumber/GB2493361 , is it true that the UK patent office will only patent something that works?

https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/13307/can-i-patent-a-time-machine

Hi Mark,

This is my understanding:

The UK Patent Office notes that you cannot get a patent on "articles or processes alleged to operate in a manner clearly contrary to well-established physical laws" as they are "regarded as not having industrial application".

Clearly Roger has explained and given examples to the UK patent examiners to support his patent application as they granted it.

It did take 6 years from the filing date to the grant date.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mark7777777 on 09/12/2017 09:10 am
Thank you for your explanation.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 09/12/2017 11:47 am
Guys,

This is Roger's take on theory,  which I agree with:

Quote
There may not  yet be  universal  agreement  how  EmDrive  works,  but  there  is  agreement  that  if  you  build a thruster  according  to  SPR  design  rules,  it does  work.

There is no such agreement. Meberbs does not agree. I do not agree.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/12/2017 12:02 pm
As this work is outside my NDA restrictions, I plan to build a 500MHz thruster with Rf system and do rotary test rig testing, the results of which will be shared on NSF and a web site I'll create which will be dedicated to this probe.

Demonstrating that the EmDrive works with a 2-meter wide (6.5 feet dia.!) copper cavity on a rotary test rig—?!

Last year you promised everyone to quickly build and share publicly this KISS rotary test rig:

(http://ayuba.fr/images/emdrive/wilson_2016.png)

which obviously is not similar to a space-grade thruster. Not need to resort to the difficulties to build a cheap and effective (at the same time) KISS thruster. You don't have to build dozens of cheap replication platforms, only one, more precise and at a higher unitary cost, for your own public tests.

Then and now, "due to the NDA you signed" ??? you say you will demonstrate publicly and "share with NSF" this kind of design instead:

(http://ayuba.fr/images/emdrive/wilson_2017.png)

Which length the support beam will have… about 8 to 10 meters? Do you own a aircraft hangar next to your house or something?

Please explain why the first KISS design would bother the unknown leading space industry firm you would be in contract with, but not the second one? (!!!)

This is like the inventor of the helicopter deciding to prove the world his invention works but not before a completed AH-64 Apache has been built ::)

"I have this in my garage…"

(http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/104_spring2004.web.dir/Tim_Chrisman/Web%20project%20TimChrisman/Spring%20Web%20Project/sik-vs300.jpg)

"… but I won't show you until it gets like this:"

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/AH-64D_Apache_Longbow.jpg/320px-AH-64D_Apache_Longbow.jpg)

"because the NDA I signed with the US Army prevents me to show my current design."

What puzzles me besides such unnecessary technical complication is that you seem to relate your legal ability to show a working EmDrive, i.e. outside the scope of any NDA you signed, with the SIZE of the cavity.

The size of an object has nothing to do with NDAs, copyrights, trademarks, patents, etc.

If NDA restrictions are not about the size of the cavity but its operating frequency (which are both related): if you really signed an NDA preventing the development of any other S-band thruster (I don't know why you would have shot yourself in the foot like this), there are ways to build smaller or bigger cavities before going Church Bell Size.

I fail to understand the logic, and why you doesn't show a basic test rig demonstrating a copper frustum with spherical end plates rotating, a simple model that would have nothing to do with your "professional NDA-protected secret space-grade EmDrive". Besides the fact it will make 2018 2019 a very interesting year.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/12/2017 12:16 pm
TT let's see a scan of your NDA, properly redacted of course.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/12/2017 12:56 pm
I fail to understand the logic, and why you doesn't show a basic test rig demonstrating a copper frustum with spherical end plates rotating, a simple model that would have nothing to do with your "professional NDA-protected secret space-grade EmDrive". Besides the fact it will make 2018 2019 a very interesting year.

I can't engage in S band or higher EmDrive R&D outside my contract. Which is why I decided on building a 500MHz EmDrive in a public way.

There are other designs that fit the 500MHz, Df 0.7725 form factor other than the one you nicely imaged.

However as freq drops, cavity size grows and Q grows. I'm sure you understand that 500MHz cavities will be larger than 2.45GHz S band thruster.

BTW your 2 chopper comparison is in no way correct. Both  the S band and 500MHz thrusters are the 1st example, just the 500MHz cavity is physically much bigger but that biggness comes with 500K room temp Qu which is not to be ignored.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tleach on 09/12/2017 01:02 pm
Guys,

This is Roger's take on theory,  which I agree with:

Quote
There may not  yet be  universal  agreement  how  EmDrive  works,  but  there  is  agreement  that  if  you  build a thruster  according  to  SPR  design  rules,  it does  work.

There is no such agreement. Meberbs does not agree. I do not agree.

And many others, I'm sure, but jeez guys, cut Phil a little slack. If you want to see a working EM drive, build one yourselves or just sit back and waiy patiently. No need to get nasty

Lots of clues and recipies and ideas have been postex in these fourms and they tend to converge on similar designs, which are the same shapes Phil has been pushing all along.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/12/2017 01:02 pm
Guys,

This is Roger's take on theory,  which I agree with:

Quote
There may not  yet be  universal  agreement  how  EmDrive  works,  but  there  is  agreement  that  if  you  build a thruster  according  to  SPR  design  rules,  it does  work.

There is no such agreement. Meberbs does not agree. I do not agree.

Of course you do not agree.

How can you as you do not accept any of the existing test data has any validity? Plus neither you nor Meberbs has ever built an EmDrive, following the rules, so you reject something you have never done based on no physical experience.

Cool.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/12/2017 01:14 pm
There are other designs that fit the 500MHz, Df 0.7725 form factor.

However as freq drops, cavity size grows and Q grows. I'm sure you understand that.

I perfectly understand but we are not talking of a working air or space thruster here, but a public demonstrator.
We would all love to see a working EmDrive levitate or go through the roof for sure.

Proper Df, respecting the "cutoff rule", using shaped end plates, polished surfaces for high Q, narrow bandwidth, with pulsed operation, proper Tc filling time, etc: I understand all this.

These are "Roger's bread crumbs" you claim to follow carefully to build a "proper EmDrive". Otherwise the force is too small, or inexistent, like the Eagleworks frustum. Right?

Following these rules allows you, as you claim, to build any EmDrive, including 2.45GHz ones, with very high specific thrust forces.

Despite the Q factor increasing with size (I do agree), as you obtain so much stronger forces than any other lab including Eagleworks, you don't have to make a giant cavity with a very high Q to enable "the thrust signature to be clearly out of the noise". Cavendish setups can very well demonstrate the tens or even hundreds of millinewtons you claim to achieve with small copper cavities.

Therefore, with the knowledge and skills you acquired during the past three years, no need for a very expensive bell-sized EmDrive on a giant rotating test rig inside an aircraft hangar to demonstrate the "Shawyer effect".

Only a small test rig, efficient, not cheap but doable, will do the trick.

QED
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/12/2017 01:16 pm
If I had a guy working for me and I had him sign a nondisclosure agreement, I certainly wouldn't allow him to post ANYTHING about the subject on a public forum that would help anyone else. None of this makes sense what's going on here.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 09/12/2017 01:20 pm
Guys,

This is Roger's take on theory,  which I agree with:

Quote
There may not  yet be  universal  agreement  how  EmDrive  works,  but  there  is  agreement  that  if  you  build a thruster  according  to  SPR  design  rules,  it does  work.

There is no such agreement. Meberbs does not agree. I do not agree.

Of course you do not agree.

How can you as you do not accept any of the existing test data has any validity? Plus neither you nor Meberbs has ever built an EmDrive, following the rules, so you reject something you have never done based on no physical experience.

Cool.

The best experiment until 2015 was the 2014 EM experiment and the 2014 Tajmar experiment. I worked with many of my precious hours to show that the 2014 EW experiment had missed the Lorentz force. I pointed out what Tajmar missed in his experiment. So I have valid reasons to reject the EW 2014 and the Tajmar 2014 experiments. Yang rejected her own experiments. I do notice at least three other experiments that do not show thrust. I spent hours to help one experimenter to find why Lorentz force caused "thurst" in his build. This caused his recall of 1mN thrust (I forgot the name. He is a physics student in a university). I have done more than many on this forum. Right, I have not built an EmDrive. It is you or others who believe it works that bear the burden to prove it works. Unfortunately, until now, there is no experiment that shows it works. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/12/2017 01:20 pm
Only a small test rig, efficient, not cheap but doable, will do the trick.

QED
.

I can't share what my client would consider could be a satellite thruster,  ie S band or above. End of discussion on that subject.

I believe Jamie will deliver good data with his new build but he may need to get it Cu electroplated and them electopolished to get really good results.

There are ample examples of working EmDrives developing thrust. So no need to wait for me to become a believer.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: mclumber1 on 09/12/2017 01:31 pm
I can't share what my client would consider could be a satellite thruster,  ie S band or above. End of discussion on that subject.

I believe Jamie will deliver good data with his new build but he may need to get it Cu electroplated and them electopolished to get really good results.

There are ample examples of working EmDrives developing thrust. So no need to wait for me to become a believer.

I think others have asked you this, but why would Shawyer share (almost exclusively) with you both build data and "bread crumbs" on how to construct a thruster?  You are a competitor to him at this point, I would think that would mean he would shut you out of all further information about his technology. 

Because of this (among other reasons), people are beginning to question your credibility.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/12/2017 01:34 pm
If I had a guy working for me and I had him sign a nondisclosure agreement, I certainly wouldn't allow him to post ANYTHING about the subject on a public forum that would help anyone else. None of this makes sense what's going on here.

That is because you have no idea of what we have developed. What I talk about here is yesterdays news. Nothing new has been revealed.

My NDA does not restrict me talking about the past or from commenting on what Roger shares. I consult to my client and have licensed them rights to certain unique technology I developed, that is well beyond what is shared from the past.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/12/2017 01:41 pm
There are ample examples of working EmDrives developing thrust.

There are no other examples of working EmDrives:

- all EmDrives publicly known to date, from Eagleworks to TU Dresden through DIYers, develop so little thrust that the measured force can still be mistaken with thermal or EM effects. Or the cavity develops a force of the same magnitude as the axial one, but laterally (Tajmar) which ruins the whole demonstration.

- Yang Juan withdrawn her prior very high thrust measurements, stating that when the energy source is moved onto the setup (admittedly a much lighter and lower power one) and is not external anymore, the thrust force almost disappears within the noise i.e. below the resolution accuracy of her torsion pendulum. And yes I agree the setup described in her last paper was poorly designed and could not detect a force even if it was present due to the stiffness of the three steel wires, but precisely this fact alone highlights how the thrust produced is so low. A problem of low specific force you claim to have overcome.

- Shawyer's public rotary test rig, not even enclosed in a transparent cage (to protect it from ambient convection air currents) used an air bearing with several rotating cooling fans onboard, blowing hot air asymmetrically. It would have rotated without any EmDrive. But he never subsequently showed an updated solid-state fanless setup.

- Eagleworks' rotary test rig leaked video is also plagued with spurious forces that are not related to the cavity, according to Paul March himself.

- All EmDrives developing a very high specific thrust that may exist at SPR, private aerospace companies, army labs, etc… are kept secret, so that no EmDrive has been definitely proven to work yet. This fact alone demonstrates the whole problem. If the technology was already "demonstrated" outside of small circles, the race would currently be in the industry, not done secretly in private and defense R&D labs.

You seem to not understand the necessity to demonstrate the EmDrive validity to the general public and wider science circles outside the circles of "people in the know" of which you became a part of.

Thus there is still urgent need for a public demonstrator rotary test rig, with precise data. Seems you won't provide it.

So no need to wait for me to become a believer.

We already know that you are a believer. The purpose of a public demonstrator on a rotary test rig is not intended to prove the EmDrive is working to you of course, but to everyone else.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/12/2017 01:51 pm
I can't share what my client would consider could be a satellite thruster,  ie S band or above. End of discussion on that subject.

I believe Jamie will deliver good data with his new build but he may need to get it Cu electroplated and them electopolished to get really good results.

There are ample examples of working EmDrives developing thrust. So no need to wait for me to become a believer.

I think others have asked you this, but why would Shawyer share (almost exclusively) with you both build data and "bread crumbs" on how to construct a thruster?  You are a competitor to him at this point, I would think that would mean he would shut you out of all further information about his technology. 

Because of this (among other reasons), people are beginning to question your credibility.

Roger has never shared core tech with me. Never. Told me to buy a good microwave engineering text book and start reading. Which I did. Laid out a few bread crumbs for me to follow but that is it. He sometime gives me pre notice of stuff he is posting on his website site, like the builders guide that is now on the EmDrive web site.

Roger is going for really high Q superconducting heavy mass lifters, while I, well my client, focuses on 0.4N/kW Ion Drive replacement satellite thrusters, so we do not compete.

And yes Roger tells me nothing about what he and Gilo Industries are doing. We do however stay in contact and exchange external news stories.

Mary-Ann from IBT talks to Roger a lot more than me and gets all the really hot stuff. Sometime iI learn more from Mary-Ann than Roger.

Did try to arrange a face to face between Jamie and Roger when Jamie was in the UK. Roger said no point as he can't say anything about his work without MOD approval and there was no way Jamie could get permission to visit his workshop, like Jamie did with Paul at EW.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/12/2017 02:01 pm
Guys,

This is Roger's take on theory,  which I agree with:

Quote
There may not  yet be  universal  agreement  how  EmDrive  works,  but  there  is  agreement  that  if  you  build a thruster  according  to  SPR  design  rules,  it does  work.

There is no such agreement. Meberbs does not agree. I do not agree.

And many others, I'm sure, but jeez guys, cut Phil a little slack. If you want to see a working EM drive, build one yourselves or just sit back and waiy patiently. No need to get nasty

Lots of clues and recipies and ideas have been postex in these fourms and they tend to converge on similar designs, which are the same shapes Phil has been pushing all along.
TT does not deserve any slack at this point. He has broken an absurd number of promises, made ridiculous claims, and demonstrated a lack of understanding of basic physics, refusing to answer even the simplest of questions that show the inconsistency of his claims.

Speaking of inconsistency, when exactly was this newest supposed NDA with nonsensical restrictions signed?

I am not sure what you mean by clues and recipes converging, since really they are just all copying what Shawyer originally did.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/12/2017 02:04 pm
...
I am not sure what you mean by clues and recipes converging, since really they are just all copying what Shawyer originally did.
With one important diverging line of development: the Chinese resonant cavities for Space tests are not following Shawyer's prescriptions, for example concerning the geometry and the nature of the electromagnetic fields inside the cavity.

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1447210;image)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/12/2017 02:06 pm
Thus there is still urgent need for a public demonstrator rotary test rig, with precise data. Seems you won't provide it.

I did ask Roger if he could get permissions to share the Demonstrator detailed rotary technical report as he did the static test. He went away and tried.  Told me a few weeks ago that it was not available for public release.

Why is there an urgent need for a public demonstration? Who will benefit? Who may not benefit?

Why not contact Gilo Industries Group and ask them when they plan to do a public demo as they now own Universal Propulsion, the once JV between SPR and Gilo Cardozo?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/12/2017 02:07 pm
...

Did try to arrange a face to face between Jamie and Roger when Jamie was in the UK. Roger said no point as he can't say anything about his work without MOD approval and there was no way Jamie could get permission to visit his workshop, like Jamie did with Paul at EW.
He would not agree to meet with Jamie even in a restaurant or a pub, but it was OK for the MOD to show his workshop to TV cameras to the entire world, in the Project Greenglow TV program?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jPrOKeHXvY

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/12/2017 02:15 pm
...

Did try to arrange a face to face between Jamie and Roger when Jamie was in the UK. Roger said no point as he can't say anything about his work without MOD approval and there was no way Jamie could get permission to visit his workshop, like Jamie did with Paul at EW.
He would not agree to meet with Jamie even in a restaurant or a pub, but it was OK to show his workshop to TV cameras to the entire world, in the TV program?

Jose,

I talked with Mary-Ann who did the at length interview and the guy who directed project greenglow. In both cases what they could and could not show nor say was controlled by the UK MOD. Mary-Ann told me she had to go through a security check and every question she asked Roger and his reply was agreed in advance. Said many times Roger answered too much and many retakes were required to keep his replies as per the preagreed script.

I'm sure Jamie will confirm what I shared. I really did give it my best shot to get them together for a chat.

BTW what they showed as Roger's workshop was his storage area. We saw nothing new, none of the cryo work. None of the test rigs. Only old stuff in storage.

The flat sided thruster Roger put on the air track was vintage 2007. 1st C band build after the Demonstrator.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/12/2017 02:23 pm
Why is there an urgent need for a public demonstration? Who will benefit? Who may not benefit?

Companies all over the world that would be able to buy EmDrives from you, or from SPR Ltd, or any other firm in that business, would be glad to know this is a genuine thruster. This would help to invest money in this industry, particularly in SPR which was in bad trouble not so long ago, according to their public liquid assets. And it still may be the case, despite or because its alliance with Gilo Industries. This will change only if Gilo Cardozo delivers a working product to the market. It may happen or not. If it never happens, SPR Ltd will be financially in great trouble again.

Besides Shawyer, Gilo and a few tech companies, are you aware that the vast majority of engineers and scientists –hence private companies whose R&D departments rely on their professional advice– still think the EmDrive does not work, because it is either a scam or a systematic experimental error?

It will remain so until a working EmDrive can be monitored rotating; or when a working commercial thruster is publicly sold. Not before. The potential enormous cash will remain in investors' pockets until it happens.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 09/12/2017 02:25 pm
There are ample examples of working EmDrives developing thrust. So no need to wait for me to become a believer.

We already know that you are a believer. The purpose of a public demonstrator on a rotary test rig is not intended to prove the EmDrive is working to you of course, but to everyone else.

There are no other examples of working EmDrives:

- all EmDrives publicly known to date, from Eagleworks to TU Dresden through DIYers, develop so little force that it can still be mistaken with thermal or EM effects. Or its develops a force of the same magnitude as the axial one, but laterally (Tajmar) which ruins the whole demonstration.

- Yang Juan withdrawn her prior very high thrust measurements, stating that when the energy source is moved onto the setup (admittedly a much lighter one) and is not external anymore, the thrust force almost disappears within the noise i.e. below the resolution accuracy of her torsion pendulum. And yes I agree the setup described in her last paper was poorly designed and could not detect thrust even if it was present due to the stiffness of the three steel wires, but precisely this fact alone highlights how the the produced force is so low. A problem of low specific force you claim to have overcome.

- Shawyer's public rotary test rig, not even enclosed in a transparent cage, used an air bearing with several rotating cooling fans onboard, blowing hot air asymmetrically. It would have rotated without any EmDrive.

- Eagleworks' rotary test rig leaked video is also plagued with spurious forces that are not related to the cavity, according to Paul March himself.

Thus there is still urgent need for a public demonstrator rotary test rig, with precise data. Seems you won't provide it.

While there may have been and most likely were uncharacterized issues with Yang's first test article, affecting her initial conclusions, her later retraction appears to me to be more subjective than scientific. She never retested the original article/design. Instead she based her re-evaluation of the first experiment on results she reported from a significantly different and also flawed second experiment.

Obviously she had and has the right to change her own interpretation of any of her results and opinions. However without reconstructing the original test article and equipment.., and then addressing the issues later identified as potential sources of error, any conclusions are nothing more than unproven opinion. Had the original design been recreated it would have been easy to measure any expansion in the wave guide affecting results measured by the test equipment design. I could be mistaken but as I remember it was at least in part an unmeasured potential wave guide expansion that she attributed her later reevaluation on.

Based on what limited information I saw about Yang's experiments, they were both flawed in different ways and in neither case was sufficient information published for anyone to fully evaluate or reproduce her designs or conclusions.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Taciturn on 09/12/2017 02:28 pm
Long time reader, first time poster.

I'd like to start by saying thank you to SeaShells and Monomorphic, as I continue to follow this thread entirely out of interest in how your DIY trials go.  Please continue your efforts!

Secondly, every single time TheTraveller posts something, I stop reading for several days.  The conversation inevitably deteriorates into forumgoers saying 'But TheTraveller, you've never shown a single scrap of proof that anything you say means anything beyond an effort at making yourself look important!' and TheTraveller responding 'Emdrive works and I'm totally being reasonable here, but because of <insert spurious reasons here> I will continue to not provide any evidence beyond talking alot and hoping you believe me and stop asking! I'm important and you should pay attention to me!'

This current derailment was enough for me to finally post about it.  Can we please all stop paying any attention to him until he provides some evidence of actual use beyond 'Take my word for it!'?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/12/2017 02:31 pm
Why is there an urgent need for a public demonstration? Who will benefit? Who may not benefit?

Companies all over the world that would be able to buy EmDrives from you, or from SPR Ltd, or any other firm in that business, would be glad to know this is a genuine thruster. This would help to invest money in this industry, particularly in SPR which was in bad trouble not so long ago, according to their public liquid assets. And it still may be the case, despite or because its alliance with Gilo Industries. This will change only if Gilo delivers a working product to the market.

Besides Shawyer, Gilo and a few tech companies, are you aware that the vast majority of engineers and scientists –hence private companies whose R&D departments rely on their professional advice– still think the EmDrive does not work, because it is either a scam or a systematic experimental error?

It will remain so until a working EmDrive can be monitored rotating; or when a working commercial thruster is publicly sold. Not before. The potential enormous cash will remain in inverstors' pockets until it happens.

I know of at least 5 companies working on commercial EmDrives. Some are listed here. None will release anything until they are ready to take orders, deliver product and issue invoices.

That the rest of industry thinks the EmDrive is bogus is good news to those companies. Australia is of course me.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/12/2017 02:31 pm
I talked with Mary-Ann who did the at length interview and the guy who directed project greenglow. In both cases what they could and could not show nor say was controlled by the UK MOD. Mary-Ann told me she had to go through a security check and every question she asked Roger and his reply was agreed in advance. Said many times Roger answered too much and many retakes were required to keep his replies as per the preagreed script.
Someone shared with me in private the exact wording from a media person making this kind of claim about Shawyer needing MOD approval. I promised not to share specifics, but the wording had all the red flags of Shawyer misleading them about it. No mention of direct contact with the MOD, and the exact words from Shawyer were just indirect references hinting at MOD involvement without stating it explicitly. This is simply not how it would be handled if the MOD was involved.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/12/2017 02:38 pm
I talked with Mary-Ann who did the at length interview and the guy who directed project greenglow. In both cases what they could and could not show nor say was controlled by the UK MOD. Mary-Ann told me she had to go through a security check and every question she asked Roger and his reply was agreed in advance. Said many times Roger answered too much and many retakes were required to keep his replies as per the preagreed script.
Someone shared with me in private the exact wording from a media person making this kind of claim about Shawyer needing MOD approval. I promised not to share specifics, but the wording had all the red flags of Shawyer misleading them about it. No mention of direct contact with the MOD, and the exact words from Shawyer were just indirect references hinting at MOD involvement without stating it explicitly. This is simply not how it would be handled if the MOD was involved.

The IBT reported who did the lengthy interview, Mary-Ann, is not Roger. She told me the UK MOD approved every word in the script they used, they where there during the filming and she had to undergo a MOD security check.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/12/2017 02:39 pm
I know of at least 5 companies working on commercial EmDrives. Some are listed here. None will release anything until they are ready to take orders, deliver product and issue invoices.

That the rest of industry thinks the EmDrive is bogus is good news to those companies. Australia is of course me.

So you finally conclude that the EmDrive tech has not been publicly proven yet, as it is, from Shawyer's mouth, still under the commercial radar of the vast majority of competitors all over the world, not even in their R&D lab!

Otherwise it would be rather 50 to 500 companies in the world. Not 5.

This is all I wanted to show. Thank you.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/12/2017 02:45 pm
I know of at least 5 companies working on commercial EmDrives. Some are listed here. None will release anything until they are ready to take orders, deliver product and issue invoices.

That the rest of industry thinks the EmDrive is bogus is good news to those companies. Australia is of course me.

So you finally conclude that the EmDrive tech has not been publicly proven yet, as it is, from Shawyer's mouth, still under the commercial radar of the vast majority of competitors all over the world, not even in their R&D lab!

Otherwise it would be rather 50 to 500 companies in the world. Not 5.

This is all I wanted to show. Thank you.

Forums like this and Reddit do have impact, creating high doubt level. Which is good for those doing EmDrive R&D.

Should ask yourself why Gilo Industries Group would bother to take control of Universal Propulsion? Maybe even ask Gilo Industries Group?

Nite. Nite my bed time.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 09/12/2017 02:53 pm
...

Did try to arrange a face to face between Jamie and Roger when Jamie was in the UK. Roger said no point as he can't say anything about his work without MOD approval and there was no way Jamie could get permission to visit his workshop, like Jamie did with Paul at EW.
He would not agree to meet with Jamie even in a restaurant or a pub, but it was OK to show his workshop to TV cameras to the entire world, in the TV program?

Jose,

I talked with Mary-Ann who did the at length interview and the guy who directed project greenglow. In both cases what they could and could not show nor say was controlled by the UK MOD. Mary-Ann told me she had to go through a security check and every question she asked Roger and his reply was agreed in advance. Said many times Roger answered too much and many retakes were required to keep his replies as per the preagreed script.

I'm sure Jamie will confirm what I shared. I really did give it my best shot to get them together for a chat.

BTW what they showed as Roger's workshop was his storage area. We saw nothing new, none of the cryo work. None of the test rigs. Only old stuff in storage.

The flat sided thruster Roger put on the air track was vintage 2007. 1st C band build after the Demonstrator.

I confirm all the backstage information TheTraveller revealed here. He was very open with you all about this. I would not go myself into such details, because I believe time will reveal it all.

I posted several pages back that reporters that do interview with Mr. Shawyer go trough heavy scrutiny and check on every question.

I did not see such behaviour in the news paper branch ever. Especially in the West countries.

I understand that people here will never agree on the theory and that we still have very few published results, but such security checks on any information released to the public, leaves heavy doubts on my mind what they are doing it.

We can at this stage only hope that more information will be released in time.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 09/12/2017 02:54 pm
I know of at least 5 companies working on commercial EmDrives. Some are listed here. None will release anything until they are ready to take orders, deliver product and issue invoices.

That the rest of industry thinks the EmDrive is bogus is good news to those companies. Australia is of course me.

So you finally conclude that the EmDrive tech has not been publicly proven yet, as it is, from Shawyer's mouth, still under the commercial radar of the vast majority of competitors all over the world, not even in their R&D lab!

Otherwise it would be rather 50 to 500 companies in the world. Not 5.

This is all I wanted to show. Thank you.

Forums like this and Reddit do have impact, creating high doubt level. Which is good for those doing EmDrive R&D.

Should ask yourself why Gilo Industries Group would bother to take control of Universal Propulsion? Maybe even ask Gilo Industries Group?

...

Could that be because the acquisition helped them to secure the 30 million investment from the Chinese Kuangchi Science? 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 09/12/2017 03:02 pm
I know of at least 5 companies working on commercial EmDrives. Some are listed here. None will release anything until they are ready to take orders, deliver product and issue invoices.

That the rest of industry thinks the EmDrive is bogus is good news to those companies. Australia is of course me.

So you finally conclude that the EmDrive tech has not been publicly proven yet, as it is, from Shawyer's mouth, still under the commercial radar of the vast majority of competitors all over the world, not even in their R&D lab!

Otherwise it would be rather 50 to 500 companies in the world. Not 5.

This is all I wanted to show. Thank you.

Forums like this and Reddit do have impact, creating high doubt level. Which is good for those doing EmDrive R&D.

Should ask yourself why Gilo Industries Group would bother to take control of Universal Propulsion? Maybe even ask Gilo Industries Group?

...

Could that be because the acquisition helped them to secure the 30 million investment from the Chinese Kuangchi Science?

The investment from Kuang-Chi followed shortly after SPR joined forces with the Gilo Industries in the form of the Universial Propuslion. Why such company as Kung-Chi chose the Gilo Industires as its first major investment in the UK is the question. There are many similar as them, yet they chose them.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/12/2017 03:42 pm
Why is there an urgent need for a public demonstration? Who will benefit? Who may not benefit?

Companies all over the world that would be able to buy EmDrives from you, or from SPR Ltd, or any other firm in that business, would be glad to know this is a genuine thruster. This would help to invest money in this industry, particularly in SPR which was in bad trouble not so long ago, according to their public liquid assets. And it still may be the case, despite or because its alliance with Gilo Industries. This will change only if Gilo delivers a working product to the market.

Besides Shawyer, Gilo and a few tech companies, are you aware that the vast majority of engineers and scientists –hence private companies whose R&D departments rely on their professional advice– still think the EmDrive does not work, because it is either a scam or a systematic experimental error?

It will remain so until a working EmDrive can be monitored rotating; or when a working commercial thruster is publicly sold. Not before. The potential enormous cash will remain in inverstors' pockets until it happens.

I know of at least 5 companies working on commercial EmDrives. Some are listed here. None will release anything until they are ready to take orders, deliver product and issue invoices.

That the rest of industry thinks the EmDrive is bogus is good news to those companies. Australia is of course me.

So you're manipulating this forum (and public opinion) by doing everything you can to make EMdrive look bogus? If I take the perspective of an outside observer, I see a guy who is a fervent champion (like way over the top) of EMdrive who at the same time is providing no information or actual data, and who is delivering revealed truths. This has an overall effect of making you appear "cranky" which of course makes people think this is a bunch of hooey (which it might very well be) but what you're doing is definitely helping naysayers confirm their bias. You just said that it's good news for some companies if others think EMdrives are bogus, and you're connected to at least one of those companies by your own admission. That means it's good news for you too. Also, I don't understand a couple inconsistencies. So you have developed your own technologies based on the EMdrive, which would imply that you have a greater understanding of EMdrive than the inventor. You understand it well enough to improve it. Why are Roger Shawyer's "bread crumbs" and design tips so important to you if you're the expert now? Where are your patents? You are licensing your technology or IP or whatever you've independently developed to another company right? Is the information you're providing here on NSF designed to further development of EMdrive? Why in the world would you put out the design tips from Shawyer if you're in business, and Shawyer is in business too? You say this is "old news" but don't you understand that it's very easy to aggregate seemingly old and not very useful information into something that you may not want to get out. There's a lot of red flags here TT. I feel like I'm being manipulated by your posts, like it's an ongoing information operation. Are you interested in EMdrive development or money? What's more important? If I were Shawyer, I wouldn't talk to you because you're not helping his public image. This forum (which is the go to place for EMdrive information) turns into a circus every time you post.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/12/2017 03:52 pm
I don't understand why people can simultaneously say that gravity isn't a force (it isn't) and at the same time gravitation is a member of the fundamental force club. Probably why it hasn't been quantized yet.

Maybe it isn't quantized.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/12/2017 04:00 pm
I don't understand why people can simultaneously say that gravity isn't a force (it isn't) and at the same time gravitation is a member of the fundamental force club. Probably why it hasn't been quantized yet.

Maybe it isn't quantized.
Quote
people can simultaneously say that gravity isn't a force (it isn't)

MIT Professor Bertschinger disagrees that gravity is not a force, also the whole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_problem has to do with the weakness of the gravitational force compared to the other forces (electromagnetic, weak and strong).  It is agreed that there are "4 forces: gravity, weak, strong and electromagnetic" look deeper:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MWNs7Wfk84

The discussions about gravity "not being a force" are pedagogical, trying people to get to understand the geometrical nature of gravity in general relativity as arising from spacetime curvature.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/12/2017 04:01 pm
Roger is a clever engineer, damn me for not doing a reverse engineering on the Interstellar Probe's EmDrives as he gave all the needed bread crumbs.

Bd: 2.193m
Sd: 0.938m
Len: 1.060m
Df: 0.7725
Mode: TE013
Freq: 500MHz
Cu room temp Qu: 560k <<<< amazing Qu!!!!!
YBCO 77K Qu: 1.25x10^8 (125,000,000)
Specific Force: 645N/kW

Note Roger used 304N/kW as an average force to be conservative and to compensate for lost N as KE and velocity increases.

But those are BIG drives, well big compared to 2.45GHz S band drives.

This is going to be very interesting.
Phil


It seems the Cannae drive design for the Deep Space Probe design concept is huge and has many square meters of cavity area.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/12/2017 04:18 pm

Forums like this and Reddit do have impact, creating high doubt level. Which is good for those doing EmDrive R&D.

Should ask yourself why Gilo Industries Group would bother to take control of Universal Propulsion? Maybe even ask Gilo Industries Group?

Nite. Nite my bed time.

What the actual? Really? Maybe you shouldn't be posting here? Are you creating doubt?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/12/2017 04:34 pm
Interesting personal insults coming from a guy that totally rejects all the experimental data and suggests Roger is a scammer.
You have repeatedly demonstrated you lack of understanding of basic physics, that is a fact, not an insult.

Your accusation of me rejecting experimental evidence is simply false. There are multiple null results that you are ignoring, and every non-null result has signals within the range that can be explained by systematic errors. Shawyer has not provided details to even assess his experiments.

Enjoy your life as we will no longer communicate. No point. I did try to explain.
You did not try. I have repeatedly asked specific simple questions which you have not answered.

I think it was a very strong and uncalled for personal insult and I publicly call on the moderator to examine Meberb's behavior and rhetoric and decide if he goes too far and whether he should be allowed to continue such behavior in this group.
What exactly is the insult? TT has repeatedly gotten basic physics wrong.

Also, you know there is a report to mod button right? I don't think many mods on this forum bother looking at this thread unless someone uses it.

Edit: Also, the ultimate mod for this site has spoken recently, pointing out that someone is doing physics wrong is not against the rules:
Moderation rules are to stop members from being abusive (etc) to each other - and that's the difference between "No, that's simply not correct" and "Wow, you're such an idiot!" <---for three points, guess which one is not allowed. ;D
...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/12/2017 04:43 pm
Interesting personal insults coming from a guy that totally rejects all the experimental data and suggests Roger is a scammer.
You have repeatedly demonstrated you lack of understanding of basic physics, that is a fact, not an insult.

Your accusation of me rejecting experimental evidence is simply false. There are multiple null results that you are ignoring, and every non-null result has signals within the range that can be explained by systematic errors. Shawyer has not provided details to even assess his experiments.

Enjoy your life as we will no longer communicate. No point. I did try to explain.
You did not try. I have repeatedly asked specific simple questions which you have not answered.

I think it was a very strong and uncalled for personal insult and I publicly call on the moderator to examine Meberb's behavior and rhetoric and decide if he goes too far and whether he should be allowed to continue such behavior in this group.
What exactly is the insult? TT has repeatedly gotten basic physics wrong.

Also, you know there is a report to mod button right? I don't think many mods on this forum bother looking at this thread unless someone uses it.

The insult is claiming TT is not an engineer and he is an 'insult' to engineers. That's personal. Pointing out mistakes is fine, that's not the issue at all. Have your opinion but express it with civility. What you said is basically equivalent to "Wow, you're such an idiot"

P.s. I value your thought and opinions when expressed without the judgements and insults.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 09/12/2017 04:45 pm
Interesting personal insults coming from a guy that totally rejects all the experimental data and suggests Roger is a scammer.
You have repeatedly demonstrated you lack of understanding of basic physics, that is a fact, not an insult.

Your accusation of me rejecting experimental evidence is simply false. There are multiple null results that you are ignoring, and every non-null result has signals within the range that can be explained by systematic errors. Shawyer has not provided details to even assess his experiments.

Enjoy your life as we will no longer communicate. No point. I did try to explain.
You did not try. I have repeatedly asked specific simple questions which you have not answered.

I think it was a very strong and uncalled for personal insult and I publicly call on the moderator to examine Meberb's behavior and rhetoric and decide if he goes too far and whether he should be allowed to continue such behavior in this group.

Well, I sometimes wonder why Mr. Bergin did not use ban hammer size of the Atlas rocket on us all...He may yet do that. He warned us that this disscusion is getting out of hand several pages back I think.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/12/2017 05:37 pm
The insult is claiming TT is not an engineer and he is an 'insult' to engineers.
He calls himself an engineer in the very same post that he demonstrates yet again that he doesn't understand some of the most elementary physics concepts. That is in fact degrading to everyone who has actually earned the title engineer.

Reading your self-righteous barbs takes the pleasure out of being in this group for me.
This site is full of actual engineers and scientists, including many from the much praised and poorly named group "rocket scientists." It degrades the quality of the entire site when someone comes onto one section of it, claims to be part of the profession of engineering and spouts a bunch of incorrect nonsense about basic physics.

Edit: Pointing out mistakes is fine, that's not the issue at all. Have your opinion but express it with civility. What you said is basically equivalent to "Wow, you're such an idiot"
When someone makes incorrect statements, I explicitly avoid drawing any conclusions about their intelligence. When a mistake is particularly basic, and especially when said person refuses to ever try to learn from it, and simply denies the mistake, it is hard to see any positive conclusions one would draw from this, but there are alternatives to "idiot." I generally avoid listing any of these conclusions, other than the general and relevant "does not understand physics." A sub part of that conclusion, when referring to high school level physics concepts is "not an engineer or physicist."
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 09/12/2017 05:45 pm
I don't understand why people can simultaneously say that gravity isn't a force (it isn't) and at the same time gravitation is a member of the fundamental force club. Probably why it hasn't been quantized yet.

Maybe it isn't quantized.
Quote
people can simultaneously say that gravity isn't a force (it isn't)

MIT Professor Bertschinger disagrees that gravity is not a force, also the whole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_problem has to do with the weakness of the gravitational force compared to the other forces (electromagnetic, weak and strong).  It is agreed that there are "4 forces: gravity, weak, strong and electromagnetic" look deeper:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MWNs7Wfk84

The discussions about gravity "not being a force" are pedagogical, trying people to get to understand the geometrical nature of gravity in general relativity as arising from spacetime curvature.

Dr. Rodal,

To some extent I believe this post of yours supports my interpretation of our earlier posts re: whether GR and spacetime might be interpreted as descriptive of gravitation, rather than a causative model.

As a descriptive model of gravitation, GR and spacetime could accommodate gravity as either a force or "not a force". Quantum gravity models would no longer have to mirror the field equations of GR, as long as the force carries, whether particles or fields, provide an energy/momentum structure that can be described as a field consistent with the field equations of GR.

It is easy to describe the propagation and distribution of sound waves, even EM radiation, as geometric fields and still associate both with a transfer of momentum, of one sort or another. In both of those cases we have a far better understanding of the fundamental underlying classical and quantum mechanical mechanisms.

Interpreting GR and spacetime as descriptive, permits the potential for the existence of more fundamental mechanisms, without excluding the possibility of the causative interpretation. While fixation on spacetime as the causative basis of gravitation, does tend to preclude the inclusion and/or incorporation of other potential fundamental mechanisms, which could be described by the same geometric dynamics.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 09/12/2017 06:01 pm
Physicists at Princeton develop quantitative prediction for alpha radiation resulting from Alfven waves in confined plasma, thereby discovering that the key to plasma stability may be elongation and r at qmin.

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-09/dppl-ppn091217.php
https://phys.org/news/2017-09-physicists-stabilize-next-generation-fusion-plasmas.html
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1741-4326/aa6456

To little surprise they determined that the number (and instability) of Alfven waves is directly responsible for 40% particle loss during operation and this allowed them to predict conditions under which there would be less alpha particle loss (radiation of walls). Practical applications can be found in confined plasmas and even regular confined particle fields as the suppression of Alfven eigenmodes and reduction of turbulence can increase even EM Drive coherency and peak energy density. The most interesting result is regarding r. Might be useful in circularized EM Drive designs and would imply that kinks and elongation in the design are required IF the walls are proven to have sufficient current to contain the particles and improved absorption (controlled emissions/controlled shearing and therefore momentum pulses) by the internal particle soup is desired.   

Key take-away snippets from the paper*:

There are two methods for suppressing AEs in fusion plasmas: the eigenmodes can be pushed out of their gaps and into the Alfvén continuum by manipulating the equilibrium profiles, the fast-ion drive can be changed by moving the fast-ion drive away from the mode location[...] A better way to increase α (normalized pressure gradient within the plasma mean free path) is by raising q0 and elevating the q profile in the plasma center. Note that α is proportional to q2, so raising q0 is an effective way to increase α while αcrit depends on the shear and is independent of q0[...] To suppress reverse shearing however it is best to locate Qmin as far as possible from the fast-ion reconnection area. This new insight, includes moving Qmin as far out as possible (increasing the radius). This makes sense going from the previous understanding that the Alfven continuum damping increases with r and from a more general view it also would decrease the energy density given the same input. 

*All Q and values from the context of the plasma stream not the containment field

-------

Hopefully this may distract from some of the bickering :)

Edit: added some slides which may help 'guide' you into the topic
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/12/2017 06:35 pm
From what I was thinking about above, the same thing is happening in a MET (just talking about the device, not Mach effects theory). A changing energy density (capacitor being charged and discharged) is being jerked around (back and forth in the case of a MET) by a PZT. The return journey doesn't look like a good design feature to have, although if you think about it, it's inevitable in a resonant system. I'm thinking really hard about why the addition of the rubber pad (from the book Making Starships) greatly increased the thrust. That's a good way to absorb energy and reduce the return energy by reducing r. That rubber pad is dissipative. That's the asymmetry. This is an electromechanical version of the EMdrive. They're analogous.

Pics included for research purposes.

May I suggest that the rubber pad allowed room for the copper block to move back and forth, thus allowed more intense vibration? If so, it can be replaced with a compressed spring.

It looks to me like the rubber pad is the dissipative element, serving the same function as the dielectric disc in an EMdrive. They're both lowering the amount of reflected energy by turning it into heat. They both serve to facilitate a partial standing wave.

If you really think about it, it's immediately obvious why a fully superconducting EMdrive is a BAD idea. You better have a load on it.

Do you predict the "thrust" to change direction, if the rubber washer is installed on the other side (on the nut side, not on the bolt side)? From my understanding of how it worked, the "thrust" will likely change direction.
I attach a picture of the present MEGA drive (bottom picture) to compare with the early version from years ago shown in the book (top picture).

Notice how much smaller is the rubber gasket compared to the rubber pad used for the device of many years ago shown in the book.  The present rubber gasket is confined to distribute stresses resulting from the fasteners, to reduce stress concentrations (see https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1721787#msg1721787 for explanation), rather than a large rubber pad as shown in the book.  Moreover, when thicker rubber pads were tested, the measured force decreased, as one would expect from dissipation effect decreasing the quality of resonance Q, so experiment confirms theory.

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1447226;image)

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/12/2017 06:36 pm
Something to think about:

Cavity Q is defined as stored energy / energy loss per cycle. Which means after Q cycles, all the photon's energy is gone,  mainly converted into thermal heating of the cavity via wall eddy currents.

Photons in a cavity eventually die, losing some energy each cycle to ohmic wall heating.

The source of the eddy currents induced in the cavity walls are the time varing H fields of the photons. Energy flows from the photons into the thermal heating of the eddy current rings around the end plates and around the side walls.

In both accelerator cavities and in EmDrives additional photon energy loss per cycle is due to some cavity energy being used to accelerate mass. Either very small particles,  very rapidly to near c velocity as in particle accelerators or EmDrive and ship mass as in the EmDrive.

Spend some time and research accelerator cavity Q and learn there are 3 ways trapped photons lose energy per cycle and as photon energy drops, so too does photon momentum drop ie p = E/c.

The 3 ways are:

1) photon energy loss per cycle to cavity wall heating via eddy currents. Referred to as Qu or Q unloaded.

2) photon energy loss per cycle back through the coupler, which should be the same energy loss per cycle as in 1. Referred to as Ql or Q loaded.

3)  photon energy and momentum used or loss per cycle for the acceleration of mass where both CofM and CofE are conserved. Referred to as Qext or Q external.

I understand some here may be learning new stuff here, so before thinking it is fluff, do some research on how accelerator cavities convert electrical energy into Rf energy, then into photon energy and finally increased particle KE external to the cavity and thermal energy in the cavity walls.

Then you will start to understand the energy conversion processes occuring inside accelerator and EmDrive cavities as mass is accelerated and it's KE is increased.

Different dog, same leg action.

Back to sleep.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 09/12/2017 07:17 pm

I attach a picture of the present MEGA drive (bottom picture) to compare with the early version from years ago shown in the book (top picture).

Notice how much smaller is the rubber gasket compared to the rubber pad used for the device of many years ago shown in the book.  The present rubber gasket is confined to distribute stresses resulting from the fasteners, to reduce stress concentrations (see https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1721787#msg1721787 for explanation), rather than a large rubber pad as shown in the book.  Moreover, when thicker rubber pads were tested, the measured force decreased, as one would expect from dissipation effect decreasing the quality of resonance Q, so experiment confirms theory.


Do you know whether he is willing to sell/loan his devices to non-believers like me? Has him done that before? I am interested in testing one of his devices. My purpose is to find out why it seems to work. Much like to find out why the Dean drive seems to work. Of course if I can not find the reason I would just say so.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/12/2017 07:25 pm
...Do you know whether he is willing to sell/loan his devices to non-believers like me? Has him done that before? I am interested in testing one of his devices. My purpose is to find out why it seems to work. Much like to find out why the Dean drive seems to work. Of course if I can not find the reason I would just say so.
Please contact the person you are interested in, directly, with any such questions. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Josave on 09/12/2017 09:26 pm
The Wayv Adventurer portable microwave heater is ready for preorder, priced 244 USD:

https://world.taobao.com/item/542830022465.htm?fromSite=main&spm=a21m2.8232368.0.0.14e472776kwOSV

Advantages of using this device for an EmDrive rapid prototyping:

-Battery operated.
-Included antenna and no coax required.
-300w 2450 MHz solid state RF source, high efficiency and power control.

Some reverse engineering is needed to see if the VCO is tunable in small steps and also has phase control, something very desirable for active resonators setups:

http://ael.snu.ac.kr/paper_file/MTT_S%202004_6%20YoungTaek%20Lee.pdf

Probably the VCO is the Kinetics MKW40Z used in this module that seems was never released to the market:

https://www.everythingrf.com/News/details/2552-plug-and-play-rf-cooking-module-reduces-time-to-market-for-appliance-oems
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/12/2017 09:54 pm
Here is a design for a much smaller TE011 500MHz thruster

Bd:1.169 m
Sd: 0.731 m
Len: 0.615 m
Df: 0.7730
Qu: 310k with Cu at room temp
Specific Force: 1.6N/KW at above Qu

YBCO data predicts 360N/kW at 77K
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/12/2017 09:54 pm
From what I was thinking about above, the same thing is happening in a MET (just talking about the device, not Mach effects theory). A changing energy density (capacitor being charged and discharged) is being jerked around (back and forth in the case of a MET) by a PZT. The return journey doesn't look like a good design feature to have, although if you think about it, it's inevitable in a resonant system. I'm thinking really hard about why the addition of the rubber pad (from the book Making Starships) greatly increased the thrust. That's a good way to absorb energy and reduce the return energy by reducing r. That rubber pad is dissipative. That's the asymmetry. This is an electromechanical version of the EMdrive. They're analogous.

Pics included for research purposes.

May I suggest that the rubber pad allowed room for the copper block to move back and forth, thus allowed more intense vibration? If so, it can be replaced with a compressed spring.

It looks to me like the rubber pad is the dissipative element, serving the same function as the dielectric disc in an EMdrive. They're both lowering the amount of reflected energy by turning it into heat. They both serve to facilitate a partial standing wave.

If you really think about it, it's immediately obvious why a fully superconducting EMdrive is a BAD idea. You better have a load on it.

Do you predict the "thrust" to change direction, if the rubber washer is installed on the other side (on the nut side, not on the bolt side)? From my understanding of how it worked, the "thrust" will likely change direction.
I attach a picture of the present MEGA drive (bottom picture) to compare with the early version from years ago shown in the book (top picture).

Notice how much smaller is the rubber gasket compared to the rubber pad used for the device of many years ago shown in the book.  The present rubber gasket is confined to distribute stresses resulting from the fasteners, to reduce stress concentrations (see https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1721787#msg1721787 for explanation), rather than a large rubber pad as shown in the book.  Moreover, when thicker rubber pads were tested, the measured force decreased, as one would expect from dissipation effect decreasing the quality of resonance Q, so experiment confirms theory.



Great, so we have preliminary indications that we want to design for an optimal "informed" Q (instead of max Q, or you can still design for max Q but you have to deliberately and intelligently add a damping mechanism which will end up lowering your system's Q anyway), in such a way to tailor the amplitude of the reflected wave coming from one end because we want an optimum partial standing wave (or you can actually damp each end independently by some predictable and controllable means, so that you have another way to control or reverse thrust). There lots of creative ways to do this. For electromechanical systems there's simple things like taking advantage of how rubber is stiffer when it's cold. That's just one of a multitude of creative ways to get the job done. For electrical conductivity in a cavity, the sky is the limit too for options *. You can just vent energy, or lose it forever as heat, or you can scavenge it to make electricity or heat water. No matter how you go about doing it, you have to have an exhaust.

*Thought this was pretty neat:
http://news.mit.edu/2011/switch-conductivity-0429

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/12/2017 09:56 pm
The Wayv Adventurer portable microwave heater is ready for preorder, priced 244 USD:

https://world.taobao.com/item/542830022465.htm?fromSite=main&spm=a21m2.8232368.0.0.14e472776kwOSV

Advantages of using this device for an EmDrive rapid prototyping:

-Battery operated.
-Included antenna and no coax required.
-300w 2450 MHz solid state RF source, high efficiency and power control.

Some reverse engineering is needed to see if the VCO is tunable in small steps and also has phase control, something very desirable for active resonators setups:

http://ael.snu.ac.kr/paper_file/MTT_S%202004_6%20YoungTaek%20Lee.pdf

Probably the VCO is the Kinetics MKW40Z used in this module that seems was never released to the market:

https://www.everythingrf.com/News/details/2552-plug-and-play-rf-cooking-module-reduces-time-to-market-for-appliance-oems

Excellent news. Thanks.

Will be buying a few to play with.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/12/2017 10:07 pm
TT do you have a conflict of interest which would influence your behavior in a public forum?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Josave on 09/12/2017 10:15 pm

As for if we engineers agree,

You are not an engineer. Engineers can perform a basic force balance, and know the difference between an open and closed system. Referring to yourself as an engineer when you can't do this is an insult to engineers.

What in the world kind of data are you imagining?

Go back to the last CoM conversation and try answering even the most basic question that you were asked.

You are wrong, sorry meberbs to say that things are not so simple, and is not fair using the very old and naïve CoM law to discredit TT arguments. You can use any scientific authority arguments, but all of them are approximations of the Laws of Nature, that have nothing to do with the Law of Physics, that are just our approximations... our theories... but not more than models done by our limited knowlegde.

The generalization of the 2-particles mechanics to the n-particles is the Hamiltonian mechanics. Roughly said, in this mechanics the invariant is no longer Conservation of Momentum, but the quantity conserved is the observable G, a function not only of the mass of the n-particles, but also of the inter-distances of all the particles of the system.

And yes, I am an Engineer and Doctor of Engineering, and I don´t know the difference between and open and a closed system. I propose you to write a PhD dissertation about that differences and I will be proud to be a member of your evaluation board. A mathematician will be also needed probably. Start by defining what is a system... think about it... then continue defining what is an observable... if you can define what is the mass probably you will be lost by the time... don´t forget a full chapter about the role of the observer and relativity issues, and conclude with references to information theory and Landauer principle...

I assure you that none of your arguments are valid to say that EmDrive cannot work and discredit believers (or discredit non-believers). No one. Healthy skepticism is ok, but don't be radical against TT. In these four years following this enlightening forum, I have discovered so many interesting theories, and is very hard to say which are testable and which are not, but is totally impossible to say which are true or which are false.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: wicoe on 09/12/2017 10:49 pm

As for if we engineers agree,

You are not an engineer. Engineers can perform a basic force balance, and know the difference between an open and closed system. Referring to yourself as an engineer when you can't do this is an insult to engineers.

What in the world kind of data are you imagining?

Go back to the last CoM conversation and try answering even the most basic question that you were asked.

You are wrong, sorry meberbs to say that things are not so simple, and is not fair using the very old and naïve CoM law to discredit TT arguments. You can use any scientific authority arguments, but all of them are approximations of the Laws of Nature, that have nothing to do with the Law of Physics, that are just our approximations... our theories... but not more than models done by our limited knowlegde.

The generalization of the 2-particles mechanics to the n-particles is the Hamiltonian mechanics. Roughly said, in this mechanics the invariant is no longer Conservation of Momentum, but the quantity conserved is the observable G, a function not only of the mass of the n-particles, but also of the inter-distances of all the particles of the system.

And yes, I am an Engineer and Doctor of Engineering, and I don´t know the difference between and open and a closed system. I propose you to write a PhD dissertation about that differences and I will be proud to be a member of your evaluation board. A mathematician will be also needed probably. Start by defining what is a system... think about it... then continue defining what is an observable... if you can define what is the mass probably you will be lost by the time... don´t forget a full chapter about the role of the observer and relativity issues, and conclude with references to information theory and Landauer principle...

I assure you that none of your arguments are valid to say that EmDrive cannot work and discredit believers (or discredit non-believers). No one. Healthy skepticism is ok, but don't be radical against TT. In these four years following this enlightening forum, I have discovered so many interesting theories, and is very hard to say which are testable and which are not, but is totally impossible to say which are true or which are false.

Could you please confirm (or comment otherwise) that you are satisfied with this explanation, taken from the Shawyer's web site (and repeated several times by TT):

Q. Why does the EmDrive not contravene the conservation of momentum when it operates in free space?
A. The EmDrive cannot violate the conservation of momentum. The electromagnetic wave momentum is built up in the resonating cavity, and is transferred to the end walls upon reflection. The momentum gained by the EmDrive plus the momentum lost by the electromagnetic wave equals zero. The direction and acceleration that is measured, when the EmDrive is tested on a dynamic test rig, comply with Newtons laws and confirm that the law of conservation of momentum is satisfied.

Doesn't this raise any red flags at all?  Such as, where does the wave get its initial momentum from?  Doesn't it push back on the source when it is generated/reflected?  Etc etc.  I'm really curious if this "explanation" makes sense to anybody here... or perhaps I'm the only one who fails to see how it can make any sense at all?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/12/2017 11:02 pm
You are wrong, sorry meberbs to say that things are not so simple, and is not fair using the very old and naïve CoM law to discredit TT arguments.
TT says that the emDrive obeys conservation of momentum, and that no new physics is required to explain the emDrive. How in the world is it then unfair to check whether those claims are consistent with the rest of his statements?

And yes, I am an Engineer and Doctor of Engineering, and I don´t know the difference between and open and a closed system.
You seem to have not read far enough back to see the context of the discussion. This is not discussion of defining conservation laws in highly curved spacetime, or complications related to quantum non-locality and particle indistinguishability. This is the context of applying basic mechanics. A rigorous formal definition is not what was needed, but an understanding of the most basic conceptual definition.

is totally impossible to say which are true or which are false.
When a theory includes the following statements:
-Existing physics including conservation of momentum is obeyed.
-A device can start with no net linear momentum and end up moving at a constant velocity with net linear momentum equal to m*v.
-That device does not expel any of its mass as exhaust, emit significant EM radiation, or apply forces to (equivalently: have forces applied on it by) anything else.

It is simply inconsistent with itself and therefore wrong.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: mrmittens on 09/12/2017 11:08 pm
Long time reader, first time poster.

...

This current derailment was enough for me to finally post about it.  Can we please all stop paying any attention to him until he provides some evidence of actual use beyond 'Take my word for it!'?

I likewise have been lurking here for a few months now to keep track of the progress as this forum seems to generally have the most up-to-date information on all EmDrive related activities including activities like Monomorphic and SeaShell's builds which aren't reported by mainstream media (and wouldn't be until MAYBE after actual results/papers are published).  The last few pages have been utter nonsense.  It's disappointing to see what is normally an interesting thread spiral into a flame war where the attackers feel justified in their childish behavior.

Certainly things seem to typically go south when TT posts; however, I can't say that I've ever actually seen him post any personal attacks like what he has been repeatedly subjected to.  His comments are controversial to the extent that they are not "valid physics" as meberbs and others have presented.  The downward spiral seems to generally be the result of others' responses to him and not from TT himself, in my opinion.  I've been reading here since at least thread 7 and I can't say I've ever seen him post anything remotely resembling the personal attacks that have been consistently directed towards him (often from meberbs).

meberbs, whether you agree with TT's viewpoints or not, the posts from him that I have seen have always been objective and non-confrontational, while you consistently prepend your responses to him with personal attacks:

Do you even know the definition of the phrase "open system"?

It is apparently difficult for you to understand.

Or if that is too hard for you try these:

You are not an engineer. ... Referring to yourself as an engineer when you can't do this is an insult to engineers.

...

I am fairly certain you can't even describe the experimental setups for these measurements, let alone have actually done them. Especially the part about wavelength, which you have previously demonstrated an inability to even properly define.

These are direct, personal attacks towards TT.  I am going to report your posts to moderators going forward if this continues.  Claiming someone can't possibly understand high school physics and/or deriding them as "not an engineer" when you have no direct personal knowledge of their vocation is in no way factual, objective, nor productive.

Furthermore, you (meberbs) argue continuously in postulates and conjectures about things which cannot be proven as if they are fact, and use these conjectures to support your other deriding comments:

you "being under NDA" doesn't make sense. If anything it is the company buying from you that should be under NDA, with maybe restrictions on you identifying them, although even that wouldn't be typical.

There have been many comments about whether or not TT or Shawyer are actually under NDAs or not, or whether or not Shawyer is working with the UK MOD.  It is all pointless conjecture.  TT claims he is under an NDA.  Given his posts are the only source of "truth" for these claims, arguing about whether he is actually under NDA is pointless.  The real question is why do you care so much?  There is no personal injury to you or anyone else on this forum by TT coming in and claiming that he is under an NDA.

If these statements are true and EMDrive does work, then it will certainly make for an interesting future when EMDrives become a reality.  If it's not true, then by responding the way you have is just feeding a forum troll by giving them what they want: a rise out of other people.

Finally, you (meberbs) continuously get bogged down arguing back and forth with TT about CoM from a current physics point of view:

The EmDrive works.

Nothing leaves the cavity.
Therefore momentum is not conserved.

This argument has been beat to death over and over and over again.  Can we please move on until we have a working EMDrive to test against, or until sufficient negative tests have been performed to provide a reliable set of data that most likely the effect does not exist?  In the absence of a working EMDrive, you are simply postulating that IF the EMDrive works, THEN momentum is either a) not conserved or b) is conserved through an unknown mechanism but have no way to test either of the two theories.  Option (c) is that simply, EMDrive does not work in which case everyone should simply stop posting to or following this thread.

TT claims CoM is obeyed, but since they don't seem to be supported by current physics would likely fall under (b).  We can simply accept this and move on, there have been many theories proposed on this thread, none of which have drawn the criticism that has been directed at TT and none of which can be verified without a working drive.

It is fine that you disagree with TT's statement of how the EMDrive might work, but you don't need to resort to personal attacks to make your point.  If you disbelieve him entirely, you should just ignore him.  As you and others have stated here, there is no reliable test data that is not affected by experimental or other errors which can either prove or disprove any conjectures about the EMDrive other than how to make a better experiment to test it.

Until there is reliable, publicly available data unequivocally demonstrating the EMDrive does or does not work, then all arguments about the physics underlying the EMDrive remain in the realm of conjecture.  Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't.  Eventually if no working drive is produced by Shawyer/TT or any other experimenter, then the obvious conclusion will be that it does not work.  Presently there is no way to demonstrate that any given theory is correct when we do not have a sufficient body of reliable experimental data on which to draw conclusions from.

As a participant in this thread you must allow for the possibility that maybe it does work by some mechanism; otherwise participating in this thread makes you the troll, not TT, by consistently berating people’s intelligence for proposing theories about how it might work.  If you are simply here to argue that EMDrive does not and cannot possibly work because it is not supported by current physics, and you are unwilling to accept that TT or Shawyer might have a working drive then you should take your arguments elsewhere, as that viewpoint does not allow for open debate and is in fact in favor of option (c), EMDrive does not work and you should simply spend your time more fruitfully elsewhere on theories and technologies that hold more promise.

TT himself recently stated:

As I have said before, I have no 100% proof the SPR theory is correct but it sure fits how to design an EmDrive and dynamic tests do suggest that CofE is conserved as force is not constant and reduces as KE increases.

So, he admits SPR theory may not be correct, and he states that tests "suggest" momentum is conserved.  You disagree with him about CoE/CoM from an existing physics standpoint and again, that's fine to disagree on, but I must restate that we do not have access to his experimental data and no other sufficient experimental data exists for us to have a reasonable debate over.  Only two people blowing hot air into the wind, one person claiming it works in some way based on their own supposed private set of data to which we have no access, and a separate person arguing that the first person's claims are invalid because we don't have access to said data.  If we had an experiment demonstrating a working EMDrive, then we could begin to propose hypothesis of HOW it works and additional experiments could be performed to exercise these hypothesis and ignore TT/Shawyer’s lack of transparency entirely.

You could simply accept that TT and your viewpoints don't line up and move on.  Most people seem to agree that what TT has presented is not correct from an existing physics point of view.  However, if TT/Shawyer have built working EMDrives and if they have their own theories which they use to successfully produce working EMDrives, then whether or not their theory is completely correct or not or lines up with known physics doesn't really matter.  What matters at present is whether or not EMDrive is a real effect at all.

It's like if someone were to claim "I can make light in a glass tube from lightning," and you claimed that they are wrong because you have never seen that effect before and anyone who knows anything knows that lightning comes from the sky and is too volatile to ever possibly be contained.

If/when a working EMDrive is publicly demonstrated, then surely many experiments and theories will take off at that point to determine the exact nature of the drive and how/why it works.  All EMDrive experimentation to date is based on the possibility that the EMDrive effect may or may not be real.  The body of publicly available work to date is very small.  It should follow that Shawyer's theories, though perhaps an inaccurate description of the microscopic level of the underlying physics of any real effect might possibly be a workable theory at the macro level which can be used to produce working EMDrives.  Assuming the theory is incorrect at the microscopic level, then it again follows that if EMDrive effect is real, future refinements of the theory which more accurately reflect the actual inner workings of the drive would result in higher yields as the direct result of better understanding of the underlying physics, and better modeling and predictions to produce more effective drive designs.  This is basically the history of all science as we know it.  A rough but working theory produces increasingly more fine grained theories/models as new information becomes available to which existing theories do or do not fit.  You wouldn't throw out general relativity just because it doesn't work at the quantum level.  So, it doesn't really matter if his theory is correct or not, it only matters if working EMDrives can be produced from it.

The most effective theory is the one that produces a working drive with the most thrust/kW.

TT is entitled to his own opinion, especially IF he has in fact built a working EMDrive.  If he has, then he obviously has more experience/data than anyone else commenting in this thread to draw from.  Arguing with him serves in no way to advance the EMDrive.  Your arguments here that he has not built a working EMDrive is again conjecture based on the lack of hard evidence supporting his claims, not any actual evidence demonstrating that he has unequivocally NOT built such a device.  This is no different than the debate a few pages back about whether or not the Chinese had built a working EMDrive and/or tested one in space, where media announcements by them either for or against it must be some sort of misinformation campaign, and where all possible media announcements could be postulated as being either in support of or against them having a working EMDrive.

You assume TT has some vested interest in making his data available to improve public opinion in the effect, when in fact no such vested interest exists.  TT is exactly right that lack of interest in EMDrive is a significant advantage to any company who can produce a working drive and is looking to be first to market.  It would be entirely within his interest to not share specific information which could provide a significant launchpad for competition which may have large resources than his own and/or information that may violate his NDA, whether or not such NDA exists.

TT claims, and Shawyer claims, to have developed working EMDrives based on this theory.  Could it be a big hoax? Maybe.  But in that case Shawyer would ultimately end up in jail for misleading investors.  I very much doubt anyone would invest millions of dollars in non-demonstrable vaporware, but there have been bigger hoaxes and pyramid schemes in the past.  Are the "physics" they present wrong about how the EMDrive works, IF it works?  Very possibly.  But that's what makes public projects like Monomorphic's, SeaShells and others important to prove if and how the EMDrive works.

Over and over and over again this same argument keeps coming up and every time it death spirals into a storm of posts back and forth on a topic where it has become obvious that a) you, others, and TT are not going to agree and b) has already been beaten to death many times.  Can we please stop and instead focus on friendly, objective debate and the status of ongoing experiments by Jamie and others?

TT's claims, whether factual or non-factual, inflict no personal injury on yourself or others, other than the costs of time and money it may incur trying to prove/disprove these claims by experimentation.  However, were it not for these claims, then this thread and these experiments would not exist at all.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/12/2017 11:34 pm
Here is a design for a much smaller TE011 500MHz thruster

Bd:1.169 m
Sd: 0.731 m
Len: 0.615 m
Df: 0.7730
Qu: 310k with Cu at room temp
Specific Force: 1.6N/KW at above Qu

YBCO data predicts 360N/kW at 77K

To give an idea of the size of this TE011 L-band (500MHz) thruster:

(http://ayuba.fr/images/emdrive/wilson_2017b.png)

At least this is a much rational dimension to experiment with as a demonstrator than the previous TE013 proposed one at the same frequency:

Roger is a clever engineer, damn me for not doing a reverse engineering on the Interstellar Probe's EmDrives as he gave all the needed bread crumbs.

Bd: 2.193m
Sd: 0.938m
Len: 1.060m
Df: 0.7725
Mode: TE013
Freq: 500MHz
Cu room temp Qu: 560k <<<< amazing Qu!!!!!
YBCO 77K Qu: 1.25x10^8 (125,000,000)
Specific Force: 645N/kW

(http://ayuba.fr/images/emdrive/wilson_2017.png)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Tcarey on 09/12/2017 11:49 pm
If I had a guy working for me and I had him sign a nondisclosure agreement, I certainly wouldn't allow him to post ANYTHING about the subject on a public forum that would help anyone else. None of this makes sense what's going on here.

All depends on what the NDA prohibits. Each NDA is different. It could have be a poorly drawn up NDA. I have signed NDA's that were very carefully drawn up and very restrictive, other ones no so much.

Personally I would like to see TT build and demonstrate his 500 Mhz  EM drive. 

My appreciation to all of the folks here that are building and testing for the benefit of us all.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/13/2017 12:21 am
I'm pretty sure it's a good idea to do the opposite of what TT says. I think he's even wrong about aiming for as high a Q factor as possible. It's not that simple. You have to ask yourself, why is that important? Or I'm building a very high Q cavity for this particular frequency, so what? That's a good feature to have for a resonator, but is it a good feature to have for a resonant cavity thruster? If he's really wrong about this, and that's what people are building to achieve, they won't be getting the thrust they had hoped for. There's a very simple reason for why we don't see EMdrives flying around. It's because the theory of operation isn't nailed down, so there's no way to make predictions which would lead to the development of improvements in performance, besides trial and error. The performance is so bad now (from the data I/we have access to) that it's not even possible to make a compelling thrust measurement good enough to shut up the believers or the critics. I built an EMdrive once and suspended it on a balance from a single thread of Berkeley Nanofil, and it did absolutely nothing (probably because I'm a bad experimentalist, or that galinstan slip ring I made, or I only gave it 8 watts, or all of the above) but I also realized that I was testing the same non (or barely) working thing everyone else had, so I put it in a box and decided to think about it for a few years.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/13/2017 12:30 am
meberbs, whether you agree with TT's viewpoints or not, the posts from him that I have seen have always been objective and non-confrontational,
How is repeatedly making proclamations that have been repeatedly disproven not confrontational?
What about repeatedly ignoring direct, simple questions?

while you consistently prepend your responses to him with personal attacks:

Do you even know the definition of the phrase "open system"?
Context matters.
This was after repeated statements from him that indicated he does not know the definition.

It is apparently difficult for you to understand.
This was in response to him posting literal nonsense followed by "This is not difficult to understand."

Or if that is too hard for you try these:
After he had ignored the preceding question twice. His eventual response was a quote from Wikipedia that included irrelevant context. He never did reply to the questions that followed.

You are not an engineer. ... Referring to yourself as an engineer when you can't do this is an insult to engineers.

...

I am fairly certain you can't even describe the experimental setups for these measurements, let alone have actually done them. Especially the part about wavelength, which you have previously demonstrated an inability to even properly define.
You said you have been here for a few months, so you probably didn't read far enough back in old threads to see all the times he was asked to define "guide wavelength" in the context of a resonator and failed to do so. Or the conversations where he insisted on the equivalent of saying that pushing an object to the left makes it move to the right.

Finally, you (meberbs) continuously get bogged down arguing back and forth with TT about CoM from a current physics point of view:

The EmDrive works.

Nothing leaves the cavity.
Therefore momentum is not conserved.

This argument has been beat to death over and over and over again.  Can we please move on until we have a working EMDrive to test against, or until sufficient negative tests have been performed to provide a reliable set of data that most likely the effect does not exist?
Depends, can you get TT to stop proclaiming contradictory statements?

In the absence of a working EMDrive, you are simply postulating that IF the EMDrive works, THEN momentum is either a) not conserved or b) is conserved through an unknown mechanism but have no way to test either of the two theories.  Option (c) is that simply, EMDrive does not work in which case everyone should simply stop posting to or following this thread.
Exactly this is all that the momentum argument amounts to. The problem is that TT keeps proposing that momentum is conserved, but unlike in option b there is no unknown mechanism. Him repeatedly insisting on this is counterproductive to serious investigation of the emDrive.

If you disbelieve him entirely, you should just ignore him.
Why should false and contradictory statements be allowed to stand in an open forum without someone pointing out that they are false and contradictory?

As a participant in this thread you must allow for the possibility that maybe it does work by some mechanism; otherwise participating in this thread makes you the troll, not TT, by consistently berating people’s intelligence for proposing theories about how it might work.
I have no problem with people proposing theories. If I see a flaw, I will point it out so the theory can be improved or discarded and the next one looked for. TT refuses to move on and ignores the flaws, claiming they don't exist. It is not berating someone's intelligence to point out a flaw in a theory, coming up with a theory at all is hard. I decline to comment on what it says about someone when their response to criticism is "I'm right, you're wrong. The emDrive works."

TT himself recently stated:

As I have said before, I have no 100% proof the SPR theory is correct but it sure fits how to design an EmDrive and dynamic tests do suggest that CofE is conserved as force is not constant and reduces as KE increases.

So, he admits SPR theory may not be correct, and he states that tests "suggest" momentum is conserved.
Yet he continues to insist on design rules following a theory that is inconsistent with itself, which of course leads to inconsistent rules.

TT is entitled to his own opinion, especially IF he has in fact built a working EMDrive.  If he has, then he obviously has more experience/data than anyone else commenting in this thread to draw from.  Arguing with him serves in no way to advance the EMDrive.  Your arguments here that he has not built a working EMDrive is again conjecture based on the lack of hard evidence supporting his claims, not any actual evidence demonstrating that he has unequivocally NOT built such a device.
Go look through the posts again. While I have my doubts about what experiments he has done, I generally have been leaving that as an unknown and addressing his understanding of the definition of a force and similar issues. Others have been more directly vocal about his unreliability as a witness, which is based on years of empty promises from him.

TT's claims, whether factual or non-factual, inflict no personal injury on yourself or others, other than the costs of time and money it may incur trying to prove/disprove these claims by experimentation.  However, were it not for these claims, then this thread and these experiments would not exist at all.
If his nonsensical claims are left to stand as if correct, it harms the quality of this site, which is the best resource for information on the space industry I have found. Also, some of what he says about how to run an experiment is based on nonsense contradictory to how forces work. If anyone listens to the problematic and contradictory bits of advice, it will interfere with them running a good experiment that can settle the issue.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/13/2017 01:11 am
Here is what I can share of the known operational characterists of an EmDrive. Would suggest alternative theories would need to explain ALL these characterists.

1) force scales linear with Rf power

2) force scales linear with Q. Bit trickey that but it seems to be so.

3) force scales linear with Df. Interesting that as the Df relates to the ratio difference between guide wavelength at each end plate.

4) force drops during constant acceleration. Seems to correlate with accelerated mass KE increase.

5) cavity Q drops during acceleration. Know this as my cavities are pulsed, which allows measurement of the forward power rise time. This enables Q measurement on every Rf pulse.

6) non accelerating cavity does not generate force. Know this from testing on torsion test rigs that stop forward motion when the stored torque in the wire balances EmDrive torque. When that happens the EmDrive stops generating force and the stored torque in the torsion wire forces the EmDrive back to it's starting position.  Jamie's tests have shown this effect.

7) non accelerating cavity needs  a small one time external force applied to cause small end forward acceleration.

8) during acceleration small end experiences Red Doppler shift, while big end experiences Blue Doppler shift.

9) doing end plate radiation calcs pressure shows less pressure on the small end plate vs the big end plate.

10) point 9 suggest the cavity should accelerate big end forward but it accelerates small end forward.

11) I don't understand why 10 happens.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 09/13/2017 01:18 am
.........

meberbs, no one is required to respond to or answer any questions. Unless I guess the question comes from a moderator.

It is even possible to put anyone on an ignore list. I don't think TT does that, but there is nothing that requires him to answer any of your questions or comments.

Don't get me wrong. I have never thought Shawyer's theory of operation makes sense and some of the claims of, basically super drives and flying cars can get annoying, while we are still waiting for convincing evidence of even useable mN levels of thrust.

That said constant line by line criticism of almost any post TT makes, also becomes old and redundant.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 09/13/2017 01:28 am
Here is what I can share of the known operational characterists of an EmDrive. Would suggest alternative theories would need to explain ALL these characterists.

1) force scales linear with Rf power

2) force scales linear with Q. Bit trickey that but it seems to be so.

3) force scales linear with Df. Interesting that as the Df relates to the ratio difference between guide wavelength at each end plate.

4) force drops during constant acceleration. Seems to correlate with accelerated mass KE increase.

5) cavity Q drops during acceleration. Know this as my cavities are pulsed, which allows measurement of the forward power rise time. This enables Q measurement on every Rf pulse.

6) non accelerating cavity does not generate force. Know this from testing on torsion test rigs that stop forward motion when the stored torque in the wire balances EmDrive torque. When that happens the EmDrive stops generating force and the stored torque in the torsion wire forces the EmDrive back to it's starting position.  Jamie's tests have shown this effect.

7) non accelerating cavity needs  a small one time external force applied to cause small end forward acceleration.

8) during acceleration small end experiences Red Doppler shift, while big end experiences Blue Doppler shift.

9) doing end plate radiation calcs pressure shows less pressure on the small end plate vs the big end plate.

10) point 9 suggest the cavity should accelerate big end forward but it accelerates small end forward.

11) I don't understand why 10 happens.

Are all of these from personal observation? And once you get to points 8 and 9 it seems you are expressing something more of what you believe than what you may have measured.

By the way, while we are dealing with the very small classical velocities any EmDrive might have under the conditions available so far, any red and blue shifting of the microwave frequencies involved should be almost insignificantly undetectable.., so how could they account for the levels of transferred momentum you predict?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/13/2017 02:07 am
Here is what I can share of the known operational characterists of an EmDrive. Would suggest alternative theories would need to explain ALL these characterists.

1) force scales linear with Rf power

2) force scales linear with Q. Bit trickey that but it seems to be so.

3) force scales linear with Df. Interesting that as the Df relates to the ratio difference between guide wavelength at each end plate.

4) force drops during constant acceleration. Seems to correlate with accelerated mass KE increase.

5) cavity Q drops during acceleration. Know this as my cavities are pulsed, which allows measurement of the forward power rise time. This enables Q measurement on every Rf pulse.

6) non accelerating cavity does not generate force. Know this from testing on torsion test rigs that stop forward motion when the stored torque in the wire balances EmDrive torque. When that happens the EmDrive stops generating force and the stored torque in the torsion wire forces the EmDrive back to it's starting position.  Jamie's tests have shown this effect.

7) non accelerating cavity needs  a small one time external force applied to cause small end forward acceleration.

8) during acceleration small end experiences Red Doppler shift, while big end experiences Blue Doppler shift.

9) doing end plate radiation calcs pressure shows less pressure on the small end plate vs the big end plate.

10) point 9 suggest the cavity should accelerate big end forward but it accelerates small end forward.

11) I don't understand why 10 happens.

Are all of these from personal observation? And once you get to points 8 and 9 it seems you are expressing something more of what you believe than what you may have measured.

By the way, while we are dealing with the very small classical velocities any EmDrive might have under the conditions available so far, any red and blue shifting of the microwave frequencies involved should be almost insignificantly undetectable.., so how could they account for the levels of transferred momentum you predict?

Hi OnlyMe,

Yes all from personal observation, with 8 & 9 from calculation.

9 is based on microwave engineering calcs of guide wavelength and 8 is based Doppler shift calculation.

Plus yes right again, neither explain why force is only generated during acceleration. The Doppler shifts may have nothing to do with what ever is causing the force to be generated. However the other points do alter the level of the generated force so any alternative theory needs to work as per 1 thru 7.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 09/13/2017 02:19 am
I don't understand why people can simultaneously say that gravity isn't a force (it isn't) and at the same time gravitation is a member of the fundamental force club. Probably why it hasn't been quantized yet.

Maybe it isn't quantized.
Quote
people can simultaneously say that gravity isn't a force (it isn't)

MIT Professor Bertschinger disagrees that gravity is not a force, also the whole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_problem has to do with the weakness of the gravitational force compared to the other forces (electromagnetic, weak and strong).  It is agreed that there are "4 forces: gravity, weak, strong and electromagnetic" look deeper:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MWNs7Wfk84

The discussions about gravity "not being a force" are pedagogical, trying people to get to understand the geometrical nature of gravity in general relativity as arising from spacetime curvature.

Dr. Rodal,

To some extent I believe this post of yours supports my interpretation of our earlier posts re: whether GR and spacetime might be interpreted as descriptive of gravitation, rather than a causative model.

As a descriptive model of gravitation, GR and spacetime could accommodate gravity as either a force or "not a force". Quantum gravity models would no longer have to mirror the field equations of GR, as long as the force carries, whether particles or fields, provide an energy/momentum structure that can be described as a field consistent with the field equations of GR.

It is easy to describe the propagation and distribution of sound waves, even EM radiation, as geometric fields and still associate both with a transfer of momentum, of one sort or another. In both of those cases we have a far better understanding of the fundamental underlying classical and quantum mechanical mechanisms.

Interpreting GR and spacetime as descriptive, permits the potential for the existence of more fundamental mechanisms, without excluding the possibility of the causative interpretation. While fixation on spacetime as the causative basis of gravitation, does tend to preclude the inclusion and/or incorporation of other potential fundamental mechanisms, which could be described by the same geometric dynamics.

In my opinion there is a lot to be gained from visualizing the action of gravity described by GR. You can begin by placing in your mind a surface at equal distance from a gravitating object where gravity is everywhere the same. Similar surfaces closer to the object will have a stronger time dilation, now resolve in your mind the action by which this geometry causes a smaller object to accelerate downward.

If this gives you difficulty you will not be alone. We interpret the behavior of charges in an electrical field as being caused by a completely different mechanism despite the obvious similarity of their behavior.

In my opinion there may be something to be gained from considering the possibility that electrical (and therefore magnetic) force be the consequence of time dilation also. What does this tell us about the possibility that we reside in a Machian universe where the emdrive is completely logical? Which of our concepts of physical reality must we modify, or abandon, to make a seemless mathematical analysis of this?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 09/13/2017 02:37 am
Does a gravity wave/space-time ripple transfer momentum?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: moreno7798 on 09/13/2017 03:31 am
meberbs, whether you agree with TT's viewpoints or not, the posts from him that I have seen have always been objective and non-confrontational,
How is repeatedly making proclamations that have been repeatedly disproven not confrontational?
What about repeatedly ignoring direct, simple questions?

while you consistently prepend your responses to him with personal attacks:

Do you even know the definition of the phrase "open system"?
Context matters.
This was after repeated statements from him that indicated he does not know the definition.

It is apparently difficult for you to understand.
This was in response to him posting literal nonsense followed by "This is not difficult to understand."

Or if that is too hard for you try these:
After he had ignored the preceding question twice. His eventual response was a quote from Wikipedia that included irrelevant context. He never did reply to the questions that followed.

You are not an engineer. ... Referring to yourself as an engineer when you can't do this is an insult to engineers.

...

I am fairly certain you can't even describe the experimental setups for these measurements, let alone have actually done them. Especially the part about wavelength, which you have previously demonstrated an inability to even properly define.
You said you have been here for a few months, so you probably didn't read far enough back in old threads to see all the times he was asked to define "guide wavelength" in the context of a resonator and failed to do so. Or the conversations where he insisted on the equivalent of saying that pushing an object to the left makes it move to the right.

Finally, you (meberbs) continuously get bogged down arguing back and forth with TT about CoM from a current physics point of view:

The EmDrive works.

Nothing leaves the cavity.
Therefore momentum is not conserved.

This argument has been beat to death over and over and over again.  Can we please move on until we have a working EMDrive to test against, or until sufficient negative tests have been performed to provide a reliable set of data that most likely the effect does not exist?
Depends, can you get TT to stop proclaiming contradictory statements?

In the absence of a working EMDrive, you are simply postulating that IF the EMDrive works, THEN momentum is either a) not conserved or b) is conserved through an unknown mechanism but have no way to test either of the two theories.  Option (c) is that simply, EMDrive does not work in which case everyone should simply stop posting to or following this thread.
Exactly this is all that the momentum argument amounts to. The problem is that TT keeps proposing that momentum is conserved, but unlike in option b there is no unknown mechanism. Him repeatedly insisting on this is counterproductive to serious investigation of the emDrive.

If you disbelieve him entirely, you should just ignore him.
Why should false and contradictory statements be allowed to stand in an open forum without someone pointing out that they are false and contradictory?

As a participant in this thread you must allow for the possibility that maybe it does work by some mechanism; otherwise participating in this thread makes you the troll, not TT, by consistently berating people’s intelligence for proposing theories about how it might work.
I have no problem with people proposing theories. If I see a flaw, I will point it out so the theory can be improved or discarded and the next one looked for. TT refuses to move on and ignores the flaws, claiming they don't exist. It is not berating someone's intelligence to point out a flaw in a theory, coming up with a theory at all is hard. I decline to comment on what it says about someone when their response to criticism is "I'm right, you're wrong. The emDrive works."

TT himself recently stated:

As I have said before, I have no 100% proof the SPR theory is correct but it sure fits how to design an EmDrive and dynamic tests do suggest that CofE is conserved as force is not constant and reduces as KE increases.

So, he admits SPR theory may not be correct, and he states that tests "suggest" momentum is conserved.
Yet he continues to insist on design rules following a theory that is inconsistent with itself, which of course leads to inconsistent rules.

TT is entitled to his own opinion, especially IF he has in fact built a working EMDrive.  If he has, then he obviously has more experience/data than anyone else commenting in this thread to draw from.  Arguing with him serves in no way to advance the EMDrive.  Your arguments here that he has not built a working EMDrive is again conjecture based on the lack of hard evidence supporting his claims, not any actual evidence demonstrating that he has unequivocally NOT built such a device.
Go look through the posts again. While I have my doubts about what experiments he has done, I generally have been leaving that as an unknown and addressing his understanding of the definition of a force and similar issues. Others have been more directly vocal about his unreliability as a witness, which is based on years of empty promises from him.

TT's claims, whether factual or non-factual, inflict no personal injury on yourself or others, other than the costs of time and money it may incur trying to prove/disprove these claims by experimentation.  However, were it not for these claims, then this thread and these experiments would not exist at all.
If his nonsensical claims are left to stand as if correct, it harms the quality of this site, which is the best resource for information on the space industry I have found. Also, some of what he says about how to run an experiment is based on nonsense contradictory to how forces work. If anyone listens to the problematic and contradictory bits of advice, it will interfere with them running a good experiment that can settle the issue.

Meberbs,

Why do you feel that it is your job to take down TT? What's in it for you? All you have to do is state you assertions (which you already have done), then patiently wait for proof of a working/not working EMDrive. Then you can triumphantly come out and claim vindication. You don't have to take over over the thread and you don't have to play the role of physics Messiah. The truth will reveal itself on its own.

Having such strong assertions regarding our current understanding of physics will only serve to make for an even harder fall if EMDrive does in fact work. If EMDrive works, then we will be able to safely assume that you (as well as all of us) do not know as much as we think we do. We could be at a point in physics comparable to our knowledge of physics pre-Albert Einstein.

Bottom line is, Let it go. This debate will not be settled with words, it will be settled with hardware.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/13/2017 05:31 am
You are also in error about the 'new or unexplained physical forces.'  Put bluntly, if it works as advertised, then it stands in violation of both Conservation of Energy and Conservation of Momentum.
Must be magic then, or at least that's the claim when people don't understand science. Truth is the science is basic, expected, and doesn't violate anything. It is only people that don't understand what they're seeing that start crying foul or claiming new science.
That's not to say new science doesn't exist, it does as is the case of BLP's sub-ground state. It's just not the case here.
So are you endorsing Shawyer's "theory" here? Because he is the only one who claims the emDrive doesn't need new physics. The countless problems with Shawyer's claims have been thoroughly discussed here.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: wicoe on 09/13/2017 05:44 am
Meberbs,

I cannot speak for Meberbs, but I'll share my view on this since I think I understand where he's coming from...
Quote

Why do you feel that it is your job to take down TT? What's in it for you?

I think it's the job of any scientist or science enthusiast to "take down" utter nonsense, whoever it is coming from.  By "taking down" I don't mean insulting the author(s), but rather pointing out the obvious inconsistencies and asking additional questions.

Quote
All you have to do is state you assertions (which you already have done), then patiently wait for proof of a working/not working EMDrive. Then you can triumphantly come out and claim vindication. You don't have to take over over the thread and you don't have to play the role of physics Messiah. The truth will reveal itself on its own.

This has nothing to do with the question of whether EmDrive works or not.  It has to do with a specific "explanation" of how it works, which is logically inconsistent and clearly demonstrates the lack of understanding of Newthon's laws and other fundamentals.

Quote
Having such strong assertions regarding our current understanding of physics will only serve to make for an even harder fall if EMDrive does in fact work. If EMDrive works, then we will be able to safely assume that you (as well as all of us) do not know as much as we think we do. We could be at a point in physics comparable to our knowledge of physics pre-Albert Einstein.

I would just like to note that Einstein did not disprove Newton's law, he improved it.  Breaking CoM/CoE and creating "free energy" machines is a completely different story.

Quote
Bottom line is, Let it go. This debate will not be settled with words, it will be settled with hardware.

I'm afraid it will never be settled... there will be an ever-growing list of requirements (see a recent TT post) that will be harder and harder to satisfy, and any experiment demonstrating a null thrust will be ignored by EmDrive proponents.  Same goes for experiments showing small amounts of "thrust", which will be discarded as systematic errors by the other side (which is far more likely, as has been shown by many in this thread).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: coypu76 on 09/13/2017 07:37 am
This is why Russia published the article today.  The Chinese made some recent announcements.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4872220/Has-China-cracked-Nasa-s-impossible-engine.html
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 09/13/2017 08:16 am
A couple of 'financial' things to respond to. I would dispute the assertion that SPR is in financial trouble, or has been recently. There are two reasons to say that. Firstly, for several years SPR has made no material loss, but rather has been in profit or flat. Yes, equity is negative, but that is because it has 'interest free, indefinite term loans' on its books. There are strong indications that around 40% of those loans are from Shawyer himself. He has slowly been paying these off, as would be honourable although probably marginally against his personal financial interest (the other people he pays back will take more than the taxman if he paid himself wages).

SPR looks like a personal-services shell company through which Shawyer can route consultancy or other personal income, pay himself a small wage and occasionally log some profits to pay off some of the company's long term debt. BUT disclosure is so poor that there could be a healthy IP revenue stream going straight into his pocket, and we would be none the wiser: SPR would have income but no profit, as costs (his wages) match income. SPR files no P&L, it is too small to need to, so both of these scenarios are pure conjecture.

Someone mentioned Jamie and Shawyers workshop. Again, stuff could be hidden or completely written off, but SPR has £238 in fixed assets - not a typo. Probably less than Jamie's test rig.

Lastly, on Universal Propulsion: the company was founded with Gilo Cardozo (personally) as 60% shareholder on 29-Jun-16. On the same day there is a record of Gilo Industries Group having control of the company. So it is wrong to say that Gilo has taken or increased its control - it always had it.  Shawyer and his buddy Sheridan remain the sole directors of UP.

For those who enjoy coincidences, when UP was incorporated, the address of Gilo Industries Research (a wholly owned subsidiary of Gilo Industries Group) was moved from the address of Gilo Industries Group to the same address at which UP was incorporated. Gilo Industries research shows evidence of material activity in 2016, at least in as far as it received R&D tax credits.

Finally, I have to concur with previous poster who said the traffic around TT/personal insults might well attract the attention of moderators. This forum is a great source on the EMdrive, let's keep it, even if that means biting our tongues on occasions.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/13/2017 10:40 am
You are also in error about the 'new or unexplained physical forces.'  Put bluntly, if it works as advertised, then it stands in violation of both Conservation of Energy and Conservation of Momentum.
Must be magic then, or at least that's the claim when people don't understand science. Truth is the science is basic, expected, and doesn't violate anything. It is only people that don't understand what they're seeing that start crying foul or claiming new science.
That's not to say new science doesn't exist, it does as is the case of BLP's sub-ground state. It's just not the case here.
So are you endorsing Shawyer's "theory" here? Because he is the only one who claims the emDrive doesn't need new physics. The countless problems with Shawyer's claims have been thoroughly discussed here.

A better understanding of the physics we already have is good enough.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: FattyLumpkin on 09/13/2017 11:05 am
Chinese design reminiscent of Cannae slots?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/13/2017 12:30 pm
Chinese design reminiscent of Cannae slots?
No, different electromagnetic field distribution.  Different mode shapes. Very different scale and distribution.
They have a very different approach to propellant-less propulsion.  Not following the approach of Shaywer or the one of Fetta.  Similarity is just that they all are electromagnetically resonant cavities.   Guiding principles are different.
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1447210;image)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star-Drive on 09/13/2017 01:34 pm
There are ample examples of working EmDrives developing thrust.

There are no other examples of working EmDrives:

- all EmDrives publicly known to date, from Eagleworks to TU Dresden through DIYers, develop so little thrust that the measured force can still be mistaken with thermal or EM effects. Or the cavity develops a force of the same magnitude as the axial one, but laterally (Tajmar) which ruins the whole demonstration.

- Yang Juan withdrawn her prior very high thrust measurements, stating that when the energy source is moved onto the setup (admittedly a much lighter and lower power one) and is not external anymore, the thrust force almost disappears within the noise i.e. below the resolution accuracy of her torsion pendulum. And yes I agree the setup described in her last paper was poorly designed and could not detect a force even if it was present due to the stiffness of the three steel wires, but precisely this fact alone highlights how the thrust produced is so low. A problem of low specific force you claim to have overcome.

- Shawyer's public rotary test rig, not even enclosed in a transparent cage (to protect it from ambient convection air currents) used an air bearing with several rotating cooling fans onboard, blowing hot air asymmetrically. It would have rotated without any EmDrive. But he never subsequently showed an updated solid-state fanless setup.

- Eagleworks' rotary test rig leaked video is also plagued with spurious forces that are not related to the cavity, according to Paul March himself.

- All EmDrives developing a very high specific thrust that may exist at SPR, private aerospace companies, army labs, etc… are kept secret, so that no EmDrive has been definitely proven to work yet. This fact alone demonstrates the whole problem. If the technology was already "demonstrated" outside of small circles, the race would currently be in the industry, not done secretly in private and defense R&D labs.

You seem to not understand the necessity to demonstrate the EmDrive validity to the general public and wider science circles outside the circles of "people in the know" of which you became a part of.

Thus there is still urgent need for a public demonstrator rotary test rig, with precise data. Seems you won't provide it.

So no need to wait for me to become a believer.

We already know that you are a believer. The purpose of a public demonstrator on a rotary test rig is not intended to prove the EmDrive is working to you of course, but to everyone else.

Flux-Capacitor:

You stated in this post:

"- Shawyer's public rotary test rig, not even enclosed in a transparent cage (to protect it from ambient convection air currents) used an air bearing with several rotating cooling fans onboard, blowing hot air asymmetrically. It would have rotated without any EmDrive. But he never subsequently showed an updated solid-state fanless setup."


I've seen people on this forum and elsewhere repeatedly make this claim when it is incorrect.  Please go back to Shawyer's EMdrive demonstrator engine web page and note the following comments made by Mr. Shawyer.  The various highlighted text are inserted by me for emphasis.

http://emdrive.com/demonstratorengine.html

"To obtain the predicted thrust the engine must maintain stable resonance at this high Q value.  Major design challenges have included thermal compensation, tuning control and source matching."

Then go to: http://emdrive.com/dynamictests.html and read Shawyer's first two comments in his notes section. 

"Notes on Test video:

1.  The field strengths within the thruster equate to a power level of 17MW.  Signal leakage causes EMC effects within the fixed video camera. This leads to the apparent vertical movements.

2.  The engine only starts to accelerate when the magnetron frequency locks to the resonant frequency of the thruster, following an initial warm up period.  This test operation eliminates possible spurious forces."


Lastly go to the full length video, fullDMtest188.mpg (full version 43.3MB), and play it for yourself.  You will note that the dynamic test rig does NOT start acceleration UNTIL cavity frequency lock is obtained as noted by Mr. Shawyer's verbal comments during this test video.  I'm assuming here that Mr. Shawyer is an honest man that tells it like he saw it.

Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/13/2017 01:35 pm
Does a gravity wave/space-time ripple transfer momentum?
Yes, but the issue is not whether it does or does not.  The issue is how big it is and whether it would make sense.  An electron has mass.  The whole Universe has mass.  However it does not make sense to say that something that one observes happening in the whole Universe also must similarly happen to an electron.  One has to take into account the scale of the phenomenon.


People should compare the extremely small amplitude of the gravitational wave  measured from the plunge and coalescence of two big black holes vs. what would be the amplitude of a gravitational field produced by an electromagnetically resonant cavity.  It is evident that the gravitational wave from an EM Drive is so extremely small that is nothing compared to the momentum from any other disturbance present in the experimental environment.  When people discuss gravitational waves from the EM Drive they just write words: I invite them to make a calculation of its magnitude so that they understand how negligibly small it is.  Engineers and scientists use numbers rather than words.  At least let's compare orders of magnitudes.

Comparing both would be like comparing the mass of a big black hole to the mass of the EM Drive  :o

mass of black holes involved in recent gravitational wave measurements:   36 and 29 solar masses

3*1031 kg    ;)

(http://images.slideplayer.com/34/8329950/slides/slide_10.jpg)

so comparing the mass of the black holes involved in the recent gravitational wave experiments to the mass of the EM Drive is like comparing the mass of the proton to your mass

or like comparing your mass to the mass of the Sun.  Both you and the Sun have mass.  The Sun attracts all the planets: it is responsible for us being here.  Neither you or I appreciable attract any planets, and we should not make arguments that because the Sun makes the planets go into orbits we should similarly make particles go into orbits around us.

  ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star-Drive on 09/13/2017 02:39 pm
Does a gravity wave/space-time ripple transfer momentum?
Yes, but the issue is not whether it does or does not.  The issue is how big it is and whether it would make sense.  An electron has mass.  The whole Universe has mass.  However it does not make sense to say that something that one observes happening in the whole Universe also must similarly happen to an electron.  One has to take into account the scale of the phenomenon.


People should compare the extremely small amplitude of the gravitational wave  measured from the plunge and coalescence of two big black holes vs. what would be the amplitude of a gravitational field produced by an electromagnetically resonant cavity.  It is evident that the gravitational wave from an EM Drive is so extremely small that is nothing compared to the momentum from any other disturbance present in the experimental environment.  When people discuss gravitational waves from the EM Drive they just write words: I invite them to make a calculation of its magnitude so that they understand how negligibly small it is.  Engineers and scientists use numbers rather than words.  At least let's compare orders of magnitudes.

Comparing both would be like comparing the mass of a big black hole to the mass of the EM Drive  :o

mass of black holes involved in recent gravitational wave measurements:   36 and 29 solar masses

3*1031 kg    ;)

(http://images.slideplayer.com/34/8329950/slides/slide_10.jpg)

so comparing the mass of the black holes involved in the recent gravitational wave experiments to the mass of the EM Drive is like comparing the mass of the proton to your mass

or like comparing your mass to the mass of the Sun.  Both you and the Sun have mass.  The Sun attracts all the planets: it is responsible for us being here.  Neither you or I appreciable attract any planets, and we should not make arguments that because the Sun makes the planets go into orbits we should similarly make particles go into orbits around us.

  ;)

Jose': 

For locally derived gravitational effects I concur that E&M generated gravitational effects are extremely small in magnitude.  However for globally derived inertial reaction forces that come about from the gravitational interactions of all the mass/energy in the causally connected universe, these E&M driven transient inertial forces can be as large as normal Newtonian reaction forces per Woodward's Mach-Effect conjecture.

Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/13/2017 02:42 pm
...
Jose': 

For locally derived gravitational effects I concur that E&M generated gravitational effects are extremely small in magnitude.  ...
The question I answered was concerning gravitational waves  and not about gravitational effects in general.

The question was:

Does a gravity wave/space-time ripple transfer momentum?

Please notice the huge difference between gravitational waves and gravitational forces.  When the Sun attracts the Earth into an orbit, we are not discussing gravitational waves. 

Just because the words all start with "gravitational" it does not mean that all gravitational effects are of the same order of amplitude.

It is this conflation of everything "gravitational" as being the same that I want to prevent and people to realize the scale of what is being discussed.

Gravitational waves produced by the coalescence of 30 solar masses massive objects, when passing through the Earth have a strain (change in length divided by original length) amplitude of h ≈ 10^(−20).

Let's realize how small this is !  It took decades of the highest technology to be able to measure it!

And how ludicrous small would be the gravitational wave of an EM Drive, just based on the electromagnetically resonant energy in the EM Drive.

So small as to make it so unlikely to that gravitational waves from Shawyer's EM Drive would have any space flight applications.  If the effect is real it must be something else.  Otherwise someone has to explain what would be responsible for magnifying a gravitational wave to such an extent.  It is like saying that the mass of a human can have the same spacetime wave effect on an object as the mass of the Sun.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: S.Paulissen on 09/13/2017 03:05 pm
Gravitational waves produced by the coalescence of massive objects, when passing through the Earth have a strain (change in length divided by original length) amplitude of h ≈ 10^(−20).

Let's realize how small this is !  It took decades of the highest technology to be able to measure it!

And how ludicrous small would be the gravitational wave of an EM Drive, just based on the electromagnetically resonant energy in the EM Drive.

I agree with the thrust of the post... however.

These events were many lightyears away, hence necessitating said technology.  Proximity matters, I think. Or do I misunderstand how gravitational waves work?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/13/2017 03:12 pm
Gravitational waves produced by the coalescence of massive objects, when passing through the Earth have a strain (change in length divided by original length) amplitude of h ≈ 10^(−20).

Let's realize how small this is !  It took decades of the highest technology to be able to measure it!

And how ludicrous small would be the gravitational wave of an EM Drive, just based on the electromagnetically resonant energy in the EM Drive.

I agree with the thrust of the post... however.

These events were many lightyears away, hence necessitating said technology.  Proximity matters, I think. Or do I misunderstand how gravitational waves work?
Kip Thorne, Thibault Damour, Blanchet (*) and others have analyzed what happens as the gravitational waves travel through space and go through other celestial bodies before reaching us.   The magnitude of this effect decreases proportional to the inverse distance from the source.

Notice: not proportional to the square of the inverse -like Newtonian gravitational forces-, but proportional to the inverse.   Thus the decay with distance is much smaller than the decay of Newtonian gravitational forces.  On the other hand the dimensionless strain amplitude is proportional to the second derivative of the mass distribution of the source and inversely proportional to the distance from the source. .

The bottom line is that the gravitational waves produced by Shawyer's EM Drive have extremely small amplitude even when something is next to it.  The experimental artifacts of myriads of things in these experiments are a huge orders of magnitude larger: thermal convection (when performing the experiments at ambient pressure), thermal expansion and Lorentz electromagnetic effects (both present even in a vacuum) are a huge order of magnitude larger. 

Cannot have microNewton forces from Shawyer's EM Drive due to gravitational waves.
If you would, such an effect from gravitational waves would have been noticed in myriads of other experiments and natural phenomena.

Spacetime is very stiff.  It is very difficult to make spacetime ripple like a wave.
To do that you need binary orbiting black holes or neutron stars.

As a loose analogy, proximity also matters as to Newtonian gravitational forces, yet you do not have particles orbiting around you due to gravitation and the electron does not orbit around the nucleus due to gravitation.  The mass of the object has a massive effect on the effects [pardon the pun]  ;)

-------------
(*)  Thorne, Damour and Blanchet's theoretical predictions have been excellently matched by experiments and nowadays by numerical relativity.  So nobody can argue that this is "just mathematics".  Otherwise what do we have when discussing gravitational waves?  mysticism?  Gravitational waves from the EM Drive are not at all like what is understood as gravitational waves?  If it it is not the same "gravitational wave" then other word should be used to describe such an anomalous effect...And you have to compare the magnitude of such forces with the magnitude of other forces (electromagnetic, etc.) when in close proximity
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/13/2017 04:13 pm
Notice: not proportional to the square of the inverse -like Newtonian gravitational forces-, but proportional to the inverse.   Thus the decay with distance is much smaller than the decay of Newtonian gravitational forces.  On the other hand the dimensionless strain amplitude is proportional to the second derivative of the mass distribution of the source and inversely proportional to the distance from the source.
Slightly irrelevant question. Is this the amplitude of the wave that decreases inversely with distance? (i.e. physical length change as measured by a gravitational wave detector)

In waves such as electromagnetic waves, energy and momentum density are proportional to the square of the field strength. This means that while the energy per unit area (power per area if you are talking continuous and not short burst) in the wave decreases with the square of the distance, the field strength would only decrease linearly. I'd expect similar statements to be true for gravitational waves.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/13/2017 04:17 pm
Notice: not proportional to the square of the inverse -like Newtonian gravitational forces-, but proportional to the inverse.   Thus the decay with distance is much smaller than the decay of Newtonian gravitational forces.  On the other hand the dimensionless strain amplitude is proportional to the second derivative of the mass distribution of the source and inversely proportional to the distance from the source.
Slightly irrelevant question. Is this the amplitude of the wave that decreases inversely with distance? (i.e. physical length change as measured by a gravitational wave detector)

In waves such as electromagnetic waves, energy and momentum density are proportional to the square of the field strength. This means that while the energy per unit area (power per area if you are talking continuous and not short burst) in the wave decreases with the square of the distance, the field strength would only decrease linearly. I'd expect similar statements to be true for gravitational waves.
Actually a relevant question.

I was talking about the non-dimensional strain (h in perturbation theory) as a measure of the amplitude effect of the gravitational wave

Quote
The relative length change of two points resulting from gravitational wave is expressed as

Max stretching & shrinking = hL,

where L is a distance between two points and h is the dimensionless strain amplitude which is proportional to the second derivative of the mass distribution of the source and inversely proportional to the distance from the source.

The strain between two points is the most commonly accepted way to discuss such magnitude.


See:  http://web.mit.edu/klmitch/classes/8.224/project/gravwave.html

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/13/2017 04:25 pm
Thanks. This is what I thought you meant, but I wanted to be sure. That site also confirms that the energy proportional to square of amplitude applies to gravitational waves just as it does to EM waves.

Considering available detection methods, it makes sense that amplitude would be used to discuss gravitational waves while power density is frequently used for EM waves.

Quote
Furthermore, the radiation energy is proportional to the square of the amplitude of the associated gravitational wave

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/13/2017 04:26 pm
Thanks. This is what I thought you meant, but I wanted to be sure. That site also confirms that the energy proportional to square of amplitude applies to gravitational waves just as it does to EM waves.

Quote
Furthermore, the radiation energy is proportional to the square of the amplitude of the associated gravitational wave

Also of interest:

The luminosity (the total amount of energy emitted by the astronomical objects per unit time) of the gravitational wave from a binary is approximately proportional to mass to the third power M3 and inversely proportional to orbital separation -between the binary objects- as R5

see page 2 of

https://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/teaching/astr498/lecture25.pdf

and the total energy of a circular binary of radius R is proportional to the mass and inversely proportional to the orbital separation R

When it comes to gravitational waves, mass matters ! [pun intended]    ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 09/13/2017 05:29 pm
Let me explain a little about why I asked about gravitational wave/spacetime ripples.

I keep thinking about bosons as being force carriers and the resonant electromagnetic fields being created within the frustum. And as someone who forgot most of what I learned almost 50 years ago I know I'm woefully ignorant.

If bosons are electromagnetic "ghosts" that can induce particles to suddenly pop into material existence with mass, and which then disappear again back to an electromagnetic state, then the appearance of mass would move space-time ever slightly (telling it how to curve) thereby transferring momentum. It seems intuitive that the transfer of momentum from a created inertial mass might also be what causes the very tiny mass to dissipate and return to electromagnetism.

Any fleeting particle created that has true mass is unlike a photon. As a result productions of bosons might be a mechanism for creating momentum from transient mass that would exceed the proverbial photon rocket, wouldn't it?

If bosons/particles were produced, it would seem intuitive that it would occur in the regions of the highest energy density, nominally the small end in most of the meep runs shown here. Again, if bosons/particles occur, might their generated infinitesimal momentum transfer also potentially help push the injected energy towards the large end, creating the imbalance that might account for the thrust.  If that thrust does exist.

(Old guy up late last night thinking, and time today to write it down.)[/size]
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 09/13/2017 05:30 pm
Thanks. This is what I thought you meant, but I wanted to be sure. That site also confirms that the energy proportional to square of amplitude applies to gravitational waves just as it does to EM waves.

Quote
Furthermore, the radiation energy is proportional to the square of the amplitude of the associated gravitational wave

Also of interest:

The luminosity (the total amount of energy emitted by the astronomical objects per unit time) of the gravitational wave from a binary is approximately proportional to mass to the third power M3 and inversely proportional to orbital separation -between the binary objects- as R5

see page 2 of

https://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/teaching/astr498/lecture25.pdf

and the total energy of a circular binary of radius R is proportional to the mass and inversely proportional to the orbital separation R

When it comes to gravitational waves, mass matters ! [pun intended]    ;)

Dr. Rodal et al

Thanks for an excellent discussion of this topic - gravitational waves-  you together with meberbs, and S. Paulissen and of course further reading of  Mssrs. Thorne, Damour, and Blanchet made this much clearer - I've been thinking over this since about 1976.   The concept of spacetime being quite stiff is a excellent example.

   Is this in any way a gravitational radiation analog to the so-called electromagnetic characteristic impedance of free space i.e. square root of ratio of permeability of free space to permittivity of free space; which has a numerical value of about 376.6 ohms?   In the past I have heard older RF engineers  refer to this as how stiff space was WRT RF propagation.

Thanks,

Herman
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/13/2017 06:36 pm
...
Dr. Rodal et al

Thanks for an excellent discussion of this topic - gravitational waves-  you together with meberbs, and S. Paulissen and of course further reading of  Mssrs. Thorne, Damour, and Blanchet made this much clearer - I've been thinking over this since about 1976.   The concept of spacetime being quite stiff is a excellent example.

   Is this in any way a gravitational radiation analog to the so-called electromagnetic characteristic impedance of free space i.e. square root of ratio of permeability of free space to permittivity of free space; which has a numerical value of about 376.6 ohms?   In the past I have heard older RF engineers  refer to this as how stiff space was WRT RF propagation.

Thanks, e

Herman
Herman,

Thanks for your feedback and your excellent question.  Unfortunately I have not thought (or more importantly I have not analyzed) this enough to discuss the proposed analogy. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/13/2017 08:44 pm
Guys,

This experimental data from Jamie, Monomorphic, clearly shows the "stop accelerating or stop moving then stop generating force" operational characterists of EmDrives.

Here the start of acceleration is delayed as Jamie manually adjust his freq gen to obtain resonant lock. Grey area is when Rf was applied to the EmDrive. Any Lorentz force would have been measured during the entire Rf power on time, yet there is no such force measured.

Then once freq lock was obtained, his EmDrive started to generate an accelerative force and it moved forward. Yes it initially needed some very small vibratory external accelerative force to be applied to initiate the EmDrive self sustained and generated internal accelerative force generation.

Finally it stopped accelerating, moving forward,  when the continually increasing stored back torque in the torsion wire finally equalled the Emdrive generated forward torque.

When it stopped accelerating, the EmDrive dropped out of what Roger calls Motor mode and stopped producing accelerative force.

Then the back torque stored in the torsion wire drove the EmDrive back to it's pre acceleration start position, even though Rf was still applied.

Phil
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 09/13/2017 09:46 pm
Guys,

This experimental data from Jamie, Monomorphic, clearly shows the "stop accelerating or stop moving then stop generating force" operational characterists of EmDrives.

Here the start of acceleration is delayed as Jamie manually adjust his freq gen to obtain resonant lock. Grey area is when Rf was applied to the EmDrive. Any Lorentz force would have been measured during the entire Rf power on time, yet there is no such force measured.

Then once freq lock was obtained, his EmDrive started to generate an accelerative force and it moved forward. Yes it initially needed some very small vibratory external accelerative force to be applied to initiate the EmDrive self sustained and generated internal accelerative force generation.

Finally it stopped accelerating, moving forward,  when the continually increasing stored back torque in the torsion wire finally equalled the Emdrive generated forward torque.

When it stopped accelerating, the EmDrive dropped out of what Roger calls Motor mode and stopped producing accelerative force.

Then the back torque stored in the torsion wire drove the EmDrive back to it's pre acceleration start position, even though Rf was still applied.

Phil

I've made no secret of my distress over the unsubstantiated claims of thrust to power ratios, but this is one of the ideas that I think is actually credible; it's one of the most consistent anomalies across EM drive experiments.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/13/2017 09:54 pm
Guys,

This experimental data from Jamie, Monomorphic, clearly shows the "stop accelerating or stop moving then stop generating force" operational characterists of EmDrives.

Here the start of acceleration is delayed as Jamie manually adjust his freq gen to obtain resonant lock. Grey area is when Rf was applied to the EmDrive. Any Lorentz force would have been measured during the entire Rf power on time, yet there is no such force measured.

Then once freq lock was obtained, his EmDrive started to generate an accelerative force and it moved forward. Yes it initially needed some very small vibratory external accelerative force to be applied to initiate the EmDrive self sustained and generated internal accelerative force generation.

Finally it stopped accelerating, moving forward,  when the continually increasing stored back torque in the torsion wire finally equalled the Emdrive generated forward torque.

When it stopped accelerating, the EmDrive dropped out of what Roger calls Motor mode and stopped producing accelerative force.

Then the back torque stored in the torsion wire drove the EmDrive back to it's pre acceleration start position, even though Rf was still applied.

Phil

I've made no secret of my distress over the unsubstantiated claims of thrust to power ratios, but this is one of the ideas that I think is actually credible; it's one of the most consistent anomalies across EM drive experiments.
Which can also be explained by a number of experimental artifacts that include significant time delays: thermal diffusion through the materials involved (an effect which would also be present in vacuum, governed by the density and thermal conductivity of the materials involved) and thermal convection (not present in high vacuum, and governed by the gas density and thermal conductivity as well as any latent heat of vaporization of liquid, for example humid air) being notorious among them.  It has also been discussed that the EM Drive may just be a multipactor artifact, and if so time delays due to random secondary emission velocities and other effects may be involved.

So the clarity of
Quote
clearly shows the "stop accelerating
is in the eye of the beholder and willingness to look for other explanations, unless this is verified by other independent means.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 09/13/2017 10:03 pm

I've made no secret of my distress over the unsubstantiated claims of thrust to power ratios, but this is one of the ideas that I think is actually credible; it's one of the most consistent anomalies across EM drive experiments.
Which can also be explained by a number of experimental artifacts that include significant time delays: thermal diffusion through the materials involved (an effect which would also be present in vacuum, governed by the density and thermal conductivity of the materials involved) and thermal convection (not present in high vacuum, and governed by the gas density and thermal conductivity as well as any latent heat of vaporization of liquid, for example humid air) being notorious among them.

So the clarity of
Quote
clearly shows the "stop accelerating
is in the eye of the beholder unless this is verified by other independent means.

It's far from proven, for sure. The better word to use would have been plausible, rather than credible. My bad!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/13/2017 10:16 pm
Guys,

This experimental data from Jamie, Monomorphic, clearly shows the "stop accelerating or stop moving then stop generating force" operational characterists of EmDrives.

Here the start of acceleration is delayed as Jamie manually adjust his freq gen to obtain resonant lock. Grey area is when Rf was applied to the EmDrive. Any Lorentz force would have been measured during the entire Rf power on time, yet there is no such force measured.

Then once freq lock was obtained, his EmDrive started to generate an accelerative force and it moved forward. Yes it initially needed some very small vibratory external accelerative force to be applied to initiate the EmDrive self sustained and generated internal accelerative force generation.

Finally it stopped accelerating, moving forward,  when the continually increasing stored back torque in the torsion wire finally equalled the Emdrive generated forward torque.

When it stopped accelerating, the EmDrive dropped out of what Roger calls Motor mode and stopped producing accelerative force.

Then the back torque stored in the torsion wire drove the EmDrive back to it's pre acceleration start position, even though Rf was still applied.

Phil

I've made no secret of my distress over the unsubstantiated claims of thrust to power ratios, but this is one of the ideas that I think is actually credible; it's one of the most consistent anomalies across EM drive experiments.
Which can also be explained by a number of experimental artifacts that include significant time delays: thermal diffusion through the materials involved (an effect which would also be present in vacuum, governed by the density and thermal conductivity of the materials involved) and thermal convection (not present in high vacuum, and governed by the gas density and thermal conductivity as well as any latent heat of vaporization of liquid, for example humid air) being notorious among them.  It has also been discussed that the EM Drive may just be a multipactor artifact, and if so time delays due to random secondary emission velocities and other effects may be involved.

So the clarity of
Quote
clearly shows the "stop accelerating
is in the eye of the beholder and willingness to look for other explanations, unless this is verified by other independent means.

Jose,

Rf power was 2 watt so not much cavity heating there.

Need to also answer why, with constant Rf power, the positive displace force apparently completely stopped, disappeared, as observed from the stored torque in the torsion wire driving the total accelerated mass backward, through the pre acceleration displacement and then to a somewhat same negative displacement until Jamie's dampers finslly absorbed and thermalised the stored energy in the torsion wire.

I repeat again, this is the characterists of an EmDrive.

What EW observed, with constant, non accelerating static force is NOT characterist of an EmDrive. It maybe was the characterist of the QV thruster Dr. White tried to build.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/13/2017 10:31 pm
...Need to also answer why, with constant Rf power, the positive displace force apparently completely stopped, disappeared,...
it depends on what is going, for example it could be an artifact of multipactor saturation due to debunching. The EM Drive as described in Shawyer's reports has been a black box with no reported measurements of what is going on inside it  ;).  In your message you write "2 watts" (for Jamie) but the power in Shawyer's experiments is way over that....

(*) SeeShells had proposed internal measurements to understand what is going on...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/13/2017 11:32 pm
...Need to also answer why, with constant Rf power, the positive displace force apparently completely stopped, disappeared,...
it depends on what is going, for example it could be an artifact of multipactor saturation due to debunching. The EM Drive as described in Shawyer's reports has been a black box with no reported measurements of what is going on inside it  ;).  In your message you write "2 watts" (for Jamie) but the power in Shawyer's experiments is way over that....

(*) SeeShells had proposed internal measurements to understand what is going on...

Jose,

The dynamic displacement data I posted was created with 2Wrf as per Jamie's report.

Roger has shared only one dynamic report, that being for the Demonstrator EmDrive on his rotary test rig which allowed continual free acceleration. He has not shared data from testing on torsion wire based test devices that I know of.

Jamie and I did discuss this data with Roger. He commented it was representative of what he would expect from Jamie's test rig. Roger encouraged Jamie to build a spherical cavity so to increase cavity Q and force generation. Which Jamie has done.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/13/2017 11:54 pm

I've made no secret of my distress over the unsubstantiated claims of thrust to power ratios, but this is one of the ideas that I think is actually credible; it's one of the most consistent anomalies across EM drive experiments.
Which can also be explained by a number of experimental artifacts that include significant time delays: thermal diffusion through the materials involved (an effect which would also be present in vacuum, governed by the density and thermal conductivity of the materials involved) and thermal convection (not present in high vacuum, and governed by the gas density and thermal conductivity as well as any latent heat of vaporization of liquid, for example humid air) being notorious among them.

So the clarity of
Quote
clearly shows the "stop accelerating
is in the eye of the beholder unless this is verified by other independent means.

It's far from proven, for sure. The better word to use would have been plausible, rather than credible. My bad!

Hi RS,

I'll accept plausible.
And yes I'll accept far from proven.
At least we are moving in the right direction.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/13/2017 11:55 pm
Jamie and I did discuss this data with Roger. He commented it was representative of what he would expect from Jamie's test rig.
But it is not representative of what would happen if the force generation stopped when the acceleration stopped. In that case, the drive would return straight back to the null position from the first peak (and oscillate around it) rather than oscillating around the forward position.

As for what could be causing the displacement, you have to remember that while it is only 2W of power, it is also only equivalent to a couple of microNewtons of force. The end of the generation of the apparent force does not correspond to the drive reaching 0 acceleration or to the end of the RF power. This is not an encouraging piece of data for the emDrive working.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/14/2017 01:01 am
I had to build a mini-enclosure so I can calibrate the calibration coil.  :o  First pulse was measured at ~3mg (~30uN). It's nice when things go right the first time! I should be able to get 10uN pulses or less working reliably by moving the ferromagnetic material further away from the coil. Pretty simple really, but it was complicated by the fact that I want to be able to send signals manually from both my workshop and my office two floors above.  Electrostatic fins were not practical as the spacing required is too small for a pendulum and synchronizing two isolated power systems for high voltage pulses is also not practical.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: jmossman on 09/14/2017 01:14 am
Jamie and I did discuss this data with Roger. He commented it was representative of what he would expect from Jamie's test rig.
But it is not representative of what would happen if the force generation stopped when the acceleration stopped. In that case, the drive would return straight back to the null position from the first peak (and oscillate around it) rather than oscillating around the forward position.

As for what could be causing the displacement, you have to remember that while it is only 2W of power, it is also only equivalent to a couple of microNewtons of force. The end of the generation of the apparent force does not correspond to the drive reaching 0 acceleration or to the end of the RF power. This is not an encouraging piece of data for the emDrive working.

Hi Meberbs, TT,

I realize the following has been discussed in detail in previous threads, but I'd like to quickly summarize again for others who may have joined us since the original discussion/analysis.

Oscillating around the forward position suggests two things:
1) a force stopped
2) a background force(s) remains

Whether the "force stopped" is from the emDrive working (i.e. on->off) has yet to be established.  Shifting of the center-of-mass due to thermal expansion is one such alternative explanation (which can actually occur at the speed-of-sound in a material, unlike what many might incorrectly assume to be a slow thermal process).  A possible background force could be a "thermal balloon" effect from the trapped heated air inside of the copper frustum.

However, oscillating around the forward position cannot be used to solely exclude "emDrive working" from the possible explanations.

This forum has been patiently waiting for more experimental data from Monomorphic, Seeshells, and others in hopes of being able to isolate how many "forces", their various magnitudes, and their correlation to things like Radio Frequency (RF) start/stop, external vibration, and orientation of device-under-test to Earth's magnetic field... just to name a few.

Best regards,
James
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/14/2017 02:40 am
However, oscillating around the forward position cannot be used to solely exclude "emDrive working" from the possible explanations.
Of course. In fact for an underdamped system (the preferred measurement mode) this is the expected result of a working drive. I was pointing it out in this case to show that the force did not stop when the acceleration reached 0 like TT claimed.

The main reason I don't find this to be convincing evidence of a working drive is that the force does stop before the RF, but for no apparent reason (acceleration had passed through 0 and reversed multiple times without the force stopping.)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 09/14/2017 02:42 am
Does a gravity wave/space-time ripple transfer momentum?

Bob,
nice conversation starter but nowhere in the consequent conversation did I see mention of the primary difference between gravity and gravity waves. The difference being that gravity obviously engenders momentum, proportional to the product of the masses involved and inversely proportional to the square of their separation, whereas gravity waves are reciprocating and the momentum they transfer must necessarily sum almost to zero over time, due to their own contra-acting dichotomy. Assuming that this was just assumed but thought I might mention it anyhoo  ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 09/14/2017 03:02 am
(...)
Meberbs,

Why do you feel that it is your job to take down TT? What's in it for you? All you have to do is state you assertions (which you already have done), then patiently wait for proof of a working/not working EMDrive. Then you can triumphantly come out and claim vindication. You don't have to take over over the thread and you don't have to play the role of physics Messiah. The truth will reveal itself on its own.

Having such strong assertions regarding our current understanding of physics will only serve to make for an even harder fall if EMDrive does in fact work. If EMDrive works, then we will be able to safely assume that you (as well as all of us) do not know as much as we think we do. We could be at a point in physics comparable to our knowledge of physics pre-Albert Einstein.

Bottom line is, Let it go. This debate will not be settled with words, it will be settled with hardware.
moreno7798,
the truth will indeed reveal itself (if we live long enough) though if emdrive really is true it won't be so much a fall as a float  ;D  and I should stand up for my fellow Aussie so I mostly agree with you, but, TT's bedtime does suggest that he resides in the general longitude of the UK. Meantime bless him and everyone else who employs their own skill set to try to find the true truth beneath this riddle.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/14/2017 03:09 am
Does a gravity wave/space-time ripple transfer momentum?

....gravity waves are reciprocating and the momentum they transfer must necessarily sum almost to zero over time, due to their own contra-acting dichotomy. Assuming that this was just assumed but thought I might mention it anyhoo  ;)
??

what?

When I move my leg, I can only rotate it so much, eventually the movement of my leg around the leg joint must average zero over time, yet I can assure you that my leg can give a heck of a kick !

(http://media.istockphoto.com/photos/close-up-legs-football-player-in-red-socks-kicking-ball-picture-id533049940)

Gravitational waves are powerful enough to kick a black hole together with a star cluster out of its own galaxy, for example.

Gravity waves do carry momentum, including linear momentum.  For example emission of linear momentum from 2 coalescing black holes can produce a "kick."   See for example papers by Bekenstein  The "kick" can be extremely powerful.

As a dramatic demonstration of this, the amplitude of the kick has been estimated as large as 4000 km/s (1.3% of the speed of light, or about 364 times the escape velocity from the Earth) for maximally spinning, equal mass black holes on initially circular orbits , which is fast enough to eject the coalesced black hole completely from its host galaxy.

No summing to zero about over time, when you are kicked out of your own galaxy.  This has been verified by elaborate numerical relativity calculations.  ;)

The black hole that was kicked out of the galaxy can also carry a star cluster with it !, forming another stellar system.

See:  http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/1690/meta

Kicking a black hole out of a galaxy, carrying a star cluster with it, is an extremely powerful, irreversible, transfer of linear momentum !

(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/stsci-h-p1712b-f-2400x900.png)

See:  https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/H-12-182.html

(https://i2.wp.com/www.markushanke.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/gw-waves-wave.gif)

(http://slideplayer.com/8475087/26/images/9/Kicks+and+Binary+Lifetimes.jpg)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 09/14/2017 05:06 pm
Guys,

This experimental data from Jamie, Monomorphic, clearly shows the "stop accelerating or stop moving then stop generating force" operational characterists of EmDrives.

Here the start of acceleration is delayed as Jamie manually adjust his freq gen to obtain resonant lock. Grey area is when Rf was applied to the EmDrive. Any Lorentz force would have been measured during the entire Rf power on time, yet there is no such force measured.

Then once freq lock was obtained, his EmDrive started to generate an accelerative force and it moved forward. Yes it initially needed some very small vibratory external accelerative force to be applied to initiate the EmDrive self sustained and generated internal accelerative force generation.

Finally it stopped accelerating, moving forward,  when the continually increasing stored back torque in the torsion wire finally equalled the Emdrive generated forward torque.

When it stopped accelerating, the EmDrive dropped out of what Roger calls Motor mode and stopped producing accelerative force.

Then the back torque stored in the torsion wire drove the EmDrive back to it's pre acceleration start position, even though Rf was still applied.

Phil

I've made no secret of my distress over the unsubstantiated claims of thrust to power ratios, but this is one of the ideas that I think is actually credible; it's one of the most consistent anomalies across EM drive experiments.
Which can also be explained by a number of experimental artifacts that include significant time delays: thermal diffusion through the materials involved (an effect which would also be present in vacuum, governed by the density and thermal conductivity of the materials involved) and thermal convection (not present in high vacuum, and governed by the gas density and thermal conductivity as well as any latent heat of vaporization of liquid, for example humid air) being notorious among them.  It has also been discussed that the EM Drive may just be a multipactor artifact, and if so time delays due to random secondary emission velocities and other effects may be involved.

So the clarity of
Quote
clearly shows the "stop accelerating
is in the eye of the beholder and willingness to look for other explanations, unless this is verified by other independent means.

Jose,

Rf power was 2 watt so not much cavity heating there.

Need to also answer why, with constant Rf power, the positive displace force apparently completely stopped, disappeared, as observed from the stored torque in the torsion wire driving the total accelerated mass backward, through the pre acceleration displacement and then to a somewhat same negative displacement until Jamie's dampers finslly absorbed and thermalised the stored energy in the torsion wire.

I repeat again, this is the characterists of an EmDrive.

What EW observed, with constant, non accelerating static force is NOT characterist of an EmDrive. It maybe was the characterist of the QV thruster Dr. White tried to build.

What it implies to me supports what I said years ago; there is a transient affect as the cavity is charging. Once it reaches steady state, there is no thrust.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 09/14/2017 07:27 pm
Guys,

This experimental data from Jamie, Monomorphic, clearly shows the "stop accelerating or stop moving then stop generating force" operational characterists of EmDrives.

Here the start of acceleration is delayed as Jamie manually adjust his freq gen to obtain resonant lock. Grey area is when Rf was applied to the EmDrive. Any Lorentz force would have been measured during the entire Rf power on time, yet there is no such force measured.

Then once freq lock was obtained, his EmDrive started to generate an accelerative force and it moved forward. Yes it initially needed some very small vibratory external accelerative force to be applied to initiate the EmDrive self sustained and generated internal accelerative force generation.

Finally it stopped accelerating, moving forward,  when the continually increasing stored back torque in the torsion wire finally equalled the Emdrive generated forward torque.

When it stopped accelerating, the EmDrive dropped out of what Roger calls Motor mode and stopped producing accelerative force.

Then the back torque stored in the torsion wire drove the EmDrive back to it's pre acceleration start position, even though Rf was still applied.

Phil

I've made no secret of my distress over the unsubstantiated claims of thrust to power ratios, but this is one of the ideas that I think is actually credible; it's one of the most consistent anomalies across EM drive experiments.
Which can also be explained by a number of experimental artifacts that include significant time delays: thermal diffusion through the materials involved (an effect which would also be present in vacuum, governed by the density and thermal conductivity of the materials involved) and thermal convection (not present in high vacuum, and governed by the gas density and thermal conductivity as well as any latent heat of vaporization of liquid, for example humid air) being notorious among them.  It has also been discussed that the EM Drive may just be a multipactor artifact, and if so time delays due to random secondary emission velocities and other effects may be involved.

So the clarity of
Quote
clearly shows the "stop accelerating
is in the eye of the beholder and willingness to look for other explanations, unless this is verified by other independent means.

Jose,

Rf power was 2 watt so not much cavity heating there.

Need to also answer why, with constant Rf power, the positive displace force apparently completely stopped, disappeared, as observed from the stored torque in the torsion wire driving the total accelerated mass backward, through the pre acceleration displacement and then to a somewhat same negative displacement until Jamie's dampers finslly absorbed and thermalised the stored energy in the torsion wire.

I repeat again, this is the characterists of an EmDrive.

What EW observed, with constant, non accelerating static force is NOT characterist of an EmDrive. It maybe was the characterist of the QV thruster Dr. White tried to build.

What it implies to me supports what I said years ago; there is a transient affect as the cavity is charging. Once it reaches steady state, there is no thrust.

This reminds me of one of my earlier posts where I responded to mberbs.  I paraphrase, that "measuring a force that induces vacuum drift may lead to strange results" or something like that.  Can't look it up exactly at the moment.  Basically what happens if an object your inducing force on via something that couples/uncouples to the vacuum and the object experiences a force in one direction and the vacuum it exists in is accelerated in the opposite direction. 

The object may accelerate but it would be accelerating in an accelerating vacuum.  Null force?  I don't know, it really seems too good to be true.  My hypothesis was well give this object more mass and maybe the vacuum wins out, but I have no idea how this applies to energy conservation. 

We do know the earth rotating induces a drift in the vacuum of very small magnitude.  Frame dragging.  How is it even possible to induce a drift in the vacuum of that magnitude.  Still it seems more desirable to me to see some drift induced in the vacuum than the induction of gravity waves.  If you can induce your vacuum to carry you along it might be possible to some how circumnavigate the set backs of relativity that keep us from exceeding the speed of light.  I.e. not actually traveling at near c in the local vacuum.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 09/14/2017 09:26 pm
Guys,

This experimental data from Jamie, Monomorphic, clearly shows the "stop accelerating or stop moving then stop generating force" operational characterists of EmDrives.

Here the start of acceleration is delayed as Jamie manually adjust his freq gen to obtain resonant lock. Grey area is when Rf was applied to the EmDrive. Any Lorentz force would have been measured during the entire Rf power on time, yet there is no such force measured.

Then once freq lock was obtained, his EmDrive started to generate an accelerative force and it moved forward. Yes it initially needed some very small vibratory external accelerative force to be applied to initiate the EmDrive self sustained and generated internal accelerative force generation.

Finally it stopped accelerating, moving forward,  when the continually increasing stored back torque in the torsion wire finally equalled the Emdrive generated forward torque.

When it stopped accelerating, the EmDrive dropped out of what Roger calls Motor mode and stopped producing accelerative force.

Then the back torque stored in the torsion wire drove the EmDrive back to it's pre acceleration start position, even though Rf was still applied.

Phil

I've made no secret of my distress over the unsubstantiated claims of thrust to power ratios, but this is one of the ideas that I think is actually credible; it's one of the most consistent anomalies across EM drive experiments.
Which can also be explained by a number of experimental artifacts that include significant time delays: thermal diffusion through the materials involved (an effect which would also be present in vacuum, governed by the density and thermal conductivity of the materials involved) and thermal convection (not present in high vacuum, and governed by the gas density and thermal conductivity as well as any latent heat of vaporization of liquid, for example humid air) being notorious among them.  It has also been discussed that the EM Drive may just be a multipactor artifact, and if so time delays due to random secondary emission velocities and other effects may be involved.

So the clarity of
Quote
clearly shows the "stop accelerating
is in the eye of the beholder and willingness to look for other explanations, unless this is verified by other independent means.

Jose,

Rf power was 2 watt so not much cavity heating there.

Need to also answer why, with constant Rf power, the positive displace force apparently completely stopped, disappeared, as observed from the stored torque in the torsion wire driving the total accelerated mass backward, through the pre acceleration displacement and then to a somewhat same negative displacement until Jamie's dampers finslly absorbed and thermalised the stored energy in the torsion wire.

I repeat again, this is the characterists of an EmDrive.

What EW observed, with constant, non accelerating static force is NOT characterist of an EmDrive. It maybe was the characterist of the QV thruster Dr. White tried to build.

What it implies to me supports what I said years ago; there is a transient affect as the cavity is charging. Once it reaches steady state, there is no thrust.

For this to be entirely accurate, it would seem that you would have to be rejecting the results seen in Shawyer's turntable demonstration as the result of forces other than any associated with a functioning EmDrive. That's OK I guess because Shawyer never released sufficient data or detail to know one way or the other, what was generating the force seen.

I also don't see it as consistent with the operation of an EmDrive, as described by TT.., because even if the drive stops producing thrust as the test rig resistance matches or exceeds the initial drive pulsed thrust, when the torsion device rebounds there should be a portion of the cycle where it actually provides that external acceleration, it is said is necessary for the drive to produce thrust. If power and resonance is maintained the drive should be producing power in a cyclical manner, as the "pendulum" swings so to speak.

If you can develop thrust at all and you could actively monitor and adjust power and resonance, you should be able to maintain the production of thrust for a sustained period of time. Even against a constant load or resistance. That being a difficult task, it might be easier to cycle power through a series of frustums like a pulsed array, but then you would be increasing the mass to force ratio, and so decreasing the available payload mass.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/14/2017 10:30 pm
Does a gravity wave/space-time ripple transfer momentum?
Yes, but the issue is not whether it does or does not.  The issue is how big it is and whether it would make sense.  An electron has mass.  The whole Universe has mass.  However it does not make sense to say that something that one observes happening in the whole Universe also must similarly happen to an electron.  One has to take into account the scale of the phenomenon.


People should compare the extremely small amplitude of the gravitational wave  measured from the plunge and coalescence of two big black holes vs. what would be the amplitude of a gravitational field produced by an electromagnetically resonant cavity.  It is evident that the gravitational wave from an EM Drive is so extremely small that is nothing compared to the momentum from any other disturbance present in the experimental environment.  When people discuss gravitational waves from the EM Drive they just write words: I invite them to make a calculation of its magnitude so that they understand how negligibly small it is.  Engineers and scientists use numbers rather than words.  At least let's compare orders of magnitudes.

Comparing both would be like comparing the mass of a big black hole to the mass of the EM Drive  :o

mass of black holes involved in recent gravitational wave measurements:   36 and 29 solar masses

3*1031 kg    ;)

(http://images.slideplayer.com/34/8329950/slides/slide_10.jpg)

so comparing the mass of the black holes involved in the recent gravitational wave experiments to the mass of the EM Drive is like comparing the mass of the proton to your mass

or like comparing your mass to the mass of the Sun.  Both you and the Sun have mass.  The Sun attracts all the planets: it is responsible for us being here.  Neither you or I appreciable attract any planets, and we should not make arguments that because the Sun makes the planets go into orbits we should similarly make particles go into orbits around us.

  ;)

Jose': 

For locally derived gravitational effects I concur that E&M generated gravitational effects are extremely small in magnitude.  However for globally derived inertial reaction forces that come about from the gravitational interactions of all the mass/energy in the causally connected universe, these E&M driven transient inertial forces can be as large as normal Newtonian reaction forces per Woodward's Mach-Effect conjecture.

Best, Paul M.

I'm liking the discussion of Rodal, Star-Drive, and S.Paulissen. This is a very necessary discussion to be having. Rodal, you're right on all counts and the problem isn't lost on me. That's why I was doing crazy sounding things like trying to figure out how the gravitational equivalent of a ferromagnetic core might work several months ago. I know the gravitational effects from an EMdrive are weak. I want it to be strong. I want to be able to describe why it appears to be stronger than it's supposed to be (as predicted by theory), if I'm going to say with zero uncertainty that a gravitational interaction is behind the anomalous thrust. I understand how stiff spacetime is as described by the 8piG/c4 part of the Einstein field equation. I want things to hover, which would mean that an EMdrive would have to induce more gravity than the entire Earth. That's absurd to even think possible (waving hands around and getting vocal like Walter Lewin lol). I get the problem. Even if I had the ability or resources to successfully deploy such a crazy sounding thing and it worked, it still doesn't answer the question of why? Why is more important. The last thing I want to see is something doing an amazing thing and not understanding why. That drives me crazy. I tend to use thinking in extreme cases, be it the very large or the very small, to help figure out problems. Not black and white thinking, I'm talking about the problem solving tool. I like abstraction and intuition to think about things. That's just how I'm wired as an INTJ. It's a strength and a weakness. In this case, I believe it may be helpful to limit the scale to the very, very small. I choose to limit my scale to that of one electron, and focus on the gravitational interaction of one measly electron, combined with the measly, paltry, infinitesimally insultingly small gravitational effects created by an EMdrive, if there even are any. Now I will go bigger again, while keeping in mind the very small. Can an extremely weak changing gravitational disturbance (that is localized to a very small region and also falls off in amplitude as 1/r) be causally connected to, and able to interact with a much stronger gravitational field (say from the electron, or the Earth and the rest of the universe that falls off as 1/r2), I say it can. How could it not? They occupy the same space, and gravity interacts with itself. If I am able to induce an alternating gravitational field, does it necessarily need to have a wide range of influence? No. It (as in some measurable influence on a gravitational wave detector able to see the wave, which doesn't exist yet anyway) doesn't necessarily have to be having an influence near an EMdrive, or be detectable near an EMdrive, it can be happening inside just the same. 1/r falls off more slowly than 1/r2 anyway.
I definitely think there's something we don't understand about how dynamic systems work in GR (I ultimately want this to be understandable in the full theory), and it must be related to changing energy density and changing energy flux over time. I'm intentionally exposing my ignorance here because the answer may be out there but what did Einstein teach us about such things? What did Einstein teach us about the induction of nonconservative gravitational fields? What does Einstein's coupling coefficient tell us about changes in energy density over time? Nothing I can see, and I'll get to this later. What is special or different (if anything) about a changing energy density that's being accelerated or being jerked? We've seen this before in history. I don't believe these things. I know of them. Remember Tajmar's results that were 20 orders of magnitude greater than what was predicted? Or the Podknetnov debacle? Or the Ning Li story? These are all really controversial stories, and for good reason. I treat them as useful fiction. I use useful fiction as part of my thinking too. I think there's value in finding the grain of truth in things that aren't necessarily even real, by aggregating information in an objective way by cutting out the crap and looking at the objective commonalities. It's easy for me to boil down lots of noise into something useful because of how my brain happens to work. What's really behind all of this craziness that's not predicted by accepted theory and is (rightfully) generally dismissed? There's a mystery to be solved here. There's a problem. What limits does Nature place on the curvature of space besides the ones we know? What are the boundary conditions for a dynamic system?

Now I will get to the "get to this later part" and this is going to be ugly. In order to answer your question Dr. Rodal, first I must be able to find the reason why I cannot offer you an answer in the first place. I have to ask myself, and all of you why is it that it is not possible for a copper can to be able to overcome the stiffness of spacetime? What is it about the equations, that prevents an EMdrive from having any noticeable effects on the curvature of spacetime. Put another way, why isn't EMdrive's behavior not predicted by the equations of General Relativity, which I know are true and tested and proven to describe most of our universe (except for the "dark" stuff and things like EMdrive). I must challenge my assumptions. I must ask difficult questions. I must dare to commit heresy. I'm interested in the oldest assumption, which came from a great thinker hundreds of years ago, who lived in a time where the axioms of physics were very different from today. So I present you with the Einstein field equation. You are all familiar with this, many more so than I. We know now that gravity really has nothing to do with mass at all, it's about energy density (and the other components of the stress energy tensor). The more general concept is energy. Energy is more fundamental than mass, as mass is a property of confined energy.

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/7da0def1c2c8d85120b36307ccbab4ee5a4766bf)

Of interest is the Einstein constant, which is the coupling coefficient in the above field equation:

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/fa82785f88acf43066ffcfc6d6a7b517fbb29546)

Within is Newton's gravitational constant G.
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/001392f273b07ba2d22b4161c4821a598b26a167)

Of particular interest to me is the capital M in the denominator. I have a hunch that this can be generalized further to take into account time dependent systems where energy density and energy flux changes over time. I'm uncertain if G is applicable in systems where velocities are high with respect to c too. I think this M is a problem. I don't think this is general enough. I want to explore this and figure out why and what it all means. I think it's important to eradicate the use of the word "mass" wherever possible, with the understanding that the concept of mass is useful, and incorporating the idea of mass into our equations is useful and does make accurate predictions in the Newtonian limit, the idea of mass assumes a time independent invariant, which is true for matter, but it's not true for all systems. So this is where I've gone, and I honestly don't feel very good about what I'm thinking about yet, and it may not survive my own scrutiny or of others, but I will explore this and I invite other brave thinkers to do so. I've identified a problem in my own mind and not yet a solution because I'm unsure as if yet I'm asking the right questions. If I'm off the rails right now, which I may very well be, what happened?

Paul, I think it's a mistake to take it as a given, or an axiom that inertia is Machian in origin. I don't wholly discount the idea however. Can you tell us more about what you presented in that slide or have some links to more about that?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/14/2017 10:41 pm
What it implies to me supports what I said years ago; there is a transient affect as the cavity is charging. Once it reaches steady state, there is no thrust.

Hi WT,

Cavity charge time is 5x cavity TC being TC = Q / 2 Pi Freq.

For a 2.45GHz 50k Q the cavity fill time is 162usec.
For Jamie's 5k cavity that reduces to 16.2usec.

Don't see how Jamie's result relates to a 16.2usec cavity fill time.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: demofsky on 09/15/2017 04:57 am
What it implies to me supports what I said years ago; there is a transient affect as the cavity is charging. Once it reaches steady state, there is no thrust.

Hi WT,

Cavity charge time is 5x cavity TC being TC = Q / 2 Pi Freq.

For a 2.45GHz 50k Q the cavity fill time is 162usec.
For Jamie's 5k cavity that reduces to 16.2usec.

Don't see how Jamie's result relates to a 16.2usec cavity fill time.

WarpTech is there something else you have in mind when you say "cavity charging"?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 09/15/2017 05:57 am
Does a gravity wave/space-time ripple transfer momentum?

....gravity waves are reciprocating and the momentum they transfer must necessarily sum almost to zero over time, due to their own contra-acting dichotomy. Assuming that this was just assumed but thought I might mention it anyhoo  ;)
??

what?

(...)
Doc,
I was not disputing anything you have said about gravity waves, just adding the obvious observation that their net influence upon very distant objects must necessarily be smaller than the purely gravitational influence of the binary systems producing them.

And while we are on the subject, would it not be logical within GR that a heavy enough black hole would accelerate relative to its home galaxy, as a consequence of the dilation of time caused by the agglomeration of its mass? Assuming that it has some velocity relative to its galaxy to start with.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Propylox on 09/15/2017 08:37 am
Does a gravity wave/space-time ripple transfer momentum?
"Gravity wave" is a misnomer so it's nice you mentioned "space-time ripple", an accurate description. According to current theories, gravity is instantaneous - if the Sun blinked out of existence we'd fly off our orbit immediately while light continued shining for ~8min. But a sudden change in localized mass, and the distortion of spacetime it creates, would propagate at a defined rate. This distortion wave does not transfer momentum, but temporarily effects the distance between objects as it passes them, sometimes enough to draw objects (black holes) together in the same way ripples in a marina can cause boats to harmonize and be drawn together.

So are you endorsing Shawyer's "theory" here? Because he is the only one who claims the emDrive doesn't need new physics. The countless problems with Shawyer's claims have been thoroughly discussed here.
No, I'm saying no new science or violation of existing science is needed to describe the observations. (Didn't I say that?) There's plenty of theories about what's happening, not just Shawyer's, from dismissal to explanation to claims of new science or heresy. I mentioned it's half-century old science in a new wrapper. Specifically, my money's on it being an exceedingly inefficient electron gun. Bob makes a good argument along similar lines which I've quoted below.

As to the merits of the so-called EM Drive; Groundbreaking stuff [/sarcasm] that designers of in-space transmitters should be aware of to avoid unwanted thrust, but really nothing but a parlor trick for the uneducated with zero practical, use - just like maglev trains or a Jacob's ladder.

I keep thinking about bosons as being force carriers and the resonant electromagnetic fields being created within the frustum. And as someone who forgot most of what I learned almost 50 years ago I know I'm woefully ignorant.

If bosons are electromagnetic "ghosts" that can induce particles to suddenly pop into material existence with mass, and which then disappear again back to an electromagnetic state, then the appearance of mass would move space-time ever slightly (telling it how to curve) thereby transferring momentum. It seems intuitive that the transfer of momentum from a created inertial mass might also be what causes the very tiny mass to dissipate and return to electromagnetism.

Any fleeting particle created that has true mass is unlike a photon. As a result productions of bosons might be a mechanism for creating momentum from transient mass that would exceed the proverbial photon rocket, wouldn't it?

If bosons/particles were produced, it would seem intuitive that it would occur in the regions of the highest energy density, nominally the small end in most of the meep runs shown here. Again, if bosons/particles occur, might their generated infinitesimal momentum transfer also potentially help push the injected energy towards the large end, creating the imbalance that might account for the thrust.  If that thrust does exist.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: wavelet on 09/15/2017 08:47 am
It is indeed possible that the dielectric inside the em cavity may emit massive gravitons (a kind of gravitational wave):

http://www.tsijournals.com/articles/directions-for-gravitational--wave-propulsion.pdf

Obviously these gravitons can escape the cavity and provide propulsion.

What's the problem?  8)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/15/2017 09:04 am
It is indeed possible that the dielectric inside the em cavity may emit massive gravitons (a kind of gravitational wave):

http://www.tsijournals.com/articles/directions-for-gravitational--wave-propulsion.pdf

Obviously these gravitons can escape the cavity and provide propulsion.

What's the problem?  8)

WL,

EW data measured:
1.2mN/kW with small end dielectric
3.9mN/kW with NO dielectric

Over 3 times higher specific force was measured without dielectrics inside the cavity. Does that data negate gravitons being involved?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: wavelet on 09/15/2017 09:24 am
Vacuum, air, etc are dielectrics.

The recipe seems to be:

1) "accelerated masses" or equivalent "energy densities" E=mc^2 to generate gravitational waves.
    higher dielectric constants will produce higher stress
2) Energy density to give mass to the gravitons. Adding a DC field to the em waves would be interesting.
3) Asymmetry to provide direction.
4) High Q to amplify the fields. If an added dielectric reduces the Q it may not be beneficial...
5) The theoretical directions provided by the above paper.

 ;D

It is indeed possible that the dielectric inside the em cavity may emit massive gravitons (a kind of gravitational wave):

http://www.tsijournals.com/articles/directions-for-gravitational--wave-propulsion.pdf

Obviously these gravitons can escape the cavity and provide propulsion.

What's the problem?  8)

WL,

EW data measured:
1.2mN/kW with small end dielectric
3.9mN/kW with NO dielectric

Over 3 times higher specific force was measured without dielectrics inside the cavity. Does that data negate gravitons being involved?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/15/2017 09:59 am
Vacuum, air, etc are dielectrics.

The recipe seems to be:

1) "accelerated masses" or equivalent "energy densities" E=mc^2 to generate gravitational waves.
    higher dielectric constants will produce higher stress
2) Energy density to give mass to the gravitons. Adding a DC field to the em waves would be interesting.
3) Asymmetry to provide direction.
4) High Q to amplify the fields. If an added dielectric reduces the Q it may not be beneficial...
5) The theoretical directions provided by the above paper.

 ;D

It is indeed possible that the dielectric inside the em cavity may emit massive gravitons (a kind of gravitational wave):

http://www.tsijournals.com/articles/directions-for-gravitational--wave-propulsion.pdf

Obviously these gravitons can escape the cavity and provide propulsion.

What's the problem?  8)

WL,

EW data measured:
1.2mN/kW with small end dielectric
3.9mN/kW with NO dielectric

Over 3 times higher specific force was measured without dielectrics inside the cavity. Does that data negate gravitons being involved?

WT,

OK, listening.

Feed me the operational characterists you see occuring from that theory. Lets see if they fit observed operational characterists.

1st: no cavity acceleration relative to trapped photons = no self accelerative force is generated.

2nd: Cavity needs small and short time external force in direction small end forward to tigger internal small end forward self accelerating force.

3rd: Once internally generated small end forward accelerative force is generated,  it continues until either Rf input is stopped or enough opposite force is applied to stop cavity acceleration, such as can be generated by a torsion wire based test rig.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: wavelet on 09/15/2017 10:24 am
For what I can learn from the above paper, those that have running experiments could add a grid inside the cavity and polarize it with the maximum possible DC field before breakdown (now we have resonant radio frequency energy + DC in the cavity). If the effect increases as a function of DC voltage the phenomenon is due to massive gravitons.....  ;)

Vacuum, air, etc are dielectrics.

The recipe seems to be:

1) "accelerated masses" or equivalent "energy densities" E=mc^2 to generate gravitational waves.
    higher dielectric constants will produce higher stress
2) Energy density to give mass to the gravitons. Adding a DC field to the em waves would be interesting.
3) Asymmetry to provide direction.
4) High Q to amplify the fields. If an added dielectric reduces the Q it may not be beneficial...
5) The theoretical directions provided by the above paper.

 ;D

It is indeed possible that the dielectric inside the em cavity may emit massive gravitons (a kind of gravitational wave):

http://www.tsijournals.com/articles/directions-for-gravitational--wave-propulsion.pdf

Obviously these gravitons can escape the cavity and provide propulsion.

What's the problem?  8)

WL,

EW data measured:
1.2mN/kW with small end dielectric
3.9mN/kW with NO dielectric

Over 3 times higher specific force was measured without dielectrics inside the cavity. Does that data negate gravitons being involved?

WT,

OK, listening.

Feed me the operational characterists you see occuring from that theory. Lets see if they fit observed operational characterists.

1st to fit is: no cavity acceleration relative to trapped photons = no self accelerative force is generated.

2nd. Cavity needs small and short time external force in direction small end forward to tigger internal small end forward self accelerating force.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/15/2017 11:07 am
For what I can learn from the above paper, those that have running experiments could add a grid inside the cavity and polarize it with the maximum possible DC field before breakdown (now we have resonant radio frequency energy + DC in the cavity). If the effect increases as a function of DC voltage the phenomenon is due to massive gravitons.....  ;)

WT,

While some try to say thete is one ring that controls all the others, I see at least 3 ways to do P-P (propellant less propulsion)

1) Shawyer EmDrive
2) Woodward MEGA drive
3) White QV thruster

Which says to me there may be more ways to do P-P.
Winner will be lowest $/N/kW force with highest KE/kWe efficiency.

Of course time will tell who is correct when making suggestions one theory covers all the observed experimental data of all P-P devices.

For sure what I have observed is not covered by MEGA drive or QV thruster theory or any other theory I have read. Which in no way negates experimental data that supports different theory.

Do I know why the EmDrive does what it does? No. However using SPR theory to drive design does seem to work.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/15/2017 11:32 am
How can this (emphasis mine):
According to current theories, gravity is instantaneous - if the Sun blinked out of existence we'd fly off our orbit immediately while light continued shining for ~8min.
be compatible with:
But a sudden change in localized mass, and the distortion of spacetime it creates, would propagate at a defined rate.

as the (almost) circular motion of planets around the Sun is due to spacetime being bent by the presence of our star?

In this thought experiment, if spacetime is still deformed locally around the Earth for several minutes after the disparition of the Sun, why would the Earth "immediately fly off its orbit" despite the gravitational potential making its motion circular has not gone yet?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/15/2017 11:33 am
Guys,

See attached.

Seems we have a SeeShell imposter on EmDrive Reddit making false claims. Jamie has told me neither claim are correct and Michelle has told me this is not her.

I can only suggest some folks will do anything to stop P-P thruster going big time, being accepted and commercially available.

No way do they have any capability to stop the comming propulsion revolution.

Phil
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/15/2017 01:23 pm
Remember 1st post in each thread:

Quote
Chris note: Please note all posts need to be useful and worthwhile or they will be removed via moderation. This subject has large interest, with over 5 million thread reads and 900,000 article reads. Most people are reading and not posting, so when you post it is in front of a very large audience.

 EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 09/15/2017 01:31 pm
What it implies to me supports what I said years ago; there is a transient affect as the cavity is charging. Once it reaches steady state, there is no thrust.

Hi WT,

Cavity charge time is 5x cavity TC being TC = Q / 2 Pi Freq.

For a 2.45GHz 50k Q the cavity fill time is 162usec.
For Jamie's 5k cavity that reduces to 16.2usec.

Don't see how Jamie's result relates to a 16.2usec cavity fill time.

WarpTech is there something else you have in mind when you say "cavity charging"?
I was thinking time that it takes to induce an equilibrium drift in the vacuum if such a thing were possible.  Maybe what I was thinking wasn't exactly what he was thinking. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/15/2017 02:07 pm
Remember 1st post in each thread:

Quote
Chris note: Please note all posts need to be useful and worthwhile or they will be removed via moderation. This subject has large interest, with over 5 million thread reads and 900,000 article reads. Most people are reading and not posting, so when you post it is in front of a very large audience.

 EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications

Jose,

It appears there are those that will make knowing false statements to stop any P-P drive tech from being accepted as reality. We both know, as do others, that P-P tech is a reality even if all the theory is not locked down.

So should we do nothing as others expand efforts to discredit what we know is a reality? A reality that will forever change propulsion tech. Giving us the P-P tech to explore and colonise our solar system and nearby star systems that no conventional propulsion system can ever deliver?

Isn't P-P the propulsion tech we have all dreamed of since tbe 1st time we read read our 1st SiFi novel? We all know that no conventional propulsion tech will ever deliver our dreams.

So lets unite and deny those that spin intention lies designed to mislead us that P-P will never be real. Especially as we both and others know P-P tech is very real.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/15/2017 02:22 pm
My thinking about G isn't unmotivated. This appears to be happening, and in a predictable way. The question is, why? This is worth time and effort. Such a small deviation. Perhaps it's possible to have large deviations? Are we already and just don't understand it? Definitely worth exploring. Interesting comments in the phys.org article about planetary orbital resonances.

https://www.richarddawkins.net/2015/04/why-do-measurements-of-the-gravitational-constant-vary-so-much/

https://m.phys.org/news/2015-04-gravitational-constant-vary.html
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/15/2017 02:32 pm
So are you endorsing Shawyer's "theory" here? Because he is the only one who claims the emDrive doesn't need new physics. The countless problems with Shawyer's claims have been thoroughly discussed here.
No, I'm saying no new science or violation of existing science is needed to describe the observations. (Didn't I say that?) There's plenty of theories about what's happening, not just Shawyer's, from dismissal to explanation to claims of new science or heresy. I mentioned it's half-century old science in a new wrapper. Specifically, my money's on it being an exceedingly inefficient electron gun. Bob makes a good argument along similar lines which I've quoted below.
This is basically just saying the emDrive doesn't work which is not what anyone understood your original post to mean. Because if this is what is happening there is no way for the emDrive to be a useful thruster (it would rapidly build up positive charge and stop working). There are plenty of ways for the result through now to be explained by experimental errors, however I do not see how it could be functioning as an electron gun. What Bob Wood's posted has its own problems (photons are in the category "boson" and producing massive particles would take too much energy to be useful), but is is very different than what you said in that it is intended to describe a mechanism by which the emDrive would actually be useful.

How can this (emphasis mine):
According to current theories, gravity is instantaneous - if the Sun blinked out of existence we'd fly off our orbit immediately while light continued shining for ~8min.
be compatible with:
But a sudden change in localized mass, and the distortion of spacetime it creates, would propagate at a defined rate.

as the (almost) circular motion of planets around the Sun is due to spacetime being bent by the presence of our star?

In this thought experiment, if spacetime is still deformed locally around the Earth for several minutes after the disparition of the Sun, why would the Earth "immediately fly off its orbit" despite the gravitational potential making its motion circular has not gone yet?
Propylox's first statement is wrong. In GR gravitational effects only propagate at the speed of light. This was one of the original reasons it was obvious that a new theory of gravity (GR) was needed after special relativity was developed.

As to the merits of the so-called EM Drive; Groundbreaking stuff [/sarcasm] that designers of in-space transmitters should be aware of to avoid unwanted thrust, but really nothing but a parlor trick for the uneducated with zero practical, use - just like maglev trains or a Jacob's ladder.
While I agree that the emDrive likely doesn't work, it is incredibly unhelpful of you to call it "for the uneducated," just after you demonstrated your lack of education about general relativity, and in the same breath as ignoring that maglevs have been tested (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/21/japans-maglev-train-notches-up-new-world-speed-record-in-test-run) and are under construction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C5%AB%C5%8D_Shinkansen)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/15/2017 02:38 pm
How can this (emphasis mine):
According to current theories, gravity is instantaneous - if the Sun blinked out of existence we'd fly off our orbit immediately while light continued shining for ~8min.
be compatible with:
But a sudden change in localized mass, and the distortion of spacetime it creates, would propagate at a defined rate.

as the (almost) circular motion of planets around the Sun is due to spacetime being bent by the presence of our star?

In this thought experiment, if spacetime is still deformed locally around the Earth for several minutes after the disparition of the Sun, why would the Earth "immediately fly off its orbit" despite the gravitational potential making its motion circular has not gone yet?
Propylox's first statement is wrong. In GR gravitational effects only propagate at the speed of light. This was one of the original reasons it was obvious that a new theory of gravity (GR) was needed after special relativity was developed.

That's why I thought, thanks. Maybe Propylox mistaken "the speed of gravity" (so to speak) which is the propagation speed of gravitational waves and "spacetime distortion ripples" limited to c vs inertial reaction forces, which are instantaneous (a difference Dr Woodward insists on).

By the way I've just stumbled upon this 2016 speech of Dr Woodward answering basic questions to laymen, who answers at 1:18:40 a question I asked (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1721881#msg1721881) to Rodal a few days ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8ME6mEqZV8&t=1h18m40s

Quote from: Jim Woodward
You're trying to do what everybody tries to do in this. Since Einstein invented general relativity, there have been a long string of physicists who will come along and try to reinterpret general relativity as a locally gauge invariant relativistic quantum field theory: it's called quantum gravity. You here have been hearing for decades now, nobody's figured out quantum gravity. The reason why they haven't figure out quantum gravity may well be because there isn't any quantum gravity… because
gravity IS the thing in which quantum mechanics exists, and it is not itself quantizable.

Stuff about the EmDrive earlier in the video, at 23m53s.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/15/2017 03:27 pm
One of the main reasons for string theory and the search of a unified field theory of general relativity and quantum field theory is due to essential problems that general relativity by itself cannot deal with, for example: what happens at the center of a black hole (general relativity cannot explain this, as it gives a singularity),  the black hole information paradox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox ) and other important issues that occur in black holes.

Similar criticisms taking place against attempts to solve this problem were present at the time that Einstein presented his theory.  For example this is what Tesla reportedly had to say about Einstein's theory and its early followers:

(http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-einstein-s-relativity-work-is-a-magnificent-mathematical-garb-which-fascinates-dazzles-nikola-tesla-59-14-10.jpg)

Similar criticism as nowadays erected against string theory: "it is just a mathematical theory."  Of course, any attempt to explain what happens inside a black hole (dealing with the the singularity, or the information paradox, for example) will remain "mathematical" until such things can be tested experimentally.

Gravitational waves themselves were considered by Eddington "to travel at the speed of thought" and Einstein himself went back and forth as to whether they were real.  It took 100 years for mankind to prove the reality of gravitational waves.  It will take generations to be able to experimentally prove the issues that string (M)theory is attempting to tackle.

Black holes is another example, as Einstein himself at times expressed the view that they were a mathematical abomination that could not be real.

By the way, concerning Ernst Mach opinions, this is what Mach himself reportedly had to say about Einstein's theory of relativity and about the existence of atoms ! :) :

(http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-i-can-accept-the-theory-of-relativity-as-little-as-i-can-accept-the-existence-of-atoms-ernst-mach-72-74-32.jpg)
Title: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star One on 09/15/2017 03:32 pm
New article from IBT.

EmDrive: China claims to have built 'Impossible Engine' that needs no fuel

Quote
HuffPost citing a video by China's Central Television state broadcaster (CCTV) reported that the China Academy of Space Technology (CAST) has successfully built a working model.

The CCTV video claimed that not only did a CAST team led by Dr Chen Yue build a fully functioning and working model of this engine but also come up with their own version of the machine.

According to the HuffPost report, Dr Yue's team was able to produce 1.2 millinewtons per kilowatt thrust in vacuum.

Quote
As there is no official announcement from either CAST or the Chinese government on this achievement, so there is no real way to tell if the claims are valid or not.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/emdrive-china-claims-have-built-impossible-engine-that-needs-no-fuel-1639524
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 09/15/2017 03:57 pm
What it implies to me supports what I said years ago; there is a transient affect as the cavity is charging. Once it reaches steady state, there is no thrust.

Hi WT,

Cavity charge time is 5x cavity TC being TC = Q / 2 Pi Freq.

For a 2.45GHz 50k Q the cavity fill time is 162usec.
For Jamie's 5k cavity that reduces to 16.2usec.

Don't see how Jamie's result relates to a 16.2usec cavity fill time.

WarpTech is there something else you have in mind when you say "cavity charging"?

The time derivative of the power dissipation.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/15/2017 03:59 pm
One of the main reasons for string theory and the search of a unified field theory of general relativity and quantum field theory is due to essential problems that general relativity by itself cannot deal with, for example: what happens at the center of a black hole (general relativity cannot explain this, as it gives a singularity),  the black hole information paradox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox ) and other important issues that occur in black holes.

Similar criticisms taking place against attempts to solve this problem were present at the time that Einstein presented his theory.  For example this is what Tesla reportedly had to say about Einstein's theory and its early followers:

(http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-einstein-s-relativity-work-is-a-magnificent-mathematical-garb-which-fascinates-dazzles-nikola-tesla-59-14-10.jpg)

Similar criticism as nowadays erected against string theory: "it is just a mathematical theory."  Of course, any attempt to explain what happens inside a black hole (dealing with the the singularity, or the information paradox, for example) will remain "mathematical" until such things can be tested experimentally.

Gravitational waves themselves were considered by Eddington "to travel at the speed of thought" and Einstein himself went back and forth as to whether they were real.  It took 100 years for mankind to prove the reality of gravitational waves.  It will take generations to be able to experimentally prove the issues that string (M)theory is attempting to tackle.

Black holes is another example, as Einstein himself at times expressed the view that they were a mathematical abomination that could not be real.

By the way, concerning Ernst Mach opinions, this is what Mach himself reportedly had to say about Einstein's theory of relativity and about the existence of atoms ! :) :

(http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-i-can-accept-the-theory-of-relativity-as-little-as-i-can-accept-the-existence-of-atoms-ernst-mach-72-74-32.jpg)

There is a singularity at the center of a black hole only if one considers a spherical central geometry for this entity and at the same time allowing r to go negative, i.e. to allow an imaginary portion of spacetime where the element of length becomes purely imaginary through analytic continuation.

I am aware this is not the most common view, as the way David Hilbert interpreted Karl Schwarzschild's solution right after his death in 1916 has become the norm. But Schwarzschild originally chose to keep all lengths as real quantities and dealt with a spherical symmetry for what will later become the black hole, not a central symmetry as understood by Hilbert.

This apparent slight difference is important (not at that time though) because a sphere has both a central and a spherical symmetry, but a torus for example has only a spherical symmetry (not a central one, as a torus has no center).

If you make the correct change of variable in Schwarzschild's solution, you obtain a geometry for the black hole without any central singularity, as the geometry describes an uncontractible hypersurface.

(http://www.jp-petit.org/nouv_f/videos_liens/illustrations_Francfort/celle_contractile_2D.jpg)

In 2D you can imagine a series of parallel spheres. I don't say "concentric" precisely because there is a sphere with minimal radius r, and no sphere has a radius below that value.

(http://www.jp-petit.org/nouv_f/videos_liens/illustrations_Francfort/sphere_contractile.jpg)

You can parse through theses surfaces by foliation. When you reach the minimum surface (at r = 0) and decide to keep going on (down to r < 0) then r grows again. It means you just have passed through a throat surface and are now evolving in a flat Minkowski space. So the black hole is under this view a bridge of limited spatial extension with no central singularity, linking two Minkowski spaces. An idea Hawking himself recently agitated.

According to this, general relativity is all we need even for the black hole. No quantum mechanics.

You can decide to calculate values for r < 0, it can be done mathematically, but according to the idea above, physically it would mean that your are now just outside the hypersurface, as if you wanted to stick a patch on a tire, but in the vicinity of the wheel axis, where there is no tire.

(http://www.jp-petit.org/nouv_f/videos_liens/illustrations_Francfort/garagiste_fou.jpg)


EDIT: REFERENCES

The fundamental difference between the Schwarzschild solution as considered first by its author Karl Schwarzschild, then by David Hilbert (hence according to what is now improperly named the Schwarzschild solution) was first spotted in the scientific literature by American physicist Leonard Abrams (1924–2001) in 1979 and 1989 in [1] and [2], then more recently by Italian physicist Salvatore Antoci in [3] and [4], plus a few other non scientist persons. A historical and mathematical overview summarizing the problem has been recently presented in [5]. The alternative model known as the "leaking neutron star" has been presented in the second part of that publication, not yet available for download.

Salvator Antoci discovered the discrepancy between the Hilbert and the Schwarzschild solutions as he is the person who first translated Karl Schwarzschild"s first [6] and second [7] 1916 papers (the second one is the "interior solution" in an incompressible perfect fluid sphere) from German to English. This has been done only in December 1999, that is to say 83 years after the publication of the paper!

[1] Abrams, L.S. (November 1979). "Alternative Space-Time for the Point Mass". Physical Review D 20 (10): 2474–2479. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.20.2474. arXiv:gr-qc/0201044 (https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0201044).

[2] Abrams, L. S. (2001). "Black Holes: The Legacy of Hilbert's Error". Canadian Journal of Physics 67 (9): 919–926. doi:10.1139/p89-158. arXiv:gr-qc/0102055 (https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0102055).

[3] Antoci, S.; Liebscher, D.-E. (2001). "Reconsidering Schwarzschild’s original solution". Astronomische Nachrichten 322 (2): 137–142. arXiv:gr-qc/0102084 (https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0102084).

[4] Antoci, S. (2003). "David Hilbert and the origin of the Schwarzschild solution". Meteorological and Geophysical Fluid Dynamics. Bremen: Wilfried Schröder, Science Edition. arXiv:physics/0310104 (https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0310104).

[5] Petit, J.-P. (2017) "Mass inversion in a critical neutron star: An alternative to the black hole model – First part" (http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/2017-mass-inversion-neutron-star-a.pdf) (PDF). 21st annual International Conference on Particle Physics and Cosmology (COSMO-17). Paris: Paris Diderot University.

[6] Schwarzschild, K. (13 January 1916). "Über das Gravitational eines Massenpunktes nach der Einsteinschen Theorie". Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Phys.-Math.). 189–196
translated in English as:
Antoci, S.; Loinger, A. (12 May 1999). "On the gravitational field of a mass point according to Einstein's theory". arXiv:physics/9905030 (https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9905030).

[7] Schwarzschild, K. (24 February 1916). "Über das Gravitationsfeld einer Kugel aus incompressibler Flüssigkeit nach Einsteinsechen Theorie". Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Phys.-Math.). 424–434
translated in English as:
Antoci, S. (12 May 1999). "On the gravitational field of a sphere of incompressible fluid according to Einstein's theory". arXiv:physics/9912033 (https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9912033).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 09/15/2017 04:02 pm
It is indeed possible that the dielectric inside the em cavity may emit massive gravitons (a kind of gravitational wave):

http://www.tsijournals.com/articles/directions-for-gravitational--wave-propulsion.pdf

Obviously these gravitons can escape the cavity and provide propulsion.

What's the problem?  8)

WL,

EW data measured:
1.2mN/kW with small end dielectric
3.9mN/kW with NO dielectric

Over 3 times higher specific force was measured without dielectrics inside the cavity. Does that data negate gravitons being involved?

The short answer is no! Because we don't yet know why or what generated the detected force in either case. And this is not intended to suggest that I believe gravitons are involved. Just that we don't have enough information to know what is happening.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: as58 on 09/15/2017 04:08 pm
"Gravity wave" is a misnomer so it's nice you mentioned "space-time ripple", an accurate description. According to current theories, gravity is instantaneous - if the Sun blinked out of existence we'd fly off our orbit immediately while light continued shining for ~8min. But a sudden change in localized mass, and the distortion of spacetime it creates, would propagate at a defined rate. This distortion wave does not transfer momentum, but temporarily effects the distance between objects as it passes them, sometimes enough to draw objects (black holes) together in the same way ripples in a marina can cause boats to harmonize and be drawn together.

You managed to load a lot of wrong in one short paragraph.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/15/2017 04:09 pm
According to this, general relativity is all we need even for the black hole. No quantum mechanics.

You can decide to calculate values for r < 0, it can be done mathematically, but according to the idea above, physically it would mean that your are now just outside the hypersurface, as if you wanted to stick a patch on a tire, but in the vicinity of the wheel axis, where there is no tire.

(http://www.jp-petit.org/nouv_f/videos_liens/illustrations_Francfort/garagiste_fou.jpg)
Mind that for certain dimensions, Cherns Simons works (or doesn't).

So the presumptions of foliation topologically matter too. Especially with shearing stress.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/15/2017 04:25 pm
...

If you make the correct change of variable in Schwarzschild's solution, you obtain a geometry for the black hole without any central singularity, as the geometry describes an uncontractible hypersurface.

(http://www.jp-petit.org/nouv_f/videos_liens/illustrations_Francfort/celle_contractile_2D.jpg)

In 2D you can imagine a series of parallel spheres. I don't say "concentric" precisely because there is a sphere with minimal radius r, and no sphere has a radius below that value.

(http://www.jp-petit.org/nouv_f/videos_liens/illustrations_Francfort/sphere_contractile.jpg)

You can parse through theses surfaces by foliation. When you reach the minimum surface (at r = 0) and decide to keep going on (down to r < 0) then r grows again. It means you just have passed through a throat surface and are now evolving in a flat Minkowski space. So the black hole is under this view a bridge of limited spatial extension with no central singularity, linking two Minkowski spaces. An idea Hawking himself recently agitated.

...
The problem with the view that
Quote
the black hole is under this view a bridge of limited spatial extension with no central singularity, linking two Minkowski spaces
is

1) proving the stability of such a bridge, which appears unstable unless it contains negative mass-energy

2) the existence of another space is reminiscent of bridges in M-theory's multiverse, there is no experimental proof to decide between different theories (because black holes are...black)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/15/2017 04:35 pm
The problem with the view that
Quote
the black hole is under this view a bridge of limited spatial extension with no central singularity, linking two Minkowski spaces
is

1) proving the stability of such a bridge, which appears unstable unless it contains negative mass-energy

2) the existence of another space is reminiscent of bridges in M-theory's multiverse, there is no experimental proof to decide between different theories (because black holes are...black)

Sure, it all boils down to allow either:
- an imaginary time and pure imaginary lengths inside the black hole, "beyond the event horizon" (as usually done)
- or consider that the interior of such a solution is physically (and mathematically) real.

PS : You're right this is unstable, and such solution represents a transient, very short, ephemeral bridge in time.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/15/2017 04:43 pm
The problem with the view that
Quote
the black hole is under this view a bridge of limited spatial extension with no central singularity, linking two Minkowski spaces
is

1) proving the stability of such a bridge, which appears unstable unless it contains negative mass-energy

2) the existence of another space is reminiscent of bridges in M-theory's multiverse, there is no experimental proof to decide between different theories (because black holes are...black)

Sure, it all boils down to allow either:
- an imaginary time and pure imaginary lengths inside the black hole, "beyond the event horizon" (as usually done)
- or consider that the interior of such a solution is physically (an mathematically) real.

PS : You're right this is unstable, and such solution represents a transient, very short, ephemeral bridge in time.
where is the bridge going into? if it comes back into our own Universe, shouldn't it display the other end of the bridge as a white hole? If so why is there no experimental evidence of such white holes (which should be easier to detect than black holes).

If the bridge goes into another brane, then I don't understand why people would be so much against M-theory and its multiverse of different branes and prefer this theory instead, since both seem to agree on bridges to other branes .
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 09/15/2017 04:46 pm
My thinking about G isn't unmotivated. This appears to be happening, and in a predictable way. The question is, why? This is worth time and effort. Such a small deviation. Perhaps it's possible to have large deviations? Are we already and just don't understand it? Definitely worth exploring. Interesting comments in the phys.org article about planetary orbital resonances.

https://www.richarddawkins.net/2015/04/why-do-measurements-of-the-gravitational-constant-vary-so-much/

https://m.phys.org/news/2015-04-gravitational-constant-vary.html

Using dimensional analysis along with how gravity affects M,L,T. The value of G is not a universal constant. In the PV Model of GR, it is G/c4 that is a universal constant.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 09/15/2017 04:52 pm
@Rodal: Do the Brane based theories for Supergravity require Supersymmetry?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/15/2017 04:54 pm
My thinking about G isn't unmotivated. This appears to be happening, and in a predictable way. The question is, why? This is worth time and effort. Such a small deviation. Perhaps it's possible to have large deviations? Are we already and just don't understand it? Definitely worth exploring. Interesting comments in the phys.org article about planetary orbital resonances.

https://www.richarddawkins.net/2015/04/why-do-measurements-of-the-gravitational-constant-vary-so-much/

https://m.phys.org/news/2015-04-gravitational-constant-vary.html

Using dimensional analysis along with how gravity affects M,L,T. The value of G is not a universal constant. In the PV Model of GR, it is G/c4 that is a universal constant.
This issue was also discussed in scalar-tensor theories starting with Brans-Dicke, but all tests up to now have rather confirmed the universality (in spacetime, to other epochs) of G, and very much narrowed the range in which G could be possible to vary
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/15/2017 04:57 pm
@Rodal: Do the Brane based theories for Supergravity require Supersymmetry?
Yes, many of the string theories did, most of the early ones did,  others do not.  There are more theories than physicists (unfortunately this is the truth)  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/15/2017 05:09 pm
The problem with the view that
Quote
the black hole is under this view a bridge of limited spatial extension with no central singularity, linking two Minkowski spaces
is

1) proving the stability of such a bridge, which appears unstable unless it contains negative mass-energy

2) the existence of another space is reminiscent of bridges in M-theory's multiverse, there is no experimental proof to decide between different theories (because black holes are...black)

Sure, it all boils down to allow either:
- an imaginary time and pure imaginary lengths inside the black hole, "beyond the event horizon" (as usually done)
- or consider that the interior of such a solution is physically (an mathematically) real.

PS : You're right this is unstable, and such solution represents a transient, very short, ephemeral bridge in time.
where is the bridge going into? if it comes back into our own Universe, shouldn't it display the other end of the bridge as a white hole? If so why is there no experimental evidence of such white holes (which should be easier to detect than black holes).

If the bridge goes into another brane, then I don't understand why people would be so much against M-theory and its multiverse of different branes and prefer this theory instead, since both seem to agree on bridges to other branes .

As a first approximation, I'd say: a white hole in another spacetime. But since the subsequent theory allowing this alternative black hole model is a bimetric theory of gravity, this is not about parallel universes or multiverse, but two "separate" metrics in the same universe.

So let's say it's more like a "brane theory" in your example but without the brane, superstring, supersymmetry and all the quantum stuff. Only general relativity. That's the main difference.

That said, the topological core idea underneath (throat surface connecting two spaces without central singularity) may be adaptable to brane cosmology.

But in the model I talk about, this is all about GR. And the bimetric gravity (not at all related to "massive gravitons" which are another kind of bimetric theory of gravity) is all about conjugate geometry, a topological concept where a concentration of matter located in a metric induces an (opposite) curvature in its conjugate metric. I illustrated this concept in the following page:

"Mass inversion process through hyperspace transfer: Conjugate curvatures":
http://ayuba.fr/janus/conjugate_curvatures/ (http://ayuba.fr/janus/conjugate_curvatures/)

with this animation showing in 2D the transient exchange of matter at the center of a destabilized critical neutron star:

(http://ayuba.fr/janus/conjugate_curvatures/images/conjugate_curvatures.gif)

In passing this illustration shows how some "negative mass matter" with negative energy (represented in blue) that would be located in a "negative sector" corresponding to the conjugate metric, would in fact not be intrinsically "negative" all. It would simply be some matter of positive mass, but located in another, conjugate metric. Then, the topology makes this matter "of the other side" acting (felt here) as if it had a negative mass. But it is not the case, fundamentally. Same thing for positive mass matter (in yellow) which induces… a negative curvature in its conjugate sector.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 09/15/2017 05:17 pm
My thinking about G isn't unmotivated. This appears to be happening, and in a predictable way. The question is, why? This is worth time and effort. Such a small deviation. Perhaps it's possible to have large deviations? Are we already and just don't understand it? Definitely worth exploring. Interesting comments in the phys.org article about planetary orbital resonances.

https://www.richarddawkins.net/2015/04/why-do-measurements-of-the-gravitational-constant-vary-so-much/

https://m.phys.org/news/2015-04-gravitational-constant-vary.html

Using dimensional analysis along with how gravity affects M,L,T. The value of G is not a universal constant. In the PV Model of GR, it is G/c4 that is a universal constant.
This issue was also discussed in scalar-tensor theories starting with Brans-Dicke, but all tests up to now have rather confirmed the universality (in spacetime, to other epochs) of G, and very much narrowed the range in which G could be possible to vary

Since I was referring to the PV Model of GR, where we use a refractive index. The "coordinate" speed of light is given by c/K. Force is an invariant so;

c4/G = (c/K)4/(G/K4)

So G is a variable dependent on the refractive index. In the experiments, they use the "local" frame where "c" is a constant and K=1. Under those conditions, they will not measure a change in G either. This is based on dimensional analysis.


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/15/2017 05:24 pm
Mind also that the nature of phenomena (e.g. "white"/"black" "holes") do not have to be similar in the form of "observable".

(Have had this argument with Witten in lecture.)

(BTW, the recent proof of the balance of positive/negative infinities also impacts this area. In particular, the shift of physical laws potentially shifting dimensions with low energy to inhospitable/"non life" ones also goes away.)

So many ramifications here. Mind also that transients can also "clean up" COE violations/ruptures/extrusions on closure too.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/15/2017 06:10 pm
...So let's say it's more like a "brane theory" in your example but without the brane, superstring, supersymmetry and all the quantum stuff. Only general relativity. That's the main difference....
OK, but this argument in this thread page started by a quotation about someone arguing against Quantum Gravity, the main objection being about whether gravity can be quantized (about whether gravitons are real).  Because what string theory and other quantum gravity theories attempt to explain is the graviton.  So, to me people railing against string (M) theory and the graviton is similar to Ernst Mach railing against Einstein's theory of relativity and against the existence of atoms, a statement which he made, amazingly, in the 20th century:

(http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-i-can-accept-the-theory-of-relativity-as-little-as-i-can-accept-the-existence-of-atoms-ernst-mach-72-74-32.jpg)

Just substitute nowadays "string theory" for "relativity" and "gravitons" for "atoms" in Mach's statement, and it would read by a hypothetical 21st century of Mach:

Quote from: a hypothetical 21st century Mach
I can accept the  (M) theory of strings as little as I can accept the existence of gravitons


And the railing against unusual objects like strings and branes, compactified extra dimensions and the multiverse sounds like the railing against the concept of black holes and gravitational waves (both of which Einstein himself questioned at some points in his life).

And hopefully everybody will agree that Mach's statements against relativity and against atoms was proven wrong.

And similarly those that argued against the existence of black holes, the accelerated expansion of our Universe, and against the existence of gravitational waves were also proven wrong.

So keep an open mind as to whether gravitation will be quantizable, whether gravitons exist, and whether there are such things as compactified extra dimensions.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/15/2017 06:41 pm
{…}So keep an open mind as to whether gravitation will be quantizable, whether gravitons exist, and whether there are such things as compactified extra dimensions.

Of course, we must stay opened to all scientific possibilities, if these theories are well constructed. Not oppose them, only disprove them, which is a different thing. If it can't be done with observations (Popper's falsifiability) due to the limitation of today's technology, verifying their fundamental mathematics and internal logic is a good start.

As for me, I hope gravity will be quantized!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 09/15/2017 07:09 pm
(FWIW, WRT quantum gravity, consider To Solve the Biggest Mystery in Physics, Join Two Kinds of Law (https://www.quantamagazine.org/to-solve-the-biggest-mystery-in-physics-join-two-kinds-of-law-20170907/):)
Quote from: Robbert Dijkgraaf
Reductionism breaks the world into elementary building blocks. Emergence finds the simple laws that arise out of complexity. These two complementary ways of viewing the universe come together in modern theories of quantum gravity.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 09/15/2017 07:35 pm
...So let's say it's more like a "brane theory" in your example but without the brane, superstring, supersymmetry and all the quantum stuff. Only general relativity. That's the main difference....
OK, but this argument in this thread page started by a quotation about someone arguing against Quantum Gravity, the main objection being about whether gravity can be quantized (about whether gravitons are real).  Because what string theory and other quantum gravity theories attempt to explain is the graviton.  So, to me people railing against string (M) theory and the graviton is similar to Ernst Mach railing against Einstein's theory of relativity and against the existence of atoms, a statement which he made, amazingly, in the 20th century:

(http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-i-can-accept-the-theory-of-relativity-as-little-as-i-can-accept-the-existence-of-atoms-ernst-mach-72-74-32.jpg)

Just substitute nowadays "string theory" for "relativity" and "gravitons" for "atoms" in Mach's statement, and it would read by a hypothetical 21st century of Mach:

Quote from: a hypothetical 21st century Mach
I can accept the  (M) theory of strings as little as I can accept the existence of gravitons


And the railing against unusual objects like strings and branes, compactified extra dimensions and the multiverse sounds like the railing against the concept of black holes and gravitational waves (both of which Einstein himself questioned at some points in his life).

And hopefully everybody will agree that Mach's statements against relativity and against atoms was proven wrong.

And similarly those that argued against the existence of black holes, the accelerated expansion of our Universe, and against the existence of gravitational waves were also proven wrong.

So keep an open mind as to whether gravitation will be quantizable, whether gravitons exist, and whether there are such things as compactified extra dimensions.

I don't think it's fair to compare Mach's dismissal of atoms with today's critics of supersymmetric string theory. It's my understanding that the Large Hadron Collider has placed enough limits on the mass-energies of potential supersymmetric pair particles that Supersymmetry is starting to create more problems than it solves.  :-\
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/15/2017 07:46 pm
...
I don't think it's fair to compare Mach's dismissal of atoms with today's critics of supersymmetric string theory. It's my understanding that the Large Hadron Collider has placed enough limits on the mass-energies of potential supersymmetric pair particles that Supersymmetry is starting to create more problems than it solves.  :-\

1) Supersymmetry does not necessarily equal (all possible versions of) string theory or M-theory

2) Non-existence of supersymmetry does not necessarily equal non-existence of gravitons


Mach's dismissal of atoms in the 20th century is indeed an embarrassing abomination that is indeed without comparison.  It says more about Mach's mind than about the state of science at that time (early 20th century).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/15/2017 07:54 pm
I don't think it's fair to compare Mach's dismissal of atoms with today's critics of supersymmetric string theory. It's my understanding that the Large Hadron Collider has placed enough limits on the mass-energies of potential supersymmetric pair particles that Supersymmetry is starting to create more problems than it solves.  :-\

I share your thoughts about supersymmetry. This is not only with the LHC admittedly. The XENON-1T experiment (aimed to detect WIMPs, and especially the neutralino, the main supercandidate for cold dark matter of positive mass, according to the leading theory) which is rightly technologically dimensioned for that purpose, is a failure according to its lead scientists Elena Aprile who published her results by May 2017. These researchers are sinking into despair, according to specialized popular science magazines of my country: the hunt for WIMPs has ran for thirty years, without a single positive result.

However as Rodal said, other theories don't need supersymmetry. But SuSy was quite important for cosmology and particle physics, especially wrt to the CDM and the Higgs boson.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RonM on 09/15/2017 08:23 pm
...
I don't think it's fair to compare Mach's dismissal of atoms with today's critics of supersymmetric string theory. It's my understanding that the Large Hadron Collider has placed enough limits on the mass-energies of potential supersymmetric pair particles that Supersymmetry is starting to create more problems than it solves.  :-\

1) Supersymmetry does not necessarily equal (all possible versions of) string theory or M-theory

2) Non-existence of supersymmetry does not necessarily equal non-existence of gravitons


Mach's dismissal of atoms in the 20th century is indeed an embarrassing abomination that is indeed without comparison.  It says more about Mach's mind than about the state of science at that time (early 20th century).

Things are not looking good for supersymmetry, but that doesn't mean M-theory is in trouble.

However, M-theory proponents need to make predictions that can be experimentally verified. The universe is what it is, not what we want it to be.

BTW, we are way off topic.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/15/2017 08:30 pm
...BTW, we are way off topic.
At least we are discussing issues that pertain to space science   ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/15/2017 08:33 pm
Just had an idea for an experiment. It's a Cavendish experiment. It consists of two masses off the balance, and two identical EMdrives, one on each end of the balance. It's not necessarily a thrust experiment. It's to see if G is any different and whether or not it's dependent on orientation of the drives.

https://youtu.be/dyLYbvZIYoU
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/15/2017 08:46 pm
Using dimensional analysis along with how gravity affects M,L,T. The value of G is not a universal constant. In the PV Model of GR, it is G/c4 that is a universal constant.
This issue was also discussed in scalar-tensor theories starting with Brans-Dicke, but all tests up to now have rather confirmed the universality (in spacetime, to other epochs) of G, and very much narrowed the range in which G could be possible to vary

Since I was referring to the PV Model of GR, where we use a refractive index. The "coordinate" speed of light is given by c/K. Force is an invariant so;

c4/G = (c/K)4/(G/K4)

So G is a variable dependent on the refractive index. In the experiments, they use the "local" frame where "c" is a constant and K=1. Under those conditions, they will not measure a change in G either. This is based on dimensional analysis.
Since you are stating that the coordinate speed of light is c/K, then you still need the universal constant c, which is equal to the proper speed of light (that thing you referenced as measured in the local frame), but also has fundamental meaning that extends beyond electromagnetic waves. The value c can't be a function of K because otherwise you get into a recursive c = c/K.

Since this value c is a constant, if you say that G/c^4 is constant, then G is a constant.

There are theories that examine what if constants such as G are not constant across spacetime, but as Rodal said, experiments (mostly astronomical observations I think) currently don't support this. (These theories have the constants themselves change as if some property of the vacuum, not just adjustments to the coordinate speed of light due to general relativistic effects that are calculated based on the constants.)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 09/15/2017 08:59 pm
Using dimensional analysis along with how gravity affects M,L,T. The value of G is not a universal constant. In the PV Model of GR, it is G/c4 that is a universal constant.
This issue was also discussed in scalar-tensor theories starting with Brans-Dicke, but all tests up to now have rather confirmed the universality (in spacetime, to other epochs) of G, and very much narrowed the range in which G could be possible to vary

Since I was referring to the PV Model of GR, where we use a refractive index. The "coordinate" speed of light is given by c/K. Force is an invariant so;

c4/G = (c/K)4/(G/K4)

So G is a variable dependent on the refractive index. In the experiments, they use the "local" frame where "c" is a constant and K=1. Under those conditions, they will not measure a change in G either. This is based on dimensional analysis.
Since you are stating that the coordinate speed of light is c/K, then you still need the universal constant c, which is equal to the proper speed of light (that thing you referenced as measured in the local frame), but also has fundamental meaning that extends beyond electromagnetic waves. The value c can't be a function of K because otherwise you get into a recursive c = c/K.

Since this value c is a constant, if you say that G/c^4 is constant, then G is a constant.

There are theories that examine what if constants such as G are not constant across spacetime, but as Rodal said, experiments (mostly astronomical observations I think) currently don't support this. (These theories have the constants themselves change as if some property of the vacuum, not just adjustments to the coordinate speed of light due to general relativistic effects that are calculated based on the constants.)

Until you at least read and understand Puthoff's papers on the PV Model of GR, not to mention Joe Depp's revisions and my extensions, don't confuse people here with your assumptions. You don't know or care to understand the model, and it shows.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/15/2017 09:06 pm
Using dimensional analysis along with how gravity affects M,L,T. The value of G is not a universal constant. In the PV Model of GR, it is G/c4 that is a universal constant.
This issue was also discussed in scalar-tensor theories starting with Brans-Dicke, but all tests up to now have rather confirmed the universality (in spacetime, to other epochs) of G, and very much narrowed the range in which G could be possible to vary

Since I was referring to the PV Model of GR, where we use a refractive index. The "coordinate" speed of light is given by c/K. Force is an invariant so;

c4/G = (c/K)4/(G/K4)

So G is a variable dependent on the refractive index. In the experiments, they use the "local" frame where "c" is a constant and K=1. Under those conditions, they will not measure a change in G either. This is based on dimensional analysis.
Since you are stating that the coordinate speed of light is c/K, then you still need the universal constant c, which is equal to the proper speed of light (that thing you referenced as measured in the local frame), but also has fundamental meaning that extends beyond electromagnetic waves. The value c can't be a function of K because otherwise you get into a recursive c = c/K.

Since this value c is a constant, if you say that G/c^4 is constant, then G is a constant.

There are theories that examine what if constants such as G are not constant across spacetime, but as Rodal said, experiments (mostly astronomical observations I think) currently don't support this. (These theories have the constants themselves change as if some property of the vacuum, not just adjustments to the coordinate speed of light due to general relativistic effects that are calculated based on the constants.)

Until you at least read and understand Puthoff's papers on the PV Model of GR, not to mention Joe Depp's revisions and my extensions, don't confuse people here with your assumptions. You don't know or care to understand the model, and it shows.

Come on guys, just listen to Q.

https://youtu.be/5xdbPhnfFEI
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/15/2017 09:30 pm
Using dimensional analysis along with how gravity affects M,L,T. The value of G is not a universal constant. In the PV Model of GR, it is G/c4 that is a universal constant.
This issue was also discussed in scalar-tensor theories starting with Brans-Dicke, but all tests up to now have rather confirmed the universality (in spacetime, to other epochs) of G, and very much narrowed the range in which G could be possible to vary

Since I was referring to the PV Model of GR, where we use a refractive index. The "coordinate" speed of light is given by c/K. Force is an invariant so;

c4/G = (c/K)4/(G/K4)

So G is a variable dependent on the refractive index. In the experiments, they use the "local" frame where "c" is a constant and K=1. Under those conditions, they will not measure a change in G either. This is based on dimensional analysis.
Since you are stating that the coordinate speed of light is c/K, then you still need the universal constant c, which is equal to the proper speed of light (that thing you referenced as measured in the local frame), but also has fundamental meaning that extends beyond electromagnetic waves. The value c can't be a function of K because otherwise you get into a recursive c = c/K.

Since this value c is a constant, if you say that G/c^4 is constant, then G is a constant.

There are theories that examine what if constants such as G are not constant across spacetime, but as Rodal said, experiments (mostly astronomical observations I think) currently don't support this. (These theories have the constants themselves change as if some property of the vacuum, not just adjustments to the coordinate speed of light due to general relativistic effects that are calculated based on the constants.)

Until you at least read and understand Puthoff's papers on the PV Model of GR, not to mention Joe Depp's revisions and my extensions, don't confuse people here with your assumptions. You don't know or care to understand the model, and it shows.
What assumptions do you think I made? I only looked at what you said and showed that there seems to be a contradiction, which may just be you being too imprecise in what you refer to as the speed of light and represent with the variable c.

If there is an issue with what I said, then please clarify what that issue is.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 09/15/2017 10:39 pm
My thinking about G isn't unmotivated. This appears to be happening, and in a predictable way. The question is, why? This is worth time and effort. Such a small deviation. Perhaps it's possible to have large deviations? Are we already and just don't understand it? Definitely worth exploring. Interesting comments in the phys.org article about planetary orbital resonances.

https://www.richarddawkins.net/2015/04/why-do-measurements-of-the-gravitational-constant-vary-so-much/

https://m.phys.org/news/2015-04-gravitational-constant-vary.html

Using dimensional analysis along with how gravity affects M,L,T. The value of G is not a universal constant. In the PV Model of GR, it is G/c4 that is a universal constant.

So what you are saying above is that in the PV Model c is not universally constant. I don't personally have an issue with that, but it seems even the suggestion would require some supporting argument.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 09/15/2017 11:22 pm
...
I don't think it's fair to compare Mach's dismissal of atoms with today's critics of supersymmetric string theory. It's my understanding that the Large Hadron Collider has placed enough limits on the mass-energies of potential supersymmetric pair particles that Supersymmetry is starting to create more problems than it solves.  :-\

1) Supersymmetry does not necessarily equal (all possible versions of) string theory or M-theory

2) Non-existence of supersymmetry does not necessarily equal non-existence of gravitons


Mach's dismissal of atoms in the 20th century is indeed an embarrassing abomination that is indeed without comparison.  It says more about Mach's mind than about the state of science at that time (early 20th century).

Two problems with the above;

As you mentioned there are more versions of string theory than there are theorists. So defending string theory is almost like saying at least one has to be correct... but even that is not a certainty. Even hunting quail with a shotgun, does not guarantee you will come home with dinner... None of this is said in defense or rejection, of string theory. Only an assertion that we can imagine more things than we find to be real and that mathematics is a language that can be used to describe both what is and what we imagine might be. There is just no way to test the validity in this case. Whether there ever will be is an entirely different sort of discussion.

As it concerns Mach and what he could and couldn't accept, your position does not take into account that he was what 40-41 when Einstein was born and died only 10-11 years after special relativity was first published. It is not hard to understand that both relativity and the concept of atoms, were perhaps just too big a leap or change from the world he understood, to accept... Both of my grandfathers were born in the 1800's. My paternal grandfather told stories of gunfights in the streets and more. He also sat on the couch next to me when we landed on the moon and tried to convince the family that it was just a Hollywood movie. He never did accept that anyone walked on the moon, let alone went there. I don't think you are being fair to Mach, in your use of his words in this argument. It doesn't reflect the full context of the times and limitations, the quote is taken from.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RSE on 09/15/2017 11:52 pm
The problem with the view that
Quote
the black hole is under this view a bridge of limited spatial extension with no central singularity, linking two Minkowski spaces
is

1) proving the stability of such a bridge, which appears unstable unless it contains negative mass-energy

2) the existence of another space is reminiscent of bridges in M-theory's multiverse, there is no experimental proof to decide between different theories (because black holes are...black)

Sure, it all boils down to allow either:
- an imaginary time and pure imaginary lengths inside the black hole, "beyond the event horizon" (as usually done)
- or consider that the interior of such a solution is physically (an mathematically) real.

PS : You're right this is unstable, and such solution represents a transient, very short, ephemeral bridge in time.
where is the bridge going into? if it comes back into our own Universe, shouldn't it display the other end of the bridge as a white hole? If so why is there no experimental evidence of such white holes (which should be easier to detect than black holes).

If the bridge goes into another brane, then I don't understand why people would be so much against M-theory and its multiverse of different branes and prefer this theory instead, since both seem to agree on bridges to other branes .

One could claim there was one "white hole" in our universe. We called it "The Big Bang". Note the correlation between the unstable bridge, and the short period of "inflation" at the start of "The Big Bang".

(Try not to laugh too hard. . . )
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 09/15/2017 11:54 pm
The value c can't be a function of K because otherwise you get into a recursive c = c/K.

Since this value c is a constant, if you say that G/c^4 is constant, then G is a constant.

This is not true in the PV Model of GR. I've been telling you to read these papers for months, but instead you just assume you know what you're talking about. In this model, the coordinate speed is all that matters, the speed we get from the Metric coefficients for the speed of light when we have a light-like metric, ds2 = 0, and not from local measurements where K=1 "by definition". We use the frame of a distant observer, far from gravitational fields to determine what K is. In this reference frame, c/K is what is measured non-locally, it's not constant and neither is G, ε0 or μ0. Read the papers, you will learn something.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 09/16/2017 12:00 am
My thinking about G isn't unmotivated. This appears to be happening, and in a predictable way. The question is, why? This is worth time and effort. Such a small deviation. Perhaps it's possible to have large deviations? Are we already and just don't understand it? Definitely worth exploring. Interesting comments in the phys.org article about planetary orbital resonances.

https://www.richarddawkins.net/2015/04/why-do-measurements-of-the-gravitational-constant-vary-so-much/

https://m.phys.org/news/2015-04-gravitational-constant-vary.html

Using dimensional analysis along with how gravity affects M,L,T. The value of G is not a universal constant. In the PV Model of GR, it is G/c4 that is a universal constant.

So what you are saying above is that in the PV Model c is not universally constant. I don't personally have an issue with that, but it seems even the suggestion would require some supporting argument.

This was the most recent paper by H. E. Puthoff, published in JBIS:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223130116_Advanced_Space_Propulsion_Based_on_Vacuum_Spacetime_Metric_Engineering (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223130116_Advanced_Space_Propulsion_Based_on_Vacuum_Spacetime_Metric_Engineering)

This was the original work where all of the tests of GR are reproduced by the PV representation, published by Springer:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/1978393_Polarizable-Vacuum_PV_representation_of_general_relativity (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/1978393_Polarizable-Vacuum_PV_representation_of_general_relativity)

There are many, many more papers on the subject by other physicists and engineers as well. Just look them up.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/16/2017 12:52 am
The value c can't be a function of K because otherwise you get into a recursive c = c/K.

Since this value c is a constant, if you say that G/c^4 is constant, then G is a constant.

This is not true in the PV Model of GR.
You said that the coordinate speed of light is c/K. If you do not have a constant "c" then saying that the coordinate speed of light is c/K does not make sense.

The constant "c" could vary with space as well, but you have said "they use the "local" frame where "c" is a constant and K=1" which implies only the coordinate speed of light is varying in this theory and not the constant c that is used to calculate it.

If your issue is with the second sentence you quoted, then you just need to read that sentence again because it is very nearly tautological.
 
We use the frame of a distant observer, far from gravitational fields to determine what K is. In this reference frame, c/K is what is measured non-locally, it's not constant and neither is G, ε0 or μ0. Read the papers, you will learn something.
Yes, c/K, the coordinate speed of light is not constant, and variations in the coordinate speed of light are a well known part of GR. However, you did not say that G/(c/K)^4 = constant, you said that G/c^4 = constant. The first implies a variable G, the second does not. You could define something like "coordinate G" = G/K^4 and that would be variable, but G itself would still be a constant. I don't have to read any other paper to recognize contradictory statements.

This was the original work where all of the tests of GR are reproduced by the PV representation, published by Springer:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/1978393_Polarizable-Vacuum_PV_representation_of_general_relativity (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/1978393_Polarizable-Vacuum_PV_representation_of_general_relativity)
Except that is simply not true as shown by this more recent paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302273
Quote
The theory predicts a radiation power from a binary system that is 2/3 that predicted by GR, and so incompatible with observed orbital decay rate of PSR 1913 + 16.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 09/16/2017 01:48 am
...So let's say it's more like a "brane theory" in your example but without the brane, superstring, supersymmetry and all the quantum stuff. Only general relativity. That's the main difference....
OK, but this argument in this thread page started by a quotation about someone arguing against Quantum Gravity, the main objection being about whether gravity can be quantized (about whether gravitons are real).  Because what string theory and other quantum gravity theories attempt to explain is the graviton.  So, to me people railing against string (M) theory and the graviton is similar to Ernst Mach railing against Einstein's theory of relativity and against the existence of atoms, a statement which he made, amazingly, in the 20th century:

(http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-i-can-accept-the-theory-of-relativity-as-little-as-i-can-accept-the-existence-of-atoms-ernst-mach-72-74-32.jpg)

Just substitute nowadays "string theory" for "relativity" and "gravitons" for "atoms" in Mach's statement, and it would read by a hypothetical 21st century of Mach:

Quote from: a hypothetical 21st century Mach
I can accept the  (M) theory of strings as little as I can accept the existence of gravitons


And the railing against unusual objects like strings and branes, compactified extra dimensions and the multiverse sounds like the railing against the concept of black holes and gravitational waves (both of which Einstein himself questioned at some points in his life).

And hopefully everybody will agree that Mach's statements against relativity and against atoms was proven wrong.

And similarly those that argued against the existence of black holes, the accelerated expansion of our Universe, and against the existence of gravitational waves were also proven wrong.

So keep an open mind as to whether gravitation will be quantizable, whether gravitons exist, and whether there are such things as compactified extra dimensions.

Dr Rodal,
I suspect we will all be proven to have simplistic notions of physical reality, given the passage of enough time. Mach's supersonic flow experiments were vital to the development of supersonic aerodynamics and rocketry. His pursuit of answers to questions raised by Newton's bucket is as relevant today as it ever was.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/16/2017 02:32 am
...
Dr Rodal,
I suspect we will all be proven to have simplistic notions of physical reality, given the passage of enough time. Mach's supersonic flow experiments were vital to the development of supersonic aerodynamics and rocketry. His pursuit of answers to questions raised by Newton's bucket is as relevant today as it ever was.
This is more of a reason why not to treat people like Mach as experts on everything they opined about. 
Mach made an abominable error in denying the existence of atoms in the 20th century, so don't take Mach as an authority on atomic physics.  Give Mach his due for his work on experimental supersonic flow.  But his opinions on Einstein's theory of relativity and on atomic physics were just plain wrong.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 09/16/2017 02:39 am
The value c can't be a function of K because otherwise you get into a recursive c = c/K.

Since this value c is a constant, if you say that G/c^4 is constant, then G is a constant.

This is not true in the PV Model of GR.
You said that the coordinate speed of light is c/K. If you do not have a constant "c" then saying that the coordinate speed of light is c/K does not make sense.

The constant "c" could vary with space as well, but you have said "they use the "local" frame where "c" is a constant and K=1" which implies only the coordinate speed of light is varying in this theory and not the constant c that is used to calculate it.

If your issue is with the second sentence you quoted, then you just need to read that sentence again because it is very nearly tautological.
 
We use the frame of a distant observer, far from gravitational fields to determine what K is. In this reference frame, c/K is what is measured non-locally, it's not constant and neither is G, ε0 or μ0. Read the papers, you will learn something.
Yes, c/K, the coordinate speed of light is not constant, and variations in the coordinate speed of light are a well known part of GR. However, you did not say that G/(c/K)^4 = constant, you said that G/c^4 = constant. The first implies a variable G, the second does not. You could define something like "coordinate G" = G/K^4 and that would be variable, but G itself would still be a constant. I don't have to read any other paper to recognize contradictory statements.

Your arguments are about semantics of how I'm not writing what I mean in the same way you would write it. All I can say is this is a forum for discussion, not a peer reviewed paper. I've been discussing the PV Model with my peers for nearly 20 years, and they have no problem understanding me. The issue is, you like to nitpick instead of trying to understand. You obviously enjoy it!


This was the original work where all of the tests of GR are reproduced by the PV representation, published by Springer:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/1978393_Polarizable-Vacuum_PV_representation_of_general_relativity (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/1978393_Polarizable-Vacuum_PV_representation_of_general_relativity)
Except that is simply not true as shown by this more recent paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302273
Quote
The theory predicts a radiation power from a binary system that is 2/3 that predicted by GR, and so incompatible with observed orbital decay rate of PSR 1913 + 16.

This is true. However, in 2005, Joe Depp corrected the equations of motion in Puthoff's paper and showed that the true solution is the Schwarzschild solution, not the exponential one that Ibison used in 2003.

https://www.scribd.com/document/17130549/Polarizable-Vacuum-PV-and-the-Schwarzschild-Solution (https://www.scribd.com/document/17130549/Polarizable-Vacuum-PV-and-the-Schwarzschild-Solution)

I followed up with a slightly different approach in 2006, but Joe showed me this was actually the same Lagrangian as his.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304460849_General_Relativity_and_the_Polarizable_Vacuum (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304460849_General_Relativity_and_the_Polarizable_Vacuum)

You're not up to date on the model!

The latest paper on the topic is the one I published in the proceedings from Estes Park last year, that derives this model from quantum mechanics, using Puthoff's latest paper on quantum ground states in SED. Which I have since corroborated with P.W. Milloni, that the same thing occurs in QED.

Anyway, the whole point of this conversation was simply that, in the frame of a distant observer outside the gravitational fields being observed,

cK = c/K
GK = G/K4

Where, c and G are "constants". Happy?

In the PV Model, ALL forces are independent of K. Since the Planck Force is also a force that must be invariant in a gravitational field;

cK4/GK = c4/G,  Hence; GK = G/K4

This is a necessary fact of the model, so that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in a gravitational field.




 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: jay343 on 09/16/2017 02:44 am
I have a question about the forces normally associated with electromagnetic fields, and whether or not they are always symmetrical. Consider the attached diagram. It represents a dipole in free space emitting intense radio waves, and a small electric dipole that is spinning at the same frequency as the radio waves, and is stationary relative to the antenna. Since the frequencies are matched, the near surface of the spinning dipole will always encounter the same electric polarity on the approaching wavefront. Consequently, it will experience a net force. In fact, you should be able to position the electric dipole anywhere in the antenna's near field by slightly varying the frequency of the radio transmitter. When the relationship of the electric dipole charge and the approaching wavefront charge is repulsive (pushing the electric dipole away), the wavefront is free to slow down and morph around the electric dipole. On the other hand, when the net force is attractive, it seems as if the electromagnetic field would be stiffer (from the point of view of the electric dipole), because the wavefront cannot be pulled forward faster than the speed of light. Could this be force rectification?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 09/16/2017 05:31 am
The problem with the view that
Quote
the black hole is under this view a bridge of limited spatial extension with no central singularity, linking two Minkowski spaces
is

1) proving the stability of such a bridge, which appears unstable unless it contains negative mass-energy

2) the existence of another space is reminiscent of bridges in M-theory's multiverse, there is no experimental proof to decide between different theories (because black holes are...black)

Sure, it all boils down to allow either:
- an imaginary time and pure imaginary lengths inside the black hole, "beyond the event horizon" (as usually done)
- or consider that the interior of such a solution is physically (an mathematically) real.

PS : You're right this is unstable, and such solution represents a transient, very short, ephemeral bridge in time.
where is the bridge going into? if it comes back into our own Universe, shouldn't it display the other end of the bridge as a white hole? If so why is there no experimental evidence of such white holes (which should be easier to detect than black holes).

If the bridge goes into another brane, then I don't understand why people would be so much against M-theory and its multiverse of different branes and prefer this theory instead, since both seem to agree on bridges to other branes .

One could claim there was one "white hole" in our universe. We called it "The Big Bang". Note the correlation between the unstable bridge, and the short period of "inflation" at the start of "The Big Bang".

(Try not to laugh too hard. . . )

Don't forget the Dipole Repeller n GRB's https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpV0GQo3P0c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zABdXf3gqEI
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/16/2017 06:42 am
Your arguments are about semantics of how I'm not writing what I mean in the same way you would write it. All I can say is this is a forum for discussion, not a peer reviewed paper. I've been discussing the PV Model with my peers for nearly 20 years, and they have no problem understanding me. The issue is, you like to nitpick instead of trying to understand. You obviously enjoy it!
When you change the meaning of a variable or word from one sentence to the next, it is unreasonable to expect anyone to understand you. Asking for clarification is not a nitpick, but necessary for understanding.

I followed up with a slightly different approach in 2006, but Joe showed me this was actually the same Lagrangian as his.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304460849_General_Relativity_and_the_Polarizable_Vacuum (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304460849_General_Relativity_and_the_Polarizable_Vacuum)

You're not up to date on the model!
I know that there was more recent work, but you pointed OnlyMe to an older paper than the one I cited and said that all tests of GR matched.

Anyway, the whole point of this conversation was simply that, in the frame of a distant observer outside the gravitational fields being observed,

cK = c/K
GK = G/K4

Where, c and G are "constants". Happy?
Yes, because these are consistent statements now. There are other models out there where the laws of physics are not the same everywhere, because the usual "constants" vary with time. I don't think there is any experimental evidence for this, but especially when discussing the early universe, I am not sure it has been completely ruled out.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: as58 on 09/16/2017 07:04 am
I followed up with a slightly different approach in 2006, but Joe showed me this was actually the same Lagrangian as his.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304460849_General_Relativity_and_the_Polarizable_Vacuum (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304460849_General_Relativity_and_the_Polarizable_Vacuum)

I started reading your paper and got as far section 2.1 (so about one fourth of a page) before hitting the first hurdle. Equation (1) states that 1/K is a harmonic function. But why in 2.1 you only allow a family of linear functions as solutions? There are other harmonic functions...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mezzenile on 09/16/2017 07:24 am
And similarly those that argued against the existence of black holes, the accelerated expansion of our Universe, and against the existence of gravitational waves were also proven wrong.
I can agree with what you say, except for the Existence of black holes which is clearly wrong today !

To say « I believe in the existence of black hole » is the same as to say « I believe in the day of resurrection of the Dead » in religion : it may happen but after the end of time for all the observers we are.

General Relativity predicts that it would takes an infinite time for any external oberver to be informed that a particle has crossed the horizon surface of what is destined to become a black hole.

Even the Hawking discussion about the magic of black hole internal mass evaporation completely miss this point that all the matter making the mass of the black hole is still outside its horizon surface at the time Hawking predicts/observes its black body radiation.

Hawking already did a big mistake with his hostility to the support given by Denis Sciama (his former thesis advisor) to a machian origin of inertial mass. But with his presentation of what are black holes to the great public, he does what even religious people dont do : explain our today situation by what happen after the day of resurrection of the Dead !

Phenomenas attributed to astronomical structures called Black Holes exist certainly, but they can be attributed to a large amount of mass still outside a so called horizon surface.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/16/2017 12:27 pm
And similarly those that argued against the existence of black holes, the accelerated expansion of our Universe, and against the existence of gravitational waves were also proven wrong.
I can agree with what you say, except for the Existence of black holes which is clearly wrong today !

To say « I believe in the existence of black hole » is the same as to say « I believe in the day of resurrection of the Dead » in religion : it may happen but after the end of time for all the observers we are.

...
You may hold your own individual opinions on this and many other things, but regardless of your opinions, there is an objective reality out there: the existence of black holes is widely accepted by mainstream science, because cosmological observations accurately agrees with mathematical predictions.  Furthermore,  the first observation of gravitational waves, on 11 February 2016; is widely understood by mainstream science to be due to waves generated from the merger of binary black holes.  The measurements are in excellent agreement with General Relativity's model for the waves that will originate from the merger of a binary black hole.

(http://images.iop.org/objects/phw/news/20/2/10/ligo-blackholes.jpg)

Furthermore, the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT), (MIT's Haystack Observatory), detected magnetic fields just outside the event horizon of Sagittarius A (the black hole at the center of the Milky Way), and discerned some of the black hole properties. The magnetic fields were previously predicted by theoretical studies of black holes. The team found that magnetic fields in some regions near the black hole are disorderly, with jumbled loops and whorls resembling intertwined spaghetti. In contrast, other regions showed a much more organized pattern, possibly in the region where jets would be generated.  They also found that the magnetic fields fluctuated on short time scales of only 15 minutes or so.   https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2015-28

(https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/sites/www.cfa.harvard.edu/files/styles/width720/public/images/pr//2015-28.jpg?itok=xU9eu5yh)

Nowadays, and for several centuries now, scientific existence of something is not determined by what an individual person's senses may sense but by the scientific method.  Mainstream science is in agreement that our planet is round and that it revolves around the Sun, regardless of what your senses may tell you.

As John Von Neumann wrote: 

Quote
The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work.


cosmological observations are in excellent agreement with mathematical predictions (including numerical relativity) of black holes as based on the theory of General Relativity, and these models (General Relativity) accurately predict the observations (for example of gravitational waves as being due to the merger of black holes).   

For this to change it would be required that the present model (General Relativity) ceases to accurately describe the observed cosmological phenomena presently ascribed to black holes, and/or that a superior, more accurate as well as parsimonious model is found.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 09/16/2017 01:01 pm
For those readers who are struggling how the Mach Principle works here is a quick video on youtube that's easy to understand.
Shell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPEwkMHRjZU
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/16/2017 01:24 pm
And similarly those that argued against the existence of black holes, the accelerated expansion of our Universe, and against the existence of gravitational waves were also proven wrong.
I can agree with what you say, except for the Existence of black holes which is clearly wrong today !

To say « I believe in the existence of black hole » is the same as to say « I believe in the day of resurrection of the Dead » in religion : it may happen but after the end of time for all the observers we are.

...
You may hold your own individual opinions on this and many other things, but regardless of your opinion, the existence of black holes is widely accepted by mainstream science and at most universities.  Furthermore,  the first observation of gravitational waves, on 11 February 2016; is widely understood by mainstream science to be due to waves generated from the merger of binary black holes.

There really should be a dedicated thread about black holes physics, not really related to EmDrive and spaceflight applications. But the scientific community may be wrong on black holes. Light black holes may be neutron stars. No more massive black hole has ever been detected, say above 2.5 solar masses, in the whole observed universe for 40 years. This is very suspicious. There is only one candidate for stellar black holes: Cygnus X-1, an X-ray binary located 6,000 lightyears away. The slightest error in reality vs the theoretical calculation in such an enormous distance and this system could become subcritical neutron stars again, as any others.

Similarly, the presence of supermassive black holes at the center of galaxies is established as a "fact" by the scientific community, whereas no one ever observed its obvious effects. For example, the gas around Sgr A* at the center of the Milky way does not emit the enormous quantities of X-rays theoretically associated with the accretion disk around a giant black holes, as showed by the Chandra X-ray Observatory (only discrete events). Scientists resorted to complicated things such as the black hole being perhaps now "repleted" or expressing some kind of resonant Auger Destruction effect preventing the emission of X-rays (recently debunked by experiments conducted on the Z-machine at Sandia labs whose results (https://share-ng.sandia.gov/news/resources/news_releases/black_hole/#.Wb0cIa3pOvM) also contradicts the established theroretical model used for 20 years to characterize black holes from their X-ray profile).

In 2013, a puff of gas passed near Sagittarius A* at the center of the Milky way, all telescopes were pointed at it, simulations were done in advance showing how the gas would be distorted, elongated, sucked by the giant black hole as it approached. But the gas passed near it and… nothing. It reappeared behind it, unchanged. So scientists resorted to a compact star and its accretion disc, instead of just interstellar gas.

The presence of supermassive black holes is deduced from the increasing star velocities near the galactic center. So there is indeed a massive object there. But is it a black hole? If you take some mass of ionized gas and fill a sphere whose radius is about the same as the asteroid belt orbit (radius ≈ 2.5 AU) with it, the gas having the average density of water (this is  the average density inside the Sun for example) then we obtain the four million solar masses that are calculated and accounting for the star velocities around, with no need to resort to a giant black hole.

The black hole is indeed a belief among the scientific community. A largely shared, common belief. If you talk about possible alternative to this model, you are somewhat considered as much on the fringe side.

For example, the merger of two neutron stars into a critical object inverting its mass would produce the amount of gravitational waves detected at LIGO and interpreted classically as the merger of two black holes.

Karl Schwarzschild himself showed in his second 1916 paper, which almost nobody read in extenso for 83 years (only snippets of comments) as it was translated only in December 1999, that the speed of light and especially the pressure at the center of the neutron star grow to infinity, before the radius of the star merges with the Schwarzschild radius (for the case of a subcritical neutron star whose mass is gradually increased by the accretion of the stellar wind produced by its companion star). In other words, that a physical criticality is reached before the geometric criticality.

This model has later been taken over in 1939, based on Richard Tolman's work, by J. Robert Oppenheimer and George Volkoff, as the basis of the "TOV model" named after their initials. See the pressure evolution at the core of a neutron star approaching the geometric criticality (i.e. when its radius becomes the Schwarzschild radius) calculated after the TOV equation.

The physicist has to question himself about the appearance of a physical criticality, and its signification. But nobody does.

And this is general relativity, no need for another theory to point out those facts.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/16/2017 01:24 pm
Maybe he's talking about the existence (or not) of the hard event horizon?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/hawking-meant-black-holes/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/16/2017 01:26 pm
...Hawking already did a big mistake with his hostility to the support given by Denis Sciama (his former thesis advisor) to a machian origin of inertial mass....
Listen to Sciama's later views on this subject: watch the conversation in 1986 between Abdus Salam (1979 Nobel Prize for electroweak unification), Dennis Sciama, Edward Witten (35 years old at the time, known for string theory and quantum gravity work at the Institute of Advanced Studies in Princeton)and Paolo Budinich talking about physics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmUI2qf9uyo

Notice (towards the end of the conversation, starting at @44:00) in 1951 Sciama made a switch from Statistical Mechanics towards General Relativity, at a time that Cambridge had few people that taught General Relativity.At a time that Sciama said: none of the revolution of modern astrophysics had occurred at the time. Sciama came up with his Mach theory paper at a time when Sciama admits that practically nothing of what we know today about the cosmos (black holes, neutron stars, etc.) had been observed. When asked by Salam what was Sciama's Ph.D. thesis about, Sciama answers, rather reluctantly,"something to do with Mach's principle" "which Sciama says he had already worked out before Dirac was made his official thesis adviser, so Dirac did not have anything to do with it", he emphasizes that his "Mach principle" work had nothing to do with the torsion stuff that Salam knew Sciama for, either. Sciama refers to his graduate work as "before the modern era" of astrophysical observations. Sciama says that was after he had already formed his "Mach principle" graduate work that the revolution of observational astronomy, starting with radio astronomy in 1952,came about. Sciama remembers when neutron stars (not just black holes) at the time of his graduate work were considered to be "not respectable work."

We are in the year 2017.  By now all measurements show that inertial mass is identical to gravitational mass.  The experimental fact is that Gravity Probe B has verified Einstein's theory and there are no cosmological measurements that have revealed any Machian effect not already present in Einstein's theory. 

The Universe has a structure, due to gravity and inertia: planetary systems, galaxies, clusters, super-clusters, which is explained by Einstein's theory of gravitation.   The revolution in cosmological measurements, has fully confirmed Einstein's theory concerning the equivalence between gravitational mass and inertial mass: they are identical.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/16/2017 01:34 pm
...
There really should be a dedicated thread about black holes physics, not really related to EmDrive and spaceflight applications. But the scientific community may be wrong on black holes. Light black holes may be neutron stars. No more massive black hole has ever been detected, say above 2.5 solar masses, in the whole observed universe for 40 years. This is very suspicious. There is only one candidate for stellar black holes: Cygnus X-1, an X-ray binary located 6,000 lightyears away. The slightest error in reality vs the theoretical calculation in such an enormous distance and this system could become subcritical neutron stars again, as any others. ...
The analytical work of Damour and Blanchet for the gravitational waves effects shows that if they would have been instead neutron stars the measurements would have been different.  So, again, the measurements are in agreement with the gravitational waves originating from the merger of black holes, instead of from the merger of neutron stars.  This has been confirmed by numerical relativity as well.

As to the problem of being able to independently observe the location of the event measured in the gravitational waves, you are right that this problem remains, but present understanding is that it will be fulfilled within the next few years by using a number of measurements of gravitational waves around our planet.  Several measurements at different locations are required to pinpoint the location of the source, and hence to independently identify the source.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/16/2017 01:42 pm
...
There really should be a dedicated thread about black holes physics, not really related to EmDrive and spaceflight applications. But the scientific community may be wrong on black holes. Light black holes may be neutron stars. No more massive black hole has ever been detected, say above 2.5 solar masses, in the whole observed universe for 40 years. This is very suspicious. There is only one candidate for stellar black holes: Cygnus X-1, an X-ray binary located 6,000 lightyears away. The slightest error in reality vs the theoretical calculation in such an enormous distance and this system could become subcritical neutron stars again, as any others. ...
The analytical work of Damour and Blanchet for the gravitational waves effects shows that if they would have been instead neutron stars the measurements would have been different.  So, again, the measurements are in agreement with the gravitational waves originating from the merger of black holes, instead of from the merger of neutron stars.  This has been confirmed by numerical relativity as well.

Your sentence is right, but the part of my post you quoted is wrong, as I specifically talked about LIGO at the bottom part of my post, where I didn't accounted for the effect of gravitational waves detected as being due to the merger of two neutron stars, but to the object resulting of the merger of two neutron stars reaching criticality and subsequently inverting its mass. The mass inversion process being in this case violent, and creating the amount of gravitational waves detected. This is an alternative possibility to the black hole model, taking into account the Schwarzschild, Tolman, Oppenheimer and Volkoff model about the infinite pressure reached at the center of the star. You're right that the merger of two neutron stars alone would not be enough.



The mass inversion seems a weird idea at first. But T-symmetry reverses the energy of a particle. The arrow of time and associated entropy can be reversed with two possibilities:

1- when entropy reaches a minimal value, as shown by Sakharov, Caroll, Guth, Barbour, etc.
2- when entropy reaches a maximal value, but ONLY if the speed of light varies in the process and also becomes infinite.

In (1) Sakharov disproved Hawking, who previously claimed (before they met in 1987) that maximal entropy alone would reverse the arrow of time. Sakharov showed him he was wrong, as entropy grows with the arrow of time (both are related) and the time arrow can reverse only if entropy reaches a minimal state, i.e. zero value. Hawking agreed. This has been later shown by Barbour with simulations (https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-propose-a-mirror-universe-where-time-moves-backwards). For this reason, Sakharov advocated for a "cold model" of the Big Bang after this idea, since a cold initial singularity would enable his twin universe model in complete CPT-symmetry.

(http://www.sakharov-center.ru/asfconf2009/img/files/image/image053.jpg)
Sakharov meets Hawking in Moscow, 1987.


But Sakharov didn't take into account (neither did Hawking) the possibility that the speed of light could vary locally with very high pressure and energy density states of matter, for example at the Big Bang and right after during the radiation-dominated era of the univers, or similarly locally at the center of a neutron star reaching a physical criticality, when about to become a black hole (hint at RSE's joke (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1723784#msg1723784), which is not anymore a joke according to this idea).

So in (2) with the addition of c reaching an infinite value, when one goes back into the past from t>0 down to the singularity, the light cone becomes flatter and flatter until it becomes a disc at t=0 (where time does not have a meaning anymore), flips inside out and the direction of the arrow of time is reversed at t<0. Consider the light cone as a Japanese umbrella blewing inside-out with a gust, the handle being the arrow of time. But you have to think of a handle becoming shorter and shorter when the cone of the umbrella becomes a disc, reaches a minimal value then pops out the umbrella on the other side when the cone has flipped over.

Time reversal would also occur with a speed of light becoming null by the way, as the angle at the apex of the light cone tends to zero and the cone becomes a straight line ultimately, the flow of time again becoming meaningless, frozen, at this very moment (umbrella completely closed onto its handle). Then the arrow fo time can bounce and flip the other way too. I imagine this at the end of times, when all matter has disappeared from the universe (due to the finite lifetime, although huge, of fermions) and the photon wavelengths stretched to infinity due to the infinite cosmic expansion; the flow of time, the universe itself, becoming frozen. Then the entropy, and the arrow of time, could reverse, and everything could start again. Phew… ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/16/2017 01:46 pm
Maybe he's talking about the existence (or not) of the hard event horizon?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/hawking-meant-black-holes/
Hawking is not saying that there are no black holes, but is instead arguing about the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox  and the "war" with Susskind... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Hole_War

Quote
Hawking et al. on 5 Jan 2016 proposed new theories of information moving in and out of a black hole. The 2016 work posits that the information is saved in "soft particles", low-energy versions of photons and other particles that exist in zero-energy empty space.

see:  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hawking-s-latest-black-hole-paper-splits-physicists/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/16/2017 02:28 pm
Maybe he's talking about the existence (or not) of the hard event horizon?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/hawking-meant-black-holes/
Hawking is not saying that there are no black holes, but is instead arguing about the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox  and the "war" with Susskind... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Hole_War

Quote
Hawking et al. on 5 Jan 2016 proposed new theories of information moving in and out of a black hole. The 2016 work posits that the information is saved in "soft particles", low-energy versions of photons and other particles that exist in zero-energy empty space.

see:  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hawking-s-latest-black-hole-paper-splits-physicists/

I know, it says that right there in the article. It's a question of just how black are they.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/16/2017 02:28 pm
...In (1) Sakharov disproved Hawking, who previously claimed (before they met in 1987) that maximal entropy alone would reverse the arrow of time. Sakharov showed him he was wrong, as entropy grows with the arrow of time (both are related) and the time arrow can reverse only if entropy reaches a minimal state, i.e. zero value. ...
This is interesting  :)  Thanks for pointing this out.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 09/16/2017 04:04 pm
I followed up with a slightly different approach in 2006, but Joe showed me this was actually the same Lagrangian as his.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304460849_General_Relativity_and_the_Polarizable_Vacuum (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304460849_General_Relativity_and_the_Polarizable_Vacuum)

I started reading your paper and got as far section 2.1 (so about one fourth of a page) before hitting the first hurdle. Equation (1) states that 1/K is a harmonic function. But why in 2.1 you only allow a family of linear functions as solutions? There are other harmonic functions...

At the time, (2002 - 2006) Ricc Storti and I were working on a harmonic representation, where K could be engineered or synthesized by a superposition of EM waves over a very wide frequency band, bombarding a test object. What we discovered through MathCAD analysis, mostly by Ricc, was that the majority of the energy had to be at EM frequencies > 1022Hz, and I showed him it would take GW of power in order to engineer any practical gravitational effects, so anything we could build in the lab was futile. That's where it was left off.

As far as I'm concerned now, ANY metric coefficients you can come up with using GR; i.e., solutions of Einstein's equations, has an analog Refractive index matrix (metric) in the sense of the PV Model. I treat the PV Model as nothing more than an alternative interpretation of GR, not a different theory. Any test of GR is also a test of the PV interpretation, but there is no test that can distinguish between them... (yet).


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Augmentor on 09/16/2017 04:20 pm
Sorry folks. I'm not seeing the EM drive in all this loose, just a hijacked topic.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/16/2017 04:39 pm
Sorry folks. I'm not seeing the EM drive in all this loose, just a hijacked topic.
Which can be easily addressed by you (or someone else) posting something on EM Drive - related to space flight applications.  Posting is the best way to bring the thread back on focus  :)

The above discussions are peripherally related to the subject as follows:  there have been posts conjecturing whether the EM Drive can be explained by gravitational waves, or by General Relativity or by super-Machian effects not present in General Relativity.

Many people are still wondering: how can something like the EM Drive accelerate the center of mass?

 The thread naturally gyrated to some fundamental issues, because these fundamental issues are not resolved -as excellently documented by flux_capacitor-
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/16/2017 05:21 pm
For those readers who are struggling how the Mach Principle works here is a quick video on youtube that's easy to understand.
Shell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPEwkMHRjZU
Thank you for the interesting video.  Please note:

1) There is nothing discussed in this video about Mach's principle that is not fully contained in Einstein's General Relativity.  So if Mach's principle makes one aware of something that is already present in Einstein's General Relativity, great!.  However, there is no "extra-Machian" effect discussed in the video that is not already present in Einstein's General Relativity.  Actually all cosmological measurements including Gravity Probe B, that have looked for extra-Machian effects (which were in fashion in the 1960's due to Brans-Dicke theory) have failed to find any Machian effect not present in Einstein's General Relativity

2) The discussion in the video deals with rotation effects: centrifugal-centripetal forces.  The MET (PZT stack) experiments feature no such rotation or spin effects and the theory does not analyze any such spin effects either.  Instead the MET experiments deal with longitudinal oscillations.

3) It is very difficult to discuss rotational forces in General Relativity for spinning rigid bodies.  Actually it is trivial to show that in General Relativity one cannot have anything rigid, as the length of a body in relativity is subject to Lorentzian transformations that are observer-dependent and certainly speed-dependent.  It is very problematic in General Relativity to discuss a center of mass for a rotating body.  It is this issue that has been recently discussed by an MIT professor to discuss "swimming in space"  https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/wisdom/swimming.pdf  . 

4) A typo in the captions to the video: where it reads "process" it should read "precess" (referring to the pendulum inside the rotating sphere) as in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession as in the precession of a gyroscope

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Gyroscope_precession.gif)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: guckyfan on 09/16/2017 05:27 pm
...In (1) Sakharov disproved Hawking, who previously claimed (before they met in 1987) that maximal entropy alone would reverse the arrow of time. Sakharov showed him he was wrong, as entropy grows with the arrow of time (both are related) and the time arrow can reverse only if entropy reaches a minimal state, i.e. zero value. ...
This is interesting  :)  Thanks for pointing this out.

I am by no means knowledgeable in this area. But I did read Hawkings "A brief history of time". He mentioned the reversal of the time arrow at the end of the book, but as speculation. He later noted that it is not correct.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/16/2017 05:45 pm
Credit for this goes to Mr. Frank Becker. He and I have exchanged a few emails about his methodology for simulating Unruh radiation. He claims it gives good, "near perfect" agreement with Mr. McCullouch's predictions. His comments regarding my current frustum design are below along with some graphs he shared.:

Actually your design is very much aligned already with the main essence of design strategy in respect to the quantised inertia theory.
Basically the forces which would be established at each side of the cavity (in your case) are not cancelling out much.
That is the main goal to achieve and your selected dimension are doing this quite well.
 
Please let me share with you some graphs to illustrate your advantageous design.
 
Please allow me firstly to introduce you the particular dE curves for your design (W/w/L = 0.299/0.178/0.24 & Q=8100(?) & P=25[W]):

Considering the quantised inertia theory each side of the cavity generates a different inertial mass on the bouncing photons.
The force (for each side) is established by the formula F=dE/dx (where dx is a function of the involved Rindler horizon, in this case either W or w).
The opposing cavity plate (towards photon acceleration direction) is damping the Unruh field in front of the (bouncing) photons.
Basically the allowed Unruh radiation (max. wavelength) in front of the photons is reduced by the insertion of the metal plate in front of the travelling path.
There is also a allowed Unruh wavelength behind the travelling photons, therefore we could see Unruh 2 baths (front & back) each repelled photon.
The Unruh radiation in front and at the backside of each bouncing photon has let us call it a different 1 dimensional energy density.
The dE would correspond to the difference in energy density in front and at the back side of each bouncing photon.
So forces would be established at each side of the cavity and by design the dE’s for each side should be as much different as possible.
 
Now in your case we see, this strategy is actually provided.
 
Looking now into the established forces, each side of the cavity will have a force “pushing” outwards of the cavity (opposite of travelling path).
We concluded  a pre-condition that those forces are “uneven” (as much different to provide a high net-force in one direction) is a high difference in dE’s.
 
Looking into the next graph, we see that in your case (by the selected dimension) this works out pretty fine:

You will notice checking the 2 graphs also, that the “operational points” are basically your ratios of “cavity length divided by cavity end plate size”.
 
The main contributor for your effect is the number of photon, basically your power input and the Q-factor (force multiplier).
Therefore you will (as planned) measure your anticipated boost in the effect (prediction).               
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/16/2017 06:30 pm
Sorry folks. I'm not seeing the EM drive in all this loose, just a hijacked topic.
Which can be easily addressed by you (or someone else) posting something on EM Drive - related to space flight applications.  Posting is the best way to bring the thread back on focus  :)

The above discussions are peripherally related to the subject as follows:  there have been posts conjecturing whether the EM Drive can be explained by gravitational waves, or by General Relativity or by super-Machian effects not present in General Relativity.

Many people are still wondering: how can something like the EM Drive accelerate the center of mass?

 The thread naturally gyrated to some fundamental issues, because these fundamental issues are not resolved -as excellently documented by flux_capacitor-

Yeah, in a weird way, I'm interested in all this black hole entropy stuff, and similar research I'm doing on the side, because I think I convinced myself the other day that an EMdrive must be allowed a way to have an exhaust, as in only a portion of the energy in the system can be converted to thrust, and the rest must be able to escape.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 09/16/2017 06:51 pm
Sorry folks. I'm not seeing the EM drive in all this loose, just a hijacked topic.
Which can be easily addressed by you (or someone else) posting something on EM Drive - related to space flight applications.  Posting is the best way to bring the thread back on focus  :)

The above discussions are peripherally related to the subject as follows:  there have been posts conjecturing whether the EM Drive can be explained by gravitational waves, or by General Relativity or by super-Machian effects not present in General Relativity.

Many people are still wondering: how can something like the EM Drive accelerate the center of mass?

 The thread naturally gyrated to some fundamental issues, because these fundamental issues are not resolved -as excellently documented by flux_capacitor-

Yeah, in a weird way, I'm interested in all this black hole entropy stuff, and similar research I'm doing on the side, because I think I convinced myself the other day that an EMdrive must be allowed a way to have an exhaust, as in only a portion of the energy in the system can be converted to thrust, and the rest must be able to escape.

I find it curious that Mike McCullough's theory has a strong bias towards conservation of information (or lack thereof) at "horizons" (those of the universe or those in a tin can) as an explanation for the Emdrive and other mysterious phenomena.

And that so much ink and bytes have been poured over the same topic concerning black holes. Seems to me like the kind of small missing detail or fracture in the mainstream theoretical edifice, that end up bringing it down, to be replaced by another one.

By the way, thanks Jamie for a very interesting update! This is what makes me come back for more again and again.

Keep up the good stuff y'all(and avoid unnecessary repetition).   :D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/16/2017 07:47 pm
...I find it curious that Mike McCullough's theory has a strong bias towards conservation of information (or lack thereof) at "horizons" (those of the universe or those in a tin can) as an explanation for the Emdrive and other mysterious phenomena.

And that so much ink and bytes have been poured over the same topic concerning black holes. Seems to me like the kind of small missing detail or fracture in the mainstream theoretical edifice, that end up bringing it down, to be replaced by another one. ...

 according to McCulloch's controversial theory, inertial mass is related to Unruh radiation

See the connection to Hawking radiation and black holes here, for example: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_effect

Quote
The Unruh temperature has the same form as the Hawking temperature of a black hole, which was derived (by Stephen Hawking) independently around the same time. It is, therefore, sometimes called the Hawking–Unruh temperature

Therefore if discussion of McCulloch' theory for the EM Drive is on topic for this thread, so it is reasonably arguable that discussion of Hawking's radiation and black holes is peripherally on topic as well.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mezzenile on 09/16/2017 10:20 pm
You may hold your own individual opinions on this and many other things, but regardless of your opinions, there is an objective reality out there: the existence of black holes is widely accepted by mainstream science, because cosmological observations accurately agrees with mathematical predictions.  Furthermore,  the first observation of gravitational waves, on 11 February 2016; is widely understood by mainstream science to be due to waves generated from the merger of binary black holes.  The measurements are in excellent agreement with General Relativity's model for the waves that will originate from the merger of a binary black hole...
I have absolutely no problem to accept all the physical phenomenas you have listed (gravitational waves ...) . They most find a theoretical justification in the frame of General Relativity. I just want to pin point the fact that what you call Black Hole in these phenomenas cannot be, according General Relativity itself, a place where the matter for its mass is hiden behind a no possible return frontier. Actually General Relativity equations predict that it would take an infinite time (according any fixed outside observer) to see a first atom crossing this one way frontier. All these phenomenas can be properly analysed as resulting from the properties of massive accretion disks free falling towards an horizon at a speed more and more close to the speed of light but with no chance to reach it before an infinite amount of time.

I dont really know why some mainstream physicists want to present contemporary black holes with all their mass already behind their one way frontier. May be they think it is easier for the great public to understand it this way or it makes some computations easier or it is more sexy  ;) :). But it is clearly an abuse which plays at odds with what should be the language of the simple mathematical thruth.

And I am quite sure that the mathematician Von Neumann would agree with me as I know does Mr Jean-Pierre Luminet (astrophysicist - Specialist of General Relativity and of the overalll shape of the universe).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 09/16/2017 10:31 pm
The evidence for the existence of Black Holes is nearly iron-clad. The Black Hole Information Paradox truly means we have an inadequate understanding of Gravitation and/or Quantum Information Theory.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/16/2017 10:52 pm

I have absolutely no problem to accept all the physical phenomenas you have listed (gravitational waves ...) . They most find a theoretical justification in the frame of General Relativity. I just want to pin point the fact that what you call Black Hole in these phenomenas cannot be...
Some of the popular science descriptions of black holes are bad.

One not very fortunate description is of black holes as "giant vacuum cleaners in space"

(http://images.slideplayer.com/26/8795115/slides/slide_1.jpg)

(http://slideplayer.com/8524541/26/images/2/Myth+or+Reality+Black+holes+are+giant%2C+cosmic+vacuum+cleaners+that+swallow+up+everything+around+them..jpg)

(http://slideplayer.com/8524541/26/images/3/Myth.jpg)



A good model/description:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMJB0tSBI08
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/17/2017 01:51 am
This is cool. Look at equation 5.

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View/6775
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 09/17/2017 02:00 am
This is cool. Look at equation 5.

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View/6775

Kind of a poor fit on a few of those data points, no?  ???
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/17/2017 02:02 am
This is cool. Look at equation 5.

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View/6775

Kind of a poor fit on a few of those data points, no?  ???

True.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/17/2017 02:40 am
Just had an idea for an experiment. It's a Cavendish experiment. It consists of two masses off the balance, and two identical EMdrives, one on each end of the balance. It's not necessarily a thrust experiment. It's to see if G is any different and whether or not it's dependent on orientation of the drives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyLYbvZIYoU

Actually there's no reason to have the drives on the balance. The static masses can be on the balance and the drives off balance. That'll make things easier. I know from experience that it's very scary and a nightmare to balance all that gear on an extruded aluminum screed hanging from fishing line.

Edit: And I really only need just one drive, instead of two.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Propylox on 09/17/2017 04:30 am
How can this (emphasis mine):
According to current theories, gravity is instantaneous - if the Sun blinked out of existence we'd fly off our orbit immediately while light continued shining for ~8min.
be compatible with:
But a sudden change in localized mass, and the distortion of spacetime it creates, would propagate at a defined rate.
as the (almost) circular motion of planets around the Sun is due to spacetime being bent by the presence of our star? In this thought experiment, if spacetime is still deformed locally around the Earth for several minutes after the disparition of the Sun, why would the Earth "immediately fly off its orbit" despite the gravitational potential making its motion circular has not gone yet?

I'll start with the second, "the sudden change in localized mass". If a mass is headed your way the distortion in spacetime propagates at its defined closure rate. If two masses orbit each other, the observed spacetime distortion is defined by their orbiting rate.
The center of spacetime distortions are at the instantaneous center of mass, not trailing that center with moving or orbiting bodies. The effects of spacetime distortion does not trail movement due to c, nor are moving bodies' velocity constantly retarded by a center of mass preceding their own center of spacetime distortion.

If the distortion in spacetime due to matter was limited to c, and not instantaneous, all moving masses in the Universe would eventually drag to a halt, all orbits would degrade and orbital capture would be impossible, including coalescing matter into larger masses. As such, if matter was to hypothetically blink into or out of existence (as the Sun in my analogy), the spacetime distortion of that matter would appear or disappear just as instantaneously.
Einstein considered anything faster than his speed limit of c as unacceptable. But regardless, the effects of "gravity" and the observation of "gravity waves" remains instantaneous - which is to say we can observe the orbits of binary stars or blackholes on the other side of the Universe in real time via "gravitational waves".

Considering the many and occasionally contradictory views and theories of "gravity" - does it or its fundamental particle really exist, or is it just an observation of mass and its fundamental particle? - could you two elaborate on your posts listed below?
In GR gravitational effects only propagate at the speed of light. This was one of the original reasons it was obvious that a new theory of gravity (GR) was needed after special relativity was developed.
That's why I thought, thanks. Maybe Propylox mistaken the propagation speed of gravitational waves and "spacetime distortion ripples" limited to c vs inertial reaction forces, which are instantaneous (a difference Dr Woodward insists on).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 09/17/2017 06:11 am
How can this (emphasis mine):
According to current theories, gravity is instantaneous - if the Sun blinked out of existence we'd fly off our orbit immediately while light continued shining for ~8min.
be compatible with:
But a sudden change in localized mass, and the distortion of spacetime it creates, would propagate at a defined rate.
as the (almost) circular motion of planets around the Sun is due to spacetime being bent by the presence of our star? In this thought experiment, if spacetime is still deformed locally around the Earth for several minutes after the disparition of the Sun, why would the Earth "immediately fly off its orbit" despite the gravitational potential making its motion circular has not gone yet?

I'll start with the second, "the sudden change in localized mass". If a mass is headed your way the distortion in spacetime propagates at its defined closure rate. If two masses orbit each other, the observed spacetime distortion is defined by their orbiting rate.
The center of spacetime distortions are at the instantaneous center of mass, not trailing that center with moving or orbiting bodies. The effects of spacetime distortion does not trail movement due to c, nor are moving bodies' velocity constantly retarded by a center of mass preceding their own center of spacetime distortion.

If the distortion in spacetime due to matter was limited to c, and not instantaneous, all moving masses in the Universe would eventually drag to a halt, all orbits would degrade and orbital capture would be impossible, including coalescing matter into larger masses. As such, if matter was to hypothetically blink into or out of existence (as the Sun in my analogy), the spacetime distortion of that matter would appear or disappear just as instantaneously.
Einstein considered anything faster than his speed limit of c as unacceptable. But regardless, the effects of "gravity" and the observation of "gravity waves" remains instantaneous - which is to say we can observe the orbits of binary stars or blackholes on the other side of the Universe in real time via "gravitational waves".

Considering the many and occasionally contradictory views and theories of "gravity" - does it or its fundamental particle really exist, or is it just an observation of mass and its fundamental particle? - could you two elaborate on your posts listed below?
In GR gravitational effects only propagate at the speed of light. This was one of the original reasons it was obvious that a new theory of gravity (GR) was needed after special relativity was developed.
That's why I thought, thanks. Maybe Propylox mistaken the propagation speed of gravitational waves and "spacetime distortion ripples" limited to c vs inertial reaction forces, which are instantaneous (a difference Dr Woodward insists on).

The affect of gravitation between two massive objects propagates at the speed of light. It is not instantaneous. The earth and sun are attracted toward one another based on their time of light delayed positions.

This is not obviously apparent when dealing with slow moving orbital systems because the classical velocities are small relative to the speed of light propagation time and generally one assumes one of the massive objects as the frame of reference for comparison.

We do not observe gravity waves from the other side of the universe in real time. We don't even observe the sun in real time. Or the position of planets in the night sky. We are always looking into the past. How far depends on the time of light delay.., just how far away in light minutes or years we are looking.

Newton imagined gravity as acting instantaneously. The problems that led to as our ability to observe solar mechanics in greater detail is one of the reasons that lead Einstein to develope the theories of special and general relatively.

From the perspective of a Machian model, inertia is local instantaneous resistance to acceleration, based on a time of light delay in the influence that the distributed mass of the universe has in this instant locally.... being redundant about it... Inertia is an instantaneous reaction to the time of light delayed affect that mass throughout the universe has locally, right now.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/17/2017 07:41 am
If the distortion in spacetime due to matter was limited to c, and not instantaneous, all moving masses in the Universe would eventually drag to a halt, all orbits would degrade and orbital capture would be impossible, including coalescing matter into larger masses. As such, if matter was to hypothetically blink into or out of existence (as the Sun in my analogy), the spacetime distortion of that matter would appear or disappear just as instantaneously.
This is simply untrue see here (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/263191/can-two-heavy-objects-circling-around-each-other-be-separated-because-the-speed/263244#263244) for an explanation. In short, gravitational fields depend on the motion of the mass, and it does so in a way that may happen to point to the current position of the mass, but this is an illusion and based only upon the state of the mass at a previous time. An acceleration, or magic disappearance, would only have the new state of the mass updated at the speed of light.

Einstein considered anything faster than his speed limit of c as unacceptable. But regardless, the effects of "gravity" and the observation of "gravity waves" remains instantaneous - which is to say we can observe the orbits of binary stars or blackholes on the other side of the Universe in real time via "gravitational waves".
Completely untrue, and it seems as if you are trying to claim that you are smarter than Einstein. It is not just Einstein, but everyone physicist who understands relativity realizes that any kind of information including gravity travelling faster than light results in time travel paradoxes.

Considering the many and occasionally contradictory views and theories of "gravity" - does it or its fundamental particle really exist, or is it just an observation of mass and its fundamental particle? - could you two elaborate on your posts listed below?
In GR gravitational effects only propagate at the speed of light. This was one of the original reasons it was obvious that a new theory of gravity (GR) was needed after special relativity was developed.
That's why I thought, thanks. Maybe Propylox mistaken the propagation speed of gravitational waves and "spacetime distortion ripples" limited to c vs inertial reaction forces, which are instantaneous (a difference Dr Woodward insists on).
What do you mean by "many theories of gravity"? There is one theory of gravity known as general relativity, which has been quite thoroughly tested. The only different theories that are taken seriously are just attempts that have not been verified by experiment. As a basic condition of these theories, they have to match all of the tested predictions of general relativity. The only differences arise in the realm that merges quantum and gravity, things like hawking radiation from a black hole, or other super high energy physics that we have no experimental data on.

Edit: removed reference to "only quantum gravity" since Rodal pointed out other theories exist like Brans-Dicke's gravitation that allows variable G, but has been highly constrained by experiment.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/17/2017 12:15 pm
Last I checked, in 2017, it's been ironed out already that gravity does not violate causality. Different story ~300 years ago. We want to progress, not regress.

Here's proof. The delay time between the two sites.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/02/gravitational-waves-einsteins-ripples-spacetime-spotted-first-time

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39297.msg1490624#msg1490624
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/17/2017 01:00 pm
This very old idea, that G is a constant, also needs to be challenged.

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=65063
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/17/2017 02:15 pm
This very old idea, that G is a constant, also needs to be challenged.

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=65063
This very old idea, that G may be a variable with respect to time, has been tested and refuted for several decades.  The time variation of G has been tested particularly motivated by Brans-Dicke's theory of gravitation in the 1960's that allowed such a variation (in contrast with Einstein's theory, where G is a constant).  However astonomical observations have bounded the rate of change of G to very tight bounds.  One such powerful bound is based on observations of the variable white dwarf G117-B15A, a ZZ Ceti pulsator in the constellation Leo Minor that has been studied with astroseismological techniques for several decades.  This white dwarf is one of the most stable optical clocks ever found (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_117-B15A) .  Biesiada and Malec (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2004MNRAS.350..644B) recently derived the bound (based on these observations) of (dG/dt)/G < 1.3x10-17 1/s. 

Yes, that is 1 part in 10 to the 17 power, an order of magnitude less than a quintillion ("Exa") or 100 quadrillions ("Peta") s.

Four decades ago, Shapiro's team at MIT had given the same upper limit on this bound. (https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.789)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 09/17/2017 03:17 pm
Dr. Rodal,

Thanks for your comments, always love them. Yes, you're quite correct a few things were missed in this video, although a critical point was made how mass is all connected in the universe. Some readers of this blog are not as gifted as you are with the depth of knowalage you or others here possess.

The point was even if the Mach or MEGA drive is totally enclosed in a box (or a skating rink :) ) it will still show acceleration if done correctly and not violate CoM or CoE.

Quote
If we produce a fluctuating mass in an object, we can, at least in principle, use it to produce a stationary force on the object, thereby producing a propulsive force thereon without having to expel propellant from the object. We simply push on the object when it is more massive, and pull back when it is less massive. The reaction forces during the two parts of the cycle will not be the same due to the mass fluctuation, so a time-averaged net force will be produced. This may seem to be a violation of momentum conservation. But the Lorentz invariance of the theory guarantees that no conservation law is broken. (*added bold) Local momentum conservation is preserved by the flux of momentum in the gravity field that is chiefly exchanged with the distant matter in the universe.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Macheffect.png)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodward_effect

I've been saying since posting here the EMDrive (or variants of it) has to interact with gravity, the QV or generate particles that penetrate the cavity walls to obey the Conservation laws. That hasn't changed and it's one reason I've not been a huge supporter of Shawyer's theory, as he doesn't.

My Very Best,
Shell

For those readers who are struggling how the Mach Principle works here is a quick video on youtube that's easy to understand.
Shell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPEwkMHRjZU
Thank you for the interesting video.  Please note:

1) There is nothing discussed in this video about Mach's principle that is not fully contained in Einstein's General Relativity.  So if Mach's principle makes one aware of something that is already present in Einstein's General Relativity, great!.  However, there is no "extra-Machian" effect discussed in the video that is not already present in Einstein's General Relativity.  Actually all cosmological measurements including Gravity Probe B, that have looked for extra-Machian effects (which were in fashion in the 1960's due to Brans-Dicke theory) have failed to find any Machian effect not present in Einstein's General Relativity

2) The discussion in the video deals with rotation effects: centrifugal-centripetal forces.  The MET (PZT stack) experiments feature no such rotation or spin effects and the theory does not analyze any such spin effects either.  Instead the MET experiments deal with longitudinal oscillations.

3) It is very difficult to discuss rotational forces in General Relativity for spinning rigid bodies.  Actually it is trivial to show that in General Relativity one cannot have anything rigid, as the length of a body in relativity is subject to Lorentzian transformations that are observer-dependent and certainly speed-dependent.  It is very problematic in General Relativity to discuss a center of mass for a rotating body.  It is this issue that has been recently discussed by an MIT professor to discuss "swimming in space"  https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/wisdom/swimming.pdf  . 

4) A typo in the captions to the video: where it reads "process" it should read "precess" (referring to the pendulum inside the rotating sphere) as in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession as in the precession of a gyroscope

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Gyroscope_precession.gif)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/17/2017 04:39 pm
This picture as drawn in the Wikipedia article violates conservation of momentum, will not get the center of mass to accelerate according to what is just shown on this picture.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Macheffect.png)

Many things in the article in Wikipedia are incorrect.

Will not elaborate further since this is not the appropriate place :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/17/2017 04:54 pm
This picture as drawn in the Wikipedia article violates conservation of momentum, will not get the center of mass to accelerate according to what is just shown on this picture.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Macheffect.png)

Many things in the article in Wikipedia are incorrect.

Will not elaborate further since this is not the appropriate place :)

Please elaborate further. They work the same way anyway. The drawing is missing the damping element of the design.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/17/2017 05:27 pm
Sorry folks. I'm not seeing the EM drive in all this loose, just a hijacked topic.
Which can be easily addressed by you (or someone else) posting something on EM Drive - related to space flight applications.  Posting is the best way to bring the thread back on focus  :)

The above discussions are peripherally related to the subject as follows:  there have been posts conjecturing whether the EM Drive can be explained by gravitational waves, or by General Relativity or by super-Machian effects not present in General Relativity.

Many people are still wondering: how can something like the EM Drive accelerate the center of mass?

 The thread naturally gyrated to some fundamental issues, because these fundamental issues are not resolved -as excellently documented by flux_capacitor-

Yeah, in a weird way, I'm interested in all this black hole entropy stuff, and similar research I'm doing on the side, because I think I convinced myself the other day that an EMdrive must be allowed a way to have an exhaust, as in only a portion of the energy in the system can be converted to thrust, and the rest must be able to escape.

If the force on the EmDrive can be considered external and long range,  the overall momentum is balanced elsewhere in the universe and you wouldn't see it locally. You really wouldn't care since the local system is under an external force and local momentum is not conserved but universally it is. I think it's important to consider that until they are fully understood, the EmDrive or the Mach effect thrusters may be either a local effect or in effect an external force.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/17/2017 05:37 pm
This picture as drawn in the Wikipedia article violates conservation of momentum, will not get the center of mass to accelerate according to what is just shown on this picture.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Macheffect.png)

Many things in the article in Wikipedia are incorrect.

Will not elaborate further since this is not the appropriate place :)

Please elaborate then in the Woodward effect thread. Is it necessity of acceleration that's missing? Thanks. The picture implies just interchanging the masses would work. That's basically a Dean Drive.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/17/2017 05:37 pm
1) Any matter creates a distortion in spacetime. If that matter was traveling near c, but its distortion could only travel at c there would be a bow wave and wake of spacetime distortion. (note: some warpdrive theories try to turn this around to push spacecraft) The moving matter would essentially be constantly climbing out of its own "gravity well", which would require constant acceleration to maintain velocity. As no acceleration is present, all moving objects would be subject to their own distortion drag and come to a halt like a ship without power.
One of the most basic principles of relativity is that all inertial reference frames are equivalent. This means that while one observer will see that matter as travelling near c, another would see it stationary, and another would see it travelling near c in a different direction. They all have to see the same result, so it does not makes sense for there to be drag in the direction of motion, because it can't be agreed upon what direction it is moving. The gravitational field of a moving object is related to its velocity, so no energy draining bow shock is required unless acceleration is involved.

2) This would also be true of rotating bodies. The outer matter of a planet would be subject to its own drag more than the inner matter, slowing rotation and inducing mechanical stress. Similarly, planets in orbit would slow from their own drag if the spacetime distortion was any velocity other than instantaneous.
There is in fact drag in orbital systems (due to the acceleration involved producing gravity waves, as I said before there is not drag due to constant velocity). Section III of this (http://www.tapir.caltech.edu/~chirata/ph236/2011-12/lec15.pdf)calculates the inspiral due to gravitational waves, which is mostly significant for things like binary star systems, and has been observed. (http://ciera.northwestern.edu/AspenW04/Papers/weisberg.pdf)

There are also frame dragging effects by rotating bodies predicted by GR and measured by experiments like Gravity Probe B.

2) This would 3) In three-body problems, like the Sun-Earth-Moon, each time the moon was in front of the earth's direction it's spacetime distortion would be closer to the earth's center of mass as the moon would be orbitting the trailing distortion of the earth.
Did you not read the link I put in my last post? The gravitational field of a moving body is such that the orbit is not around the retarded position of the object. Accelerations present in the system such as due to orbiting the sun do have some effects.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/17/2017 06:05 pm
...
2) This would 3) In three-body problems, like the Sun-Earth-Moon, each time the moon was in front of the earth's direction it's spacetime distortion would be closer to the earth's center of mass as the moon would be orbitting the trailing distortion of the earth.
Did you not read the link I put in my last post? The gravitational field of a moving body is such that the orbit is not around the retarded position of the object. Accelerations present in the system such as due to orbiting the sun do have some effects.
Thank you for the excellent link to Laplace's mistake. 

As a different topic dealing with time delays a very interesting effect found in gravitational waves are hereditary terms dependent on the full past history of the source.  The effect is really one of fading memory  predominantly sensitive to the recent past evolution of the system and only negligibly dependent on its very remote past history.  Although quite small (4PN) in absolute magnitude, is rather large relative to the usual damping force radiation.

https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.37.1410
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/17/2017 09:26 pm
I think I've got the concept nailed down but there's a HUGE problem. If this is gravitational in nature, as has been pointed out by Rodal, and I fully agree with him, the effect is too weak to be predicted by conventional theory. Spacetime is very stiff, orders of magnitude stiffer than any material substance, like a steel beam. Either the EMdrive is really doing something that is stronger than it should be or there's a problem with the coupling coefficient. I propose the following thought experiment, spoken in colloquial terms.

A length of spacetime, as in a finite length of flat space, say from point a to point b, must have a natural resonant frequency. It's stiff and supports the propagation of waves, so it must. I'll treat it as if it is an extremely stiff rod of length l.

So you guys have all seen the bowling ball on a rubber sheet analogy. It's not accurate but does a good job of communicating the general concept of bending of space and time intuitively.

Well I'm going to give it to you again, differently. Those of you who have jumped on a trampoline will know what I'm talking about. So standing still in the center of a trampoline is analogous to the rubber sheet visualization we all love (or not). Standing there, you bend the surface down maybe a few inches, it depends on how stiff the trampoline is and your mass. But get jumping at just the right frequency and you can make the trampoline bend almost to the ground. Get two people on there and you time it just right and one person can get a super bounce while the other person falls flat (that will take your legs out if you're not ready for it).

The physical realization of such a resonant motion in spacetime would be the induction of a gravitational field by the alternating increase and decrease of gravitomagnetic flux, on the left side is an oscillating g. We know how weak this is, very very weak, but it isn't zero. The most important factor is doing so is finding the correct period of oscillation. You have to do this in two (TE012) or more (like TE013) different, but causally connected places, with the addition of a deliberate method of dissipation at one end that is greater with respect to the other end. We don't want a standing oscillation. The goal is to create a partial standing wave in spacetime itself. What's happening in the cavity is mirrored in spacetime.

I ask myself, if I have a stiff unyielding medium, how do I get it to bend? Do I use brute force? That's one way. Do I have access to enough energy to wield such a monumental brute force? Like as much as a planet? No. A better way is to hit it, over and over again, with attainable amounts of energy, and at the right frequency, so that it is forced to yield by its own harmonic motion.

A little humor here. How do I get an 800 pound gorilla to have fun on a swing set? I can hardly push em! I push him only slightly, only slightly, and I time it just right. That'll get him going. A fun day at the park.

Explore the dependence of d phi/dt @28:56.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wokn7crjBbA
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Propylox on 09/17/2017 10:20 pm
-snip- No, I'm saying no new science or violation of existing science is needed to describe the observations. There's plenty of theories about what's happening, but my money's on it being an exceedingly inefficient electron gun.
-snip- There are plenty of ways for the result through now to be explained by experimental errors, however I do not see how it could be functioning as an electron gun.
Well, there's a sure fire way to check.
With the intense electromagnetic fields being created, I doubt a Faraday cup could distinguish slight electron expulsion (note; I didn't say "emission" as the local field created once the cavity becomes harmonic is considerably stronger than that required for emission) from all the other equipment's emissions. Time to bust out the phosphor screen and see if anything hits it, or strikes that theory.

Einstein considered anything faster than his speed limit of c as unacceptable. But regardless, the effects of "gravity" and the observation of "gravity waves" remains instantaneous ...
Completely untrue, and it seems as if you are trying to claim that you are smarter than Einstein. It is not just Einstein, but everyone physicist who understands relativity realizes that any kind of information including gravity travelling faster than light results in time travel paradoxes.
Nope, just pointing out mistakes happen. Einstein set a speed limit of c and refuted the notion of anything exceeding it, perhaps because he didn't consider pure energy cannot exist in the Universe without a mass-carrier and the smallest mass(less object?) he knew was a photon. Though particle-wave duality, or energy confined to time vs creating a ripple in it, should have clued him in.
Years later when presented with quantum entanglement - instantaneous action at distance as energy interacts with mass - Einstein did not refute it or explain how his speed limit didn't apply, but called it "spooky" (as I previously mentioned, "magic, etherial or ghostly" describe one's ignorance of science)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.LeBel on 09/18/2017 12:53 am
...In (1) Sakharov disproved Hawking, who previously claimed (before they met in 1987) that maximal entropy alone would reverse the arrow of time. Sakharov showed him he was wrong, as entropy grows with the arrow of time (both are related) and the time arrow can reverse only if entropy reaches a minimal state, i.e. zero value. ...
This is interesting  :)  Thanks for pointing this out.

While on the subject of gravity and entropy ...

Well, gravity and entropy are the same. Time runs slower as we get closer to the ground, yes? And an object moves spontaneously (fall) toward the ground, right? We could say that slower time pulls the object down ... ??

There is another way to approach this. The speed of light is constant everywhere, any frame of reference. As we get closer to the ground, the speed of light must remain constant. Let’s see. As time slows down  the units seconds must be relatively longer. So, “space” must also get longer in order for the ratio meter/second to be constant. In other words, an object falling toward the ground is actually falling into larger space. Reminds you of something? Entropy is the spontaneous dispersal into a larger volume. And, because of the constancy of c, we can say as well “dispersion in time”.

Is this wrong, and why?

Marcel,
 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 09/18/2017 02:12 am
For those readers who are struggling how the Mach Principle works here is a quick video on youtube that's easy to understand.
Shell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPEwkMHRjZU
Thank you for the interesting video.  Please note:

1) There is nothing discussed in this video about Mach's principle that is not fully contained in Einstein's General Relativity.  So if Mach's principle makes one aware of something that is already present in Einstein's General Relativity, great!.  However, there is no "extra-Machian" effect discussed in the video that is not already present in Einstein's General Relativity.

(...)


Nothing except that mass resists acceleration instantly. GR assumes that mass resists acceleration because it is mass, which is a circular argument based on faith. This could be wrong, if no other explanation for emdrive thrust is found, while it continues to be verified, then GR is an incomplete description of mechanics.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 09/18/2017 02:19 am
...In (1) Sakharov disproved Hawking, who previously claimed (before they met in 1987) that maximal entropy alone would reverse the arrow of time. Sakharov showed him he was wrong, as entropy grows with the arrow of time (both are related) and the time arrow can reverse only if entropy reaches a minimal state, i.e. zero value. ...
This is interesting  :)  Thanks for pointing this out.

While on the subject of gravity and entropy ...

Well, gravity and entropy are the same. Time runs slower as we get closer to the ground, yes? And an object moves spontaneously (fall) toward the ground, right? We could say that slower time pulls the object down ... ??

There is another way to approach this. The speed of light is constant everywhere, any frame of reference. As we get closer to the ground, the speed of light must remain constant. Let’s see. As time slows down  the units seconds must be relatively longer. So, “space” must also get longer in order for the ratio meter/second to be constant. In other words, an object falling toward the ground is actually falling into larger space. Reminds you of something? Entropy is the spontaneous dispersal into a larger volume. And, because of the constancy of c, we can say as well “dispersion in time”.

Is this wrong, and why?

Marcel,

Marcel,
please expand on this argument if you have time. I love that you think on how time dilation induces acceleration, it is a subject that warrants further consideration.
John..
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 09/18/2017 04:25 am
...In (1) Sakharov disproved Hawking, who previously claimed (before they met in 1987) that maximal entropy alone would reverse the arrow of time. Sakharov showed him he was wrong, as entropy grows with the arrow of time (both are related) and the time arrow can reverse only if entropy reaches a minimal state, i.e. zero value. ...
This is interesting  :)  Thanks for pointing this out.

While on the subject of gravity and entropy ...

Well, gravity and entropy are the same. Time runs slower as we get closer to the ground, yes? And an object moves spontaneously (fall) toward the ground, right? We could say that slower time pulls the object down ... ??

There is another way to approach this. The speed of light is constant everywhere, any frame of reference. As we get closer to the ground, the speed of light must remain constant. Let’s see. As time slows down  the units seconds must be relatively longer. So, “space” must also get longer in order for the ratio meter/second to be constant. In other words, an object falling toward the ground is actually falling into larger space. Reminds you of something? Entropy is the spontaneous dispersal into a larger volume. And, because of the constancy of c, we can say as well “dispersion in time”.

Is this wrong, and why?

Marcel,

It is the contracted ruler that makes it appear space has stretched.
It is the slow clock that results in time dilation.
Quantum mechanically, both effects can arise from radiative damping due to stimulated emissions, which affect the length of the ruler and the rate of the clock.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/18/2017 11:36 am
This looks awfully familiar.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/225264/conservation-of-linear-momentum-and-velocity-of-a-system-damper-and-spring-in-a

I guess it pays to do your homework instead of having a knee-jerk reaction and immediately declaring something is impossible.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/18/2017 12:01 pm
...

Nothing except that mass resists acceleration instantly. GR assumes that mass resists acceleration because it is mass, which is a circular argument based on faith. This could be wrong, if no other explanation for emdrive thrust is found, while it continues to be verified, then GR is an incomplete description of mechanics.
Not a precise statement of Einstein's assumption.   Instead Einstein assumed the equivalence principle. 

                "we [...] assume the complete physical equivalence of a gravitational field and a corresponding
                acceleration of the reference system."

(https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj8mYPN2a3WAhVs74MKHbaBARkQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fslideplayer.com%2Fslide%2F6259759%2F&psig=AFQjCNHYvIg1Q6GoOsGzCqtO4337g_49Dw&ust=1505788544600731)

Not a circular argument.

Please let us know what experiments do you know of that have found a difference between gravitational mass and inertial mass.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/29/18/180301/meta

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle#Tests_of_the_weak_equivalence_principle

Please let us know what experiments you know of that have revealed a Machian effect not present in Einstein's General Relativity.

You also state:  "mass resists acceleration instantly"  please let us know what experiments do you know of that prove that mass resists acceleration instantly (superluminally : much faster than the speed of light) while gravitation travels at the speed of light (not instantly)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Gilbertdrive on 09/18/2017 12:52 pm
...

Nothing except that mass resists acceleration instantly. GR assumes that mass resists acceleration because it is mass, which is a circular argument based on faith. This could be wrong, if no other explanation for emdrive thrust is found, while it continues to be verified, then GR is an incomplete description of mechanics.
Not a precise statement of Einstein's assumption.   Instead Einstein assumed the equivalence principle. 

                "we [...] assume the complete physical equivalence of a gravitational field and a corresponding
                acceleration of the reference system."

(https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj8mYPN2a3WAhVs74MKHbaBARkQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fslideplayer.com%2Fslide%2F6259759%2F&psig=AFQjCNHYvIg1Q6GoOsGzCqtO4337g_49Dw&ust=1505788544600731)

Not a circular argument.

Please let us know what experiments do you know of that have found a difference between gravitational mass and inertial mass.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/29/18/180301/meta

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle#Tests_of_the_weak_equivalence_principle

Please let us know of what experiment you know of that has revealed a Machian effect not present in Einstein's General Relativity.

You also state:  "mass resists acceleration instantly"  please let us know what experiments do you know of that prove that mass resists acceleration instantly (superluminally : much faster than the speed of light) while gravitation travels at the speed of light (not instantly)

If I understand correctly, it is not about the propagation of something, but about a local property, without any notion of distance involved.

What I am not sure to understand is what “resisting to acceleration” means. Maybe spupeng7 meant something like “Inertia law locally applies instantly to any modification due to a force of the trajectory of any material object ”

Spupeng7, please, can you give an explanation of what you meant exactly ? I am not sure of my understanding.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: wavelet on 09/18/2017 01:27 pm
Following a previous author search I found this paper the shows why gravitational mass and inertial mass have the same value for a given object or particle.
One is a gravitoelectric effect and the other is a gravitomagnetic effect in the presence of a model that includes coupled mass currents in a higher dimensional space or multiverse. Truly convoluted indeed, who knows? 

http://www.chronos.msu.ru/old/EREPORTS/fontana_gravitation.pdf



...

Nothing except that mass resists acceleration instantly. GR assumes that mass resists acceleration because it is mass, which is a circular argument based on faith. This could be wrong, if no other explanation for emdrive thrust is found, while it continues to be verified, then GR is an incomplete description of mechanics.
Not a precise statement of Einstein's assumption.   Instead Einstein assumed the equivalence principle. 

                "we [...] assume the complete physical equivalence of a gravitational field and a corresponding
                acceleration of the reference system."

(https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj8mYPN2a3WAhVs74MKHbaBARkQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fslideplayer.com%2Fslide%2F6259759%2F&psig=AFQjCNHYvIg1Q6GoOsGzCqtO4337g_49Dw&ust=1505788544600731)

Not a circular argument.

Please let us know what experiments do you know of that have found a difference between gravitational mass and inertial mass.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/29/18/180301/meta

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle#Tests_of_the_weak_equivalence_principle

Please let us know of what experiment you know of that has revealed a Machian effect not present in Einstein's General Relativity.

You also state:  "mass resists acceleration instantly"  please let us know what experiments do you know of that prove that mass resists acceleration instantly (superluminally : much faster than the speed of light) while gravitation travels at the speed of light (not instantly)

If I understand correctly, it is not about the propagation of something, but about a local property, without any notion of distance involved.

What I am not sure to understand is what “resisting to acceleration” means. Maybe spupeng7 meant something like “Inertia law locally applies instantly to any modification due to a force of the trajectory of any material object ”

Spupeng7, please, can you give an explanation of what you meant exactly ? I am not sure of my understanding.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 09/18/2017 02:40 pm
....

You also state:  "mass resists acceleration instantly"  please let us know what experiments do you know of that prove that mass resists acceleration instantly (superluminally : much faster than the speed of light) while gravitation travels at the speed of light (not instantly)

Stop for a moment. Think about what you are saying above.

The inertial restistance of mass to acceleration is not a property that propagates, even while it involves a change in the velocity of mass. In a sense it is a static reaction (that sounds messed up but...).

Show any experiment or even classical observation where there is any delay in an object's inertial resistance to a change in velocity. Since inertia appears from all experience to occur over infinitely small distances, even an instantaneous inertial resistance to acceleration, has nothing to do with velocities classical or superluminal.

Changes in velocity are restricted to speed of light limitations (theoretically), and realistic classical velocities as a matter of observation and experience.., but inertia exists with or without a change in velocity and thus exist without delay. An object's resistance to acceleration is instantaneous. If it were not, super luminal velocities would be possible over some undefined duration.., the instant before a light time delay....

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/18/2017 02:47 pm
...
If I understand correctly, it is not about the propagation of something, but about a local property, without any notion of distance involved.

What I am not sure to understand is what “resisting to acceleration” means. Maybe spupeng7 meant something like “Inertia law locally applies instantly to any modification due to a force of the trajectory of any material object ”

Spupeng7, please, can you give an explanation of what you meant exactly ? I am not sure of my understanding.
...
Thank you for the interesting video.  Please note:

1) There is nothing discussed in this video about Mach's principle that is not fully contained in Einstein's General Relativity.  So if Mach's principle makes one aware of something that is already present in Einstein's General Relativity, great!.  However, there is no "extra-Machian" effect discussed in the video that is not already present in Einstein's General Relativity.

(...)


Nothing except that mass resists acceleration instantly. ...


His post was in reference to the video on Mach's principle posted by SeeShell.

The word "instant" or "instantaneous" does not appear once in:

Brans (of Brans-Dicke fame) recent Expert Opinion article on "What is Mach's principle?" in Annalen der Physik http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/andp.201100706/pdf

Wikipedia's article on Mach's principle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle

and most importantly, the vague book of Mach himself:
E. Mach "The Science of Mechanics" OpenCourt, translated by McCormack
https://www.amazon.com/Science-Mechanics-Critical-Historical-Development/dp/0875482023/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1505746398&sr=8-2&keywords=Ernst+Mach++Mechanics
where in p. 267 where Mach himself discusses what is now known as his principle

...

Stop for a moment. Think about what you are saying above.

The inertial restistance of mass to acceleration is not a property that propagates, even while it involves a change in the velocity of mass....

Stop for a moment.  Think about what you are discussing: posts about Mach's Principle that state that inertia is due to "the distant stars".  I asked what was discussed in this video about Mach's principle that is not fully contained in Einstein's General Relativity, and this was answered by "Nothing except that mass resists acceleration instantly."

Then explain:

1) how do the "distant stars" in Mach's principle "resist [locally, here] acceleration instantly"
2) how does the explanation in #1 above differ from Einstein's General Relativity.  What is needed that is not in Einstein's General Relativity?
3) experiments supporting explanation in #1 and #2 above
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Gilbertdrive on 09/18/2017 03:58 pm

Stop for a moment.  Think about what you are discussing: posts about Mach's Principle that state that inertia is due to "the distant stars".  I asked what was discussed in this video about Mach's principle that is not fully contained in Einstein's General Relativity, and this was answered by "Nothing except that mass resists acceleration instantly."

Then explain:

1) how do the "distant stars" in Mach's principle "resist [locally, here] acceleration instantly"
2) how does the explanation in #1 above differ from Einstein's General Relativity.  What is needed that is not in Einstein's General Relativity?
3) experiments supporting explanation in #1 and #2 above

With the sense that I give to "resist locally instantly" it is already in GR.

If someone means that if all the distant stars disappear, it would propagate instantly to us, and that inertia would be affected instantly, it violates GR.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 09/18/2017 04:40 pm

....

...

Stop for a moment. Think about what you are saying above.

The inertial restistance of mass to acceleration is not a property that propagates, even while it involves a change in the velocity of mass....

Stop for a moment.  Think about what you are discussing: posts about Mach's Principle that state that inertia is due to "the distant stars".  I asked what was discussed in this video about Mach's principle that is not fully contained in Einstein's General Relativity, and this was answered by "Nothing except that mass resists acceleration instantly."

Then explain:

1) how do the "distant stars" in Mach's principle "resist [locally, here] acceleration instantly"
2) how does the explanation in #1 above differ from Einstein's General Relativity.  What is needed that is not in Einstein's General Relativity?
3) experiments supporting explanation in #1 and #2 above

First, I clip(ed) portions of (the) discussion(s) most often because I am responding to the specific portion of a post I quote. My response was not to the discussion as a whole. It was to the way your specific comment in bold seemed to come across. That said...

In #1 above, are you suggesting that Mach's principle can only be interpreted within the context of Mach's knowledge base at the time? Mach died just a year after GR was published and his ideas were formulated largely within a strict Newtonian context.

Interpreting Mach's principle within the context of our current understanding, the distant stars have a light time delayed affect on the curvature of spacetime locally. Any local change in the velocity (acceleration) of an object is instantaneously subject to that light time delayed affect.

Again being a bit redundant, Mach's principle was formulated within a Newtonian understanding of physics, while we know today that GR is a better description of gravitation. One difference being whether gravitation is an instantaneous force (Newtonian) or limited to propagation at the speed of light (Einstein and GR)

Maybe it is just a misunderstanding on my part, but when you place a comment in bold, it seems to place some independent significance on its content, apart from the discussion as a whole.

By separating the statement, "mass resists acceleration instantly" it seemed to make that statement the issue, rather than any flawed argument that led to it.

When I began my post with, " Stop for a moment. Think about what you are saying above.", my intent was to point out that it did not come across the way I am almost certain you intended.

But I guess I am guilty of being too focused on that specific quote.., out of the greater context of the discussion. Kind of like criticizing a quote from Mach out of the context of his knowledge base.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 09/18/2017 04:49 pm
The most important factor is doing so is finding the correct period of oscillation.

This is an interesting idea.  I wonder if the 'resonant frequency of spacetime' for the purposes of emdrive can be determined along the same lines as is used for electromagnetic waves.  Back in school we had it drummed into our heads that the 'characteristic impedance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impedance_of_free_space)' of space was 377 ohms, and that was purely resistive.   But that is specifically for electromagnetic fields and here we are talking about gravitational forces.  The relevant formula might be different than just "the product of the vacuum permeability and the speed of light in vacuum."
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/18/2017 04:57 pm
The way I see it is that every mass in the universe is causally connected to every other mass in the universe via mutual gravitational interaction. Is that instantaneous? No. Information can never travel faster than c.

Now if I stand with my arms down by my side, and I begin rotating and my arms fly out, as I view the apparent rotation of the distant stars, do the distant stars have any knowledge that I'm rotating? No, of course not. There hasn't been enough time for that information to be communicated to and from the distant stars. Is there a constant causal chain linking me to the distant stars? Yes but it isn't instantaneous.

Now if I push on something, and it pushes back on me, is that happening instantaneously? No of course not. It takes time for this information to travel through my molecules and through the electric charges which interact with the other object, and then it takes time to propagate through the parts of both me and the object I'm pushing for the whole parts of both to even know that it got pushed.

Nothing is instantaneous besides weird quantum tunneling stuff and the like and even then constraints have been put on that by experiment.

So if I take the center of mass of all those distant stars and everything else out there, and some observer located at one of those distant stars does the same thing, and this is repeated ad infinitum, knowing that the universe does not have a center, where is the center of mass of all this stuff? It's everywhere.

Edit: added ad infinitum
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: JasonAW3 on 09/18/2017 05:09 pm

Nothing is instantaneous besides weird quantum tunneling stuff and the like and even then constraints have been put on that by experiment.


Dumb question; Could gravity itself be a quantum tunneling phenomena?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.LeBel on 09/18/2017 06:38 pm
...In (1) Sakharov disproved Hawking, who previously claimed (before they met in 1987) that maximal entropy alone would reverse the arrow of time. Sakharov showed him he was wrong, as entropy grows with the arrow of time (both are related) and the time arrow can reverse only if entropy reaches a minimal state, i.e. zero value. ...
This is interesting  :)  Thanks for pointing this out.

While on the subject of gravity and entropy ...

Well, gravity and entropy are the same. Time runs slower as we get closer to the ground, yes? And an object moves spontaneously (fall) toward the ground, right? We could say that slower time pulls the object down ... ??

There is another way to approach this. The speed of light is constant everywhere, any frame of reference. As we get closer to the ground, the speed of light must remain constant. Let’s see. As time slows down  the units seconds must be relatively longer. So, “space” must also get longer in order for the ratio meter/second to be constant. In other words, an object falling toward the ground is actually falling into larger space. Reminds you of something? Entropy is the spontaneous dispersal into a larger volume. And, because of the constancy of c, we can say as well “dispersion in time”.

Is this wrong, and why?

Marcel,

 "It is the contracted ruler that makes it appear space has stretched."
There is no “ruler” in my argument. There no “appears” either. Even without a falling object, the argument says that space is larger down here than above in order for c to remain constant.

" It is the slow clock that results in time dilation."

The clock is a measuring instrument. It doesn’t affect or change time. The clock measures local time because local time makes the clock work at a certain rate, faster or slower.

Warptek, I don't  see here any "wrong" demonstrated.

 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 09/18/2017 07:13 pm
...In (1) Sakharov disproved Hawking, who previously claimed (before they met in 1987) that maximal entropy alone would reverse the arrow of time. Sakharov showed him he was wrong, as entropy grows with the arrow of time (both are related) and the time arrow can reverse only if entropy reaches a minimal state, i.e. zero value. ...
This is interesting  :)  Thanks for pointing this out.

While on the subject of gravity and entropy ...

Well, gravity and entropy are the same. Time runs slower as we get closer to the ground, yes? And an object moves spontaneously (fall) toward the ground, right? We could say that slower time pulls the object down ... ??

There is another way to approach this. The speed of light is constant everywhere, any frame of reference. As we get closer to the ground, the speed of light must remain constant. Let’s see. As time slows down  the units seconds must be relatively longer. So, “space” must also get longer in order for the ratio meter/second to be constant. In other words, an object falling toward the ground is actually falling into larger space. Reminds you of something? Entropy is the spontaneous dispersal into a larger volume. And, because of the constancy of c, we can say as well “dispersion in time”.

Is this wrong, and why?

Marcel,

 "It is the contracted ruler that makes it appear space has stretched."

There is no “ruler” in my argument. There no “appears” either. Even without a falling object, the argument says that space is larger down here than above in order for c to remain constant.
" It is the slow clock that results in time dilation."
The clock is a measuring instrument. It doesn’t affect or change time. The clock measures local time because local time makes the clock work at a certain rate, faster or slower.

Warptek, I don't  see here any "wrong" demonstrated.

There was less "wrong" in your original post. As an engineer, there is no measure of spacetime unless you have "physical, material" instruments with which to measure space & time. I.e., rulers and clocks. If you don't have them, you don't have any data, just unknowns and assumptions. IMO, there is no time except that which is measured by a clock. You seem to think there is something "absolute" about time, that is independent of the instruments we use to measure it. I disagree 100%.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/18/2017 07:28 pm
...In (1) Sakharov disproved Hawking, who previously claimed (before they met in 1987) that maximal entropy alone would reverse the arrow of time. Sakharov showed him he was wrong, as entropy grows with the arrow of time (both are related) and the time arrow can reverse only if entropy reaches a minimal state, i.e. zero value. ...
This is interesting  :)  Thanks for pointing this out.

While on the subject of gravity and entropy ...

Well, gravity and entropy are the same. Time runs slower as we get closer to the ground, yes? And an object moves spontaneously (fall) toward the ground, right? We could say that slower time pulls the object down ... ??

There is another way to approach this. The speed of light is constant everywhere, any frame of reference. As we get closer to the ground, the speed of light must remain constant. Let’s see. As time slows down  the units seconds must be relatively longer. So, “space” must also get longer in order for the ratio meter/second to be constant. In other words, an object falling toward the ground is actually falling into larger space. Reminds you of something? Entropy is the spontaneous dispersal into a larger volume. And, because of the constancy of c, we can say as well “dispersion in time”.

Is this wrong, and why?

Marcel,

 "It is the contracted ruler that makes it appear space has stretched."
There is no “ruler” in my argument. There no “appears” either. Even without a falling object, the argument says that space is larger down here than above in order for c to remain constant.


" It is the slow clock that results in time dilation."

The clock is a measuring instrument. It doesn’t affect or change time. The clock measures local time because local time makes the clock work at a certain rate, faster or slower.

Warptek, I don't  see here any "wrong" demonstrated.
The issue is less whether your post is wrong than whether or not it means anything. you are postulating a relationship between time, gravity, and entropy. You have not given any relation between these other than a general correlation. Entropy just says that dS/dt >= 0. Something falling under gravity is generally a thermodynamically irreversible process, so dS/dt > 0. Time runs slower deep in a gravity well, but this just means different observers will measure different values for dS/dt, but will agree on the physical result.

It is not clear how you intend to take these concepts and relate them together, and it seems like an impossible task, because entropy clearly depends on things other than gravity. If you do propose a specific relationship between these things, then it could be determined what your proposal predicts in different situations and this could be compared to reality. Without a specific relationship (using math, because math is the best tool to define physical relationships) this cannot be done, and it can't be determined whether your model matches reality when you haven't actually proposed a model that is capable of making predictions.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThinkerX on 09/18/2017 08:10 pm

Nothing is instantaneous besides weird quantum tunneling stuff and the like and even then constraints have been put on that by experiment.


Dumb question; Could gravity itself be a quantum tunneling phenomena?

This reminds me of something I looked into ages ago in connection with another project:  Galactic Orbits of stars.  That the combined mass of stars, dark matter, and other objects is sufficient to force stars into galaxies in the first place testifies to the strength of gravity across literally interstellar distances.  It is also a point in favor of some variant or another of Woodward Mach theory.

So, if the gravity of distant objects - be it stars, black holes, or DM - is powerful enough to influence stellar trajectories across interstellar distances, then perhaps, just perhaps it can be tapped into to propel interstellar spacecraft to near relativistic speeds.  Please note the 'perhaps' part. 

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/18/2017 08:42 pm
I will cite several passages of Jim Woodward talking of the instantaneity of inertial reaction forces in his book Making Starships and Stargates – The Science of Interstellar Transport and Absurdly Benign Wormholes (Springer 2013). Emphasis mine:

Quote from: Jim Woodward, MSAS, Acknowledgments – xxiv
[John Cramer] had applied the ideas of John Wheeler and Richard Feynman – so-called “action-at-a-distance” or “absorber” electrodynamics – to quantum theory to reconcile seemingly instantaneous actions with the principle of relativity that demands that nothing travel faster than the speed of light. Instantaneous action is a feature of inertial reaction effects; so I included mention of his work in the first paper on Mach effects where almost everything was pulled together. Squaring instantaneous action with relativity is required if your physics is to be plausible. John returned the favor by mentioning Mach effects in one of his Alternate View columns for Analog. That was the event that lifted Mach effects from obscurity and triggered much of what you will find in the following pages.

Quote from: Jim Woodward, MSAS, page 36
The inverse first power of the distance dependence of the term from the vector potential that causes inertial forces also signals that the interaction is “radiative.” That is, the interactions that arise from this term involve propagating disturbances in the gravity field. They do not arise from instantaneously communicated effects or the passive action of a pre-existing field. So inertial forces would seem to be gravity “radiation reaction” effects. This poses a problem, for an inertial reaction force appears at the instant an accelerating force is applied to an object. How can that be true if the inertial reaction force involves an active communication with chiefly the most distant matter in the universe, and communication with the stuff out there takes place at the speed of light?

If reaction forces were produced by the interaction with a passive, locally present pre-existing field, this would not be a problem. But that is not what is calculated in Sciama’s treatment. The trick of using the instantaneous frame of rest where the universe very obviously appears to be moving rigidly past the accelerating object not only sidesteps a messy calculation involving Green’s functions; it blurs the issue of instantaneity of reaction forces. This is arguably the most difficult aspect of coming to grips with the origin of inertia.

Quote from: Jim Woodward, MSAS, page 46
The immediate fact of inertial reaction forces is that they respond to applied forces instantaneously. Why? Well, if you believe, as Newton and legions after him have, that inertia is an inherent property of material objects needing no further explanation, then this question needs no answer. The problem with this view, of course, is the fact noted famously by Mach that inertial frames of reference seem to be those in inertial motion with respect to the “fixed stars.” Today we would say inertial motion with respect to the local cosmic frame of rest, and that, remarkably, isn’t rotating. This suggests that the stuff out there has something to do with inertia. But it is so far away, typically billions of light-years distant. How can that produce instantaneous effects?

Quote from: Jim Woodward, MSAS, page 49
What we do see, moving forward in time, when and advanced wave comes back from the future is a wave that appears to be propagating away from the impact of the rock toward the shoreline of the pond. That is, the advanced wave looks exactly like a retarded wave. As long as the advanced wave coming back from the future didn’t propagate farther into the past than the rock hitting the water that initiated all of the waves, neither you nor I could tell whether the waves in the pond had any advanced component. So, using retarded and advanced waves to get distant objects to “instantaneously” affect local objects becomes finding a solution for wave action that cancels the advanced waves at the source (the rock hitting the water) to keep them from traveling farther into the past.

What Wheeler and Feynman noted was that if a forward in time propagating wave in the electromagnetic field was eventually absorbed by enough material out there in the distant universe, and as it was absorbed it produced an “advanced” wave propagating backward in time, all of the contributions from all of the parts of the absorber would just get back to the source at exactly the right time to produce the apparent force of radiative reaction. And as they passed the origin of the waves into the past, if the waves were half advanced and half retarded, they would cancel out the “advanced” wave propagating from the source into the past. So future events would not indiscriminately screw up the past (and our present). But the half-advanced waves coming back from the future provide a way for arbitrarily distant objects to affect events in the present seemingly instantaneously. In the case of gravity, this allows the whole universe to act on any object that’s accelerated by an external (non-gravitational) force with an equal and opposite force. This solution to the problems of radiation reaction is so neat it almost has the appearance of a cheap tourist trick, too good to be true. But it actually works.

Quote from: Jim Woodward, MSAS, page 52
Wheeler and Feynman’s elegant solution to the problem of radiation reaction is the only apparent way to get seemingly instantaneous reaction forces that depend on distant matter without screwing up the dictum of the principle of relativity that limits signal propagation velocities to the speed of light. Feynman may have harbored similar views, for he devoted the first part of his Nobel address to absorber electrodynamics.

Quote from: Jim Woodward, MSAS, page 72
if the coupling between the test object and the distant matter in the universe is carried by the kink in the field propagating at the speed of light, it will take billions of years for the kink to reach the distant matter, and billions of years for a return signal to get back to the accelerating object. Inertial reaction forces, however, are instantaneous. Push something and it pushes back immediately. How can the distant matter in the universe act instantly on an object when it is accelerated by an external force without violating the speed limit, c, of SRT?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.LeBel on 09/18/2017 09:43 pm
...In (1) Sakharov disproved Hawking, who previously claimed (before they met in 1987) that maximal entropy alone would reverse the arrow of time. Sakharov showed him he was wrong, as entropy grows with the arrow of time (both are related) and the time arrow can reverse only if entropy reaches a minimal state, i.e. zero value. ...
This is interesting  :)  Thanks for pointing this out.

While on the subject of gravity and entropy ...

Well, gravity and entropy are the same. Time runs slower as we get closer to the ground, yes? And an object moves spontaneously (fall) toward the ground, right? We could say that slower time pulls the object down ... ??

There is another way to approach this. The speed of light is constant everywhere, any frame of reference. As we get closer to the ground, the speed of light must remain constant. Let’s see. As time slows down  the units seconds must be relatively longer. So, “space” must also get longer in order for the ratio meter/second to be constant. In other words, an object falling toward the ground is actually falling into larger space. Reminds you of something? Entropy is the spontaneous dispersal into a larger volume. And, because of the constancy of c, we can say as well “dispersion in time”.

Is this wrong, and why?

Marcel,

 "It is the contracted ruler that makes it appear space has stretched."
There is no “ruler” in my argument. There no “appears” either. Even without a falling object, the argument says that space is larger down here than above in order for c to remain constant.


" It is the slow clock that results in time dilation."

The clock is a measuring instrument. It doesn’t affect or change time. The clock measures local time because local time makes the clock work at a certain rate, faster or slower.

Warptek, I don't  see here any "wrong" demonstrated.
The issue is less whether your post is wrong than whether or not it means anything. you are postulating a relationship between time, gravity, and entropy. You have not given any relation between these other than a general correlation. Entropy just says that dS/dt >= 0. Something falling under gravity is generally a thermodynamically irreversible process, so dS/dt > 0. Time runs slower deep in a gravity well, but this just means different observers will measure different values for dS/dt, but will agree on the physical result.

It is not clear how you intend to take these concepts and relate them together, and it seems like an impossible task, because entropy clearly depends on things other than gravity. If you do propose a specific relationship between these things, then it could be determined what your proposal predicts in different situations and this could be compared to reality. Without a specific relationship (using math, because math is the best tool to define physical relationships) this cannot be done, and it can't be determined whether your model matches reality when you haven't actually proposed a model that is capable of making predictions.

Well said meberbs. But please consider the following..

“The issue is less whether your post is wrong than whether or not it means anything. You are postulating a relationship between time, gravity, and entropy. You have not given any relation between these other than a general correlation.”

We have excellent descriptions (models, laws, GR) of HOW gravity works as observed. This “general correlation”, like you say, is meant to supply the WHY. It is offered only as such. In that sense, this correlation actually “means” something (explanatory), while GR is but a factual empirical description, and necessarily involving the observer.

(How can you have any hope of understanding the working of the universe if you do not accept to remove yourself from these models and laws. My above correlation is essentially about thinking without us in the picture. Physics is not the end of the road. For “doing” things, maybe it is. But for understanding, we have to go further and deduce from physics what it says about the universe.  That’s all I’m asking; deduce and think further.)

“Entropy just says that dS/dt >= 0. Something falling under gravity is generally a thermodynamically irreversible process, so dS/dt > 0. Time runs slower deep in a gravity well, but this just means different observers will measure different values for dS/dt, but will agree on the physical result.”

O.K. dS/dt > 0 is right. Does it stop there? What does it mean? Let’s read it again. The variation of entropy in time is greater than zero i.e. it increases as the inverse of dt, or 1/dt. We have dS x 1/dt >0. What is 1/dt? Let’s assume 1/t is the “rate of time” as “per second”. Works fine since, as expected, a slower time (smaller 1/t) means longer seconds at the denominator t. So, 1/dt is read as a differential in the rate of time. A differential in the rate of time is gravity (quote from Unruh, posted n times already). Then, the product dS x 1/dt >0 is clear. No differential (1/dt =0)* equals no entropy. The “cause” for entropy dS is a differential in the rate of time 1/dt which is what gravity is. I don’t have to write a new equation for you to test and ponder. This one is fine, and no prediction is changed. But now, you may think differently about it and understand what the equation says about the universe.         *( here, 1/dt=0 is not the end of time but an absence of variation in the local rate of time.)

Knowing is no substitute for understanding (or trying to)  :-)

modified: added a few deltas...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/19/2017 12:02 am
We have excellent descriptions (models, laws, GR) of HOW gravity works as observed. This “general correlation”, like you say, is meant to supply the WHY. It is offered only as such. In that sense, this correlation actually “means” something (explanatory), while GR is but a factual empirical description, and necessarily involving the observer.
GR does have an explanation of why: objects fall in gravity because spacetime is curved. Other interpretations are possible, such as the polarizable vacuum model that WarpTech has been discussing. The trick with any such interpretations is that they have to match all observed data. At the same time, there has to be something testable different about them if they are going to teach us something new. (Although a different mathematical way of writing the same theory if they are truly equivalent has its own uses.

That’s all I’m asking; deduce and think further.
This is what you need to do too. The biggest question with your proposal is: so what? What are the consequences of what you are proposing?

O.K. dS/dt > 0 is right. Does it stop there? What does it mean? Let’s read it again. The variation of entropy in time is greater than zero i.e. it increases as the inverse of dt, or 1/dt. We have dS x 1/dt >0.
This is simply a misunderstanding of the math. dS/dt is a derivative, the result of the operator d/dt acting on S. If you instead start looking at differentials like you did, you start running into problems, especially when it is a partial derivative, you can't just say the derivative is the ratio of differentials.

Playing directly with differentials is a good way to accidentally lose all rigor and come to incorrect conclusions if you are not careful. For example:
No differential (1/dt =0)* equals no entropy.
Saying that 1/dt=0 means that dt =  infinity, which is a contradiction, because dt is a differential which by definition is infinitely close to 0.

The “cause” for entropy dS is a differential in the rate of time 1/dt which is what gravity is.
Correlation is not causation. In particular time can move forward without entropy increasing, or with entropy increasing slowly, or with entropy increasing quickly. "rate of time 1/dt which is what gravity is" First, you made a jump somewhere from 1/dt representing the inverse of a differential representing the time passed between 2 arbitrarily close states, to this somehow meaning "rate of time" which you seem to be defining somehow as relativistic time dilation. It is completely unclear why you think you can make the statement that this "is what gravity is" when there is so much more to general relativity than just time dilation.

I don’t have to write a new equation for you to test and ponder. This one is fine, and no prediction is changed.
You have not provided anything to ponder. You have pointed out correlations that you tried to pass off as causations without providing any mechanism by which one could cause the other.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.LeBel on 09/19/2017 02:56 am
We have excellent descriptions (models, laws, GR) of HOW gravity works as observed. This “general correlation”, like you say, is meant to supply the WHY. It is offered only as such. In that sense, this correlation actually “means” something (explanatory), while GR is but a factual empirical description, and necessarily involving the observer.
GR does have an explanation of why: objects fall in gravity because spacetime is curved. Other interpretations are possible, such as the polarizable vacuum model that WarpTech has been discussing. The trick with any such interpretations is that they have to match all observed data. At the same time, there has to be something testable different about them if they are going to teach us something new. (Although a different mathematical way of writing the same theory if they are truly equivalent has its own uses.

>>> The essence of spacetime is that no two points are at the same moment; there if always some time between them. To speak of a "curve" consists in considering a bunch of points at the same time! The universe has no need for space; you do! That is the difference. So, curvature is no "why".

That’s all I’m asking; deduce and think further.

This is what you need to do too. The biggest question with your proposal is: so what? What are the consequences of what you are proposing?

>>> For one thing, forget about curvature. Think as what the universe needs to do what it does, not what you need to describe it.

O.K. dS/dt > 0 is right. Does it stop there? What does it mean? Let’s read it again. The variation of entropy in time is greater than zero i.e. it increases as the inverse of dt, or 1/dt. We have dS x 1/dt >0.
This is simply a misunderstanding of the math. dS/dt is a derivative, the result of the operator d/dt acting on S. If you instead start looking at differentials like you did, you start running into problems, especially when it is a partial derivative, you can't just say the derivative is the ratio of differentials.

>>> You are absolutely right! What I meant is a gradient. A variation form close to close of the rate of time.

Playing directly with differentials is a good way to accidentally lose all rigor and come to incorrect conclusions if you are not careful. For example:
No differential (1/dt =0)* equals no entropy.
Saying that 1/dt=0 means that dt =  infinity, which is a contradiction, because dt is a differential which by definition is infinitely close to 0.

As above. A gradient of the rate of time, not a differential (calculus).

The “cause” for entropy dS is a differential in the rate of time 1/dt which is what gravity is.
Correlation is not causation. In particular time can move forward without entropy increasing, or with entropy increasing slowly, or with entropy increasing quickly. "rate of time 1/dt which is what gravity is" First, you made a jump somewhere from 1/dt representing the inverse of a differential representing the time passed between 2 arbitrarily close states, to this somehow meaning "rate of time" which you seem to be defining somehow as relativistic time dilation. It is completely unclear why you think you can make the statement that this "is what gravity is" when there is so much more to general relativity than just time dilation.

>>> I am so sorry, but you are asking for it, again.

‘ .. A more accurate way of summarizing the lessons of General Relativity is
that gravity does not cause time to run differently in different places (e.g., faster far from the earth than near it). Gravity is the unequable flow of time from place to place. It is not that there are two separate phenomena, namely gravity and time and that the one, gravity, affects the other. Rather the theory states that the phenomena we usually ascribe to gravity are actually caused by time’s flowing unequably from place to place...  “   arXiv:gr-qc/9312027v2 17 Dec 1993

This time unequably flowing from place to place, is the rate of time, a gradient. For an object placed in the gradient, we may ask; which way is it going? Toward a faster rate of time or, toward a slower rate of time? Simple answer; look at what happens in a gravitational field. An Object move spontaneously (fall) toward a slower rate of time. Can't be any clearer! The causation is spelled out right there.

I don’t have to write a new equation for you to test and ponder. This one is fine, and no prediction is changed.
You have not provided anything to ponder. You have pointed out correlations that you tried to pass off as causations without providing any mechanism by which one could cause the other.

The mechanism is simple (to me, at least). In the rate of time 1/t, t is the time of residence, the relative size of the "second".. The slower the rate of time in this gradient, the longer the time of residence. In other words, at any point in the gradient of the rate of time (gravitational field), anything that exists is presented with a higher probability of existence, (to be) where the time of residence is longer, i.e. below.  Because "existence" is all that is required, everything that exists will fall the same way.

The actual maths could be difficult. The physics, nearly impossible, simply because "existence" has no meaning for physics. Physics will describe where we will find something, but will not say what logic is involved for this something to BE there, to be found. (QM is in fact the closest (metaphysical) explanation why
a particle will BE where it will be found.)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 09/19/2017 08:59 am
...
If I understand correctly, it is not about the propagation of something, but about a local property, without any notion of distance involved.

What I am not sure to understand is what “resisting to acceleration” means. Maybe spupeng7 meant something like “Inertia law locally applies instantly to any modification due to a force of the trajectory of any material object ”

Spupeng7, please, can you give an explanation of what you meant exactly ? I am not sure of my understanding.
...
Thank you for the interesting video.  Please note:

1) There is nothing discussed in this video about Mach's principle that is not fully contained in Einstein's General Relativity.  So if Mach's principle makes one aware of something that is already present in Einstein's General Relativity, great!.  However, there is no "extra-Machian" effect discussed in the video that is not already present in Einstein's General Relativity.

(...)


Nothing except that mass resists acceleration instantly. ...


His post was in reference to the video on Mach's principle posted by SeeShell.

The word "instant" or "instantaneous" does not appear once in:

Brans (of Brans-Dicke fame) recent Expert Opinion article on "What is Mach's principle?" in Annalen der Physik http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/andp.201100706/pdf

Wikipedia's article on Mach's principle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle

and most importantly, the vague book of Mach himself:
E. Mach "The Science of Mechanics" OpenCourt, translated by McCormack
https://www.amazon.com/Science-Mechanics-Critical-Historical-Development/dp/0875482023/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1505746398&sr=8-2&keywords=Ernst+Mach++Mechanics
where in p. 267 where Mach himself discusses what is now known as his principle

...

Stop for a moment. Think about what you are saying above.

The inertial restistance of mass to acceleration is not a property that propagates, even while it involves a change in the velocity of mass....

Stop for a moment.  Think about what you are discussing: posts about Mach's Principle that state that inertia is due to "the distant stars".  I asked what was discussed in this video about Mach's principle that is not fully contained in Einstein's General Relativity, and this was answered by "Nothing except that mass resists acceleration instantly."

Then explain:

1) how do the "distant stars" in Mach's principle "resist [locally, here] acceleration instantly"
2) how does the explanation in #1 above differ from Einstein's General Relativity.  What is needed that is not in Einstein's General Relativity?
3) experiments supporting explanation in #1 and #2 above

Rodal,
how we see the world comes from our perspective. When a soccer ball hits me in the head it is the instantaneous resistance of my head to acceleration which causes uncomfortable pressure between me and the ball, non?

This is the equal and opposite reaction underlying all statics and all dynamics, is it not? We see things differently but the immediate empirical evidence is the same for all of us.

You ask for an explanation of inertia differing from that which you accept. In http://vixra.org/pdf/1405.0252v3.pdf (http://vixra.org/pdf/1405.0252v3.pdf) I take some careless baby steps toward forming that alternative explanation. I hope it will be taken in good spirit.
jmn..
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 09/19/2017 09:02 am
...In (1) Sakharov disproved Hawking, who previously claimed (before they met in 1987) that maximal entropy alone would reverse the arrow of time. Sakharov showed him he was wrong, as entropy grows with the arrow of time (both are related) and the time arrow can reverse only if entropy reaches a minimal state, i.e. zero value. ...
This is interesting  :)  Thanks for pointing this out.

While on the subject of gravity and entropy ...

Well, gravity and entropy are the same. Time runs slower as we get closer to the ground, yes? And an object moves spontaneously (fall) toward the ground, right? We could say that slower time pulls the object down ... ??

There is another way to approach this. The speed of light is constant everywhere, any frame of reference. As we get closer to the ground, the speed of light must remain constant. Let’s see. As time slows down  the units seconds must be relatively longer. So, “space” must also get longer in order for the ratio meter/second to be constant. In other words, an object falling toward the ground is actually falling into larger space. Reminds you of something? Entropy is the spontaneous dispersal into a larger volume. And, because of the constancy of c, we can say as well “dispersion in time”.

Is this wrong, and why?

Marcel,

It is the contracted ruler that makes it appear space has stretched.
It is the slow clock that results in time dilation.
Quantum mechanically, both effects can arise from radiative damping due to stimulated emissions, which affect the length of the ruler and the rate of the clock.

WarpTech,
the clock does not slow due to time dilation, except from a remote perspective.
jmn..
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 09/19/2017 09:06 am

Nothing is instantaneous besides weird quantum tunneling stuff and the like and even then constraints have been put on that by experiment.


Dumb question; Could gravity itself be a quantum tunneling phenomena?

JasonAW3,
NO, it is not a dumb question.
YES it could !!!      Please see http://vixra.org/pdf/1405.0252v3.pdf (http://vixra.org/pdf/1405.0252v3.pdf)   :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Propylox on 09/19/2017 10:30 am
-snips-
1) Information can never travel faster than c.  ... Nothing is instantaneous besides weird quantum tunneling stuff and the like and even then constraints have been put on that by experiment.
2) So if I take the center of mass of all those distant stars and everything else out there... knowing that the universe does not have a center, where is the center of mass of all this stuff? It's everywhere.
1) Mass, or energy with a mass carrier, can never travel faster than c, but that doesn't limit information to c. In the absence of matter, energy is not confined to time and thus not confined to velocity within space.
Previously: Einstein set a speed limit of c and refuted the notion of anything exceeding it, perhaps because he didn't consider pure energy cannot exist in the Universe without a mass-carrier and the smallest mass(less object?) he knew was a photon. Though particle-wave duality, or energy confined to time vs creating a ripple in it, should have clued him in.

2) Why don't you know where the center of the Universe, and associated center of mass is? Time is a dimension in which mass and our reality is confined, traveling between a finite rate and  zero (depending on mass density and subsequent distortion of spacetime). Imagine our universe and reality was 2-dimensional; the 3rd dimension of time would be the radius of a constantly expanding sphere with a surface containing valleys and pits of matter, locally retarding t and space's expansion. The result would be a sinuous formation of mass with large expanses of empty/expanding space - exactly what our universe looks like.
So where's the center of the universe and its mass? At t=0, or the Big Bang, of our 4th dimensional sphere. note: Light loops repeatedly through the universe, so every direction peers back in time to t=0, but due to mass's ability to bend light it's likely impossible to see our galaxy's past on any loop.

-------- Back to the EM drive, or exceedingly inefficient electron gun as I call it. --------
I figured I'd clarify "electron expulsion" from earlier, posted below. Consider a crater's rebound peak wherein forces build, release and matter heads the other way: Same thing with the EM drive, but with electrons. Emissions building on the magnetic pole should follow the field into the resonance cavity, but the emission strength / electric field is great enough for electrons to fire against the magnetic field outward (expulsion) producing thrust. "Impossible", you say? Others claim EM drives are. I'm just saying wave a phosphor screen past it to verify whether it is or isn't an electron gun.
With the intense electromagnetic fields being created, I doubt a Faraday cup could distinguish slight electron expulsion... Time to bust out the phosphor screen and see if anything hits it, or strikes that theory.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/19/2017 12:35 pm
...You ask for an explanation of inertia differing from that which you accept...
An explanation of inertia that I accept?  On the contrary, I asked for experiments confirming the opinions expressed in the last few pages.  For all the spilled ink in expressing subjective opinions (unsupported by experimental evidence) nobody has come up with a single experiment confirming any of those opinions.  The fact is that there is no experiment showing any "Machian effect" not already present in Einstein's General Relativity.   On the contrary, all the experiments (since the 1960's, trying to confirm Brans-Dicke's theory) looking for such Machian effects have failed to find any such evidence of Machian effects not present in Einstein's GR.   Coalescence of black holes is calculated nowadays analytically and numerically using General Relativity and the results (gravitational waves including the kick of a binary black hole with accompanying star cluster out of its galaxy) are in excellent agreement with General Relativity. 

If anybody thinks that Mach's principle has anything to add to General Relativity that is lacking in General Relativity, please cite experiments supporting such opinion, and explain what is missing in General Relativity that is present in Mach's principle and cite experimental support for any such claim.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/19/2017 02:21 pm
-snips-
1) Information can never travel faster than c.  ... Nothing is instantaneous besides weird quantum tunneling stuff and the like and even then constraints have been put on that by experiment.
2) So if I take the center of mass of all those distant stars and everything else out there... knowing that the universe does not have a center, where is the center of mass of all this stuff? It's everywhere.
1) Mass, or energy with a mass carrier, can never travel faster than c, but that doesn't limit information to c. In the absence of matter, energy is not confined to time and thus not confined to velocity within space.
Utterly and completely wrong. Any information travelling faster than light would allow for sending messages to the past. See the FTL paradox thread for details.

Previously: Einstein set a speed limit of c and refuted the notion of anything exceeding it, perhaps because he didn't consider pure energy cannot exist in the Universe without a mass-carrier and the smallest mass(less object?) he knew was a photon. Though particle-wave duality, or energy confined to time vs creating a ripple in it, should have clued him in.
Photons are pure energy. They have 0 rest mass, and Einstein explicitly showed how this works. Saying that Einstein didn't consider something he explicitly did only shows that you haven't actually studied the things you are talking about in any real depth.

You do know that Einstein is the one who got wave particle duality generally accepted by his explanation of the photoelectric effect right? It doesn't have anything to do with "energy confined to time vs creating a ripple in it" mostly because that doesn't mean anything. "Confined to time" does not have any meaning. "Ripple in time" almost has meaning, but you have to match reality consider the ripple to be in spacetime, not just time, and again this is something Einstein explicitly dealt with in GR. He showed that gravitational waves travel at the speed of light, and he did not propose any kind of "mass carrier" for them. We still don't know if there is a graviton particle associated with these or not.

"Impossible", you say? Others claim EM drives are. I'm just saying wave a phosphor screen past it to verify whether it is or isn't an electron gun.
That in and of itself is fine, but what you posted before that isn't "impossible" it is just nonsensical:

Emissions building on the magnetic pole should follow the field into the resonance cavity,
Emissions from what magnetic pole? Saying "the" implies just one, but magnetic monopoles don't exist as far as we can tell. The drive doesn't have any defined magnetic poles. Depending on the antenna type, the antenna might be roughly a magnetic dipole, but even then your sentence doesn't make sense because the only thing emitted from the antenna is the electromagnetic fields, but then you would be saying "the fields follow the fields" which is just circular and nonsensical.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 09/19/2017 02:27 pm
There has been recently a discussion of the relation between time dilation and acceleration. I think this reprises a discussion many posts back, at which time I looked into this model metric to explore the effect of spatial variation in the rate of flow of time:

              ds²=-(1-f(x))c²dt²+dx²+dy²+dz²

In this metric, the interesting geodesic equation is:

              d²x/dt²=½c²(∂f/∂x)(dt/dτ)²

In other words, even when t~τ, i.e. dt/dτ ~1, tiny variations in the time flow rate lead to large accelerations, because of the factor of c². Whether this means that variations in the rate of time 'cause' forces on particles is more of a philosophical question, but it does look as if engineering a spatial variation in the rate of flow of time is likely to cause particles to move.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: aero on 09/19/2017 04:15 pm
Not quite on the current topic, but I found this interesting link over on talkpolywell. There probably is or should be a similar link in advanced concepts.

http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=5341&p=129833#p129833 (http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=5341&p=129833#p129833)

It relates because the PFRC engine is to provide one MW of power or 5 N of thrust, long-term in a space vehicle.

How does the EM drive stack up to those numbers, which I translate to 5 micro-newtons per Watt?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/19/2017 04:23 pm
Not quite on the current topic, but I found this interesting link over on talkpolywell. There probably is or should be a similar link in advanced concepts.

http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=5341&p=129833#p129833 (http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=5341&p=129833#p129833)

It relates because the PFRC engine is to provide one MW of power or 5 N of thrust, long-term in a space vehicle.

How does the EM drive stack up to those numbers, which I translate to 5 micro-newtons per Watt?
I don't understand why compare this to the EM Drive based on thrust per input energy.

The direct fusion drive http://www.psatellite.com/fusion/  is a conventional rocket expelling propellant, it just uses fusion instead.

(https://brownspaceman.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Direct-Fusion-Drive-propulsion-system-NASA-Spacecraft-travel-time-Pluto-4-6-years.png)

Any comparison of thrust between a rocket expelling propellants and a propellantless concept like the EM Drive is not a fair comparison, because it misses the fact that propellant is a large ratio of the total mass of the vehicle and thus the payload (which is what matters) , duration of flight are not entering in the comparison as they should.

The comparison depends on how far you are attempting to go:

Quote
Reaching Alpha Centauri in anything close to a human lifetime remains a significant challenge, but PFRC could be part of an architecture to reach the star in 300 to 500 years, and slow down enough to go into orbit around the potentially Earth-like planets there!

http://www.psatellite.com/tag/dfd/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: aero on 09/19/2017 05:05 pm
Yes, Dr. Rodal, I understand that. The PFRC engine concept is targeted to a 4-year mission to Pluto with time on station. The reason I posted is to point out the spacecraft electrical power available or to become available which could be utilized by an EM drive type engine. The EM drive advantage of no propellant and no massive exhaust nozzle should swing the engineering mass budget advantage to the EM drive but the total thrust is also an important factor.

At the indicated thrust/power from the latest Eagleworks paper of 1.2 mN/kW, the PFRC engine thrust of 5 mN/kW is only a factor of four greater.  Point is that the current best data indicates that the EM drive engines are competitive with the current best data of nuclear-powered reaction engines given similar mission profiles. And I might add that the EW data is measured data while the PFRC data is so far still on paper.

The EM drive is not just a wimpy little thruster as some might think, but rather, it is in the game performance wise, lacking only a belivable concept for thrust generation, a concept that all here are striving dillengently to devise.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 09/19/2017 05:25 pm
Not quite on the current topic, but I found this interesting link over on talkpolywell. There probably is or should be a similar link in advanced concepts.

http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=5341&p=129833#p129833 (http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=5341&p=129833#p129833)

It relates because the PFRC engine is to provide one MW of power or 5 N of thrust, long-term in a space vehicle.

How does the EM drive stack up to those numbers, which I translate to 5 micro-newtons per Watt?
I don't understand why compare this to the EM Drive based on thrust per input energy.

The direct fusion drive http://www.psatellite.com/fusion/  is a conventional rocket expelling propellant, it just uses fusion instead.

(https://brownspaceman.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Direct-Fusion-Drive-propulsion-system-NASA-Spacecraft-travel-time-Pluto-4-6-years.png)

Any comparison of thrust between a rocket expelling propellants and a propellantless concept like the EM Drive is not a fair comparison, because it misses the fact that propellant is a large ratio of the total mass of the vehicle and thus the payload (which is what matters) , duration of flight are not entering in the comparison as they should.

The comparison depends on how far you are attempting to go:

Quote
Reaching Alpha Centauri in anything close to a human lifetime remains a significant challenge, but PFRC could be part of an architecture to reach the star in 300 to 500 years, and slow down enough to go into orbit around the potentially Earth-like planets there!

http://www.psatellite.com/tag/dfd/

Instead of comparing the two, think about the potential of marrying the two in a dual drive vehicle or just using the PFRC reactor as a power plant for stacked EmDrives. I have not read the whole paper but from the first couple of pages, "When scaled up to achieve fusion parameters, PFRC would result in a 4-8 m long, 1.5 m diameter reactor producing 1 to 10 MW.". Think about how many stacked EmDrives you could power with 1 to 10 MW. How much thrust would they need to deliver individually, to be functionally useful?

Payload is really only a significant issue when launching from the earth's surface.., IOW initially overcoming the gravity well. Even from LEO not so much.

A short story as comparison. For a short time when I was yong I worked, as a swictman for a railroad. On one occasion during my introduction to the work, a new boxcar w/then state of the art new roller bearings was set at rest on a flat section of rail. As I remember from checking myself, the light weight was 15-20 tons and load capacity 60 tons. The boxcar was sealed so loaded and thus some where between 20 to 60+ tons. Say just 25 tons (loaded with feathers). Setting on flat rail it took only a few ounces, less than a pound of pressure to roll the car on the track, not working against gravity and with only the relatively small friction from the bearings... From LEO gravity has already largely been over come and friction?

Back to the issue at hand, the PFRC reactor maybe as significant as a power plant for other propulsion systems, as for its potential use as a fusion powered rocket...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/19/2017 06:01 pm
...Payload is really only a significant issue when launching from the earth's surface.., IOW initially overcoming the gravity well. Even from LEO not so much....
Not so if one considers getting "there" in a reasonable amount of time, as you still have to overcome inertia in order to reach a given speed.  Look at the tyranny of the rocket equation.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/expeditions/expedition30/tryanny.html

Destination   Energy Cost (km/s)
Surface of Earth to Earth orbit:   8
Earth orbit to cis-lunar locations:
Lagrange points:  3.5
Low Lunar orbit: 4.1

Earth orbit to near-Earth asteroids:   > 4
Earth orbit to surface Moon:   6
Earth orbit to surface Mars:   8  [same as from surface to Earth orbit]

If you want to go Jupiter, Pluto or even more, interstellar, and time is an issue, payload is a huge issue


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 09/19/2017 07:33 pm
...Payload is really only a significant issue when launching from the earth's surface.., IOW initially overcoming the gravity well. Even from LEO not so much....
Not so if one considers getting "there" in a reasonable amount of time, as you still have to overcome inertia in order to reach a given speed.  Look at the tyranny of the rocket equation.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/expeditions/expedition30/tryanny.html

Destination   Energy Cost (km/s)
Surface of Earth to Earth orbit:   8
Earth orbit to cis-lunar locations:
Lagrange points:  3.5
Low Lunar orbit: 4.1

Earth orbit to near-Earth asteroids:   > 4
Earth orbit to surface Moon:   6
Earth orbit to surface Mars:   8  [same as from surface to Earth orbit]

If you want to go Jupiter, Pluto or even more, interstellar, and time is an issue, payload is a huge issue

Dr. Rodal,

That's all based on what NASA considers current technology, which means launch pad to desitanition and chemical rockets.

If any of the propellentless drives currently being explored or even just the fusion reactor/drive itself wind up being developed to a useable state, the whole game plan would or should change. And a long game approach a far better and more economical (in the long run) game.

 Once the initial cost of getting to LEO is overcome, any of these would make travel between LEO and the moon almost routine. And the possibility of a permanent base on the moon realistic. From the surface of the moon to a lunar orbit could be accomplished by use of a rail launch system, powered most likely from solar power but alternately by those same fusion power plants. And a Lunar base would place within reach resources in a far easier gravity well to deal with.

At that point Mars would not be that far off. Maybe even a stepping stone to the asteroid belt and once again resources. While maned missions to Jupiter's moons, looks at present like something on the same level as exploring Antarctica, for the science rather than setting up house keeping, even that might wind up in reach.

Even assuming functional EmDrives, manned expeditions to Pluto and the other outer planets, not to mention interstellar adventures, are at present still the stuff of dreams and science fiction.

The real point is that once we have some drive that could operate over an extended period of time, like this fusion powered rocket or an EmDrive system, the moon is no longer really out of reach. Certainly at an upfront cost. But once the moon then far more.

As an aside something I would really like to see, would be scooping up and refitting the GP-B satellite and rerunning the experiment around Venus, where there would be no intrinsic magnetic field to control for. Test the same frame dragging effect under different circumstances.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/19/2017 07:53 pm
The last few days have been spent calibrating the mirrored laser displacement sensors and the dampening system. I switched from antifreeze to light vegetable oil as it provided more dampening and is non-toxic. I was using the entire paddle with the antifreeze, while now I use a smaller portion. This means I can now adjust from over to under damped and here are two example calibration coil pulse tests. The pulse from today was 5.76uN as I added a 2.7ohm resistor to get the current down to 1A from 2.6A. But I think I still need a capacitor to keep the voltage steady.   
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/19/2017 08:25 pm
The last few days have been spent calibrating the mirrored laser displacement sensors and the dampening system. I switched from antifreeze to light vegetable oil as it provided more dampening and is non-toxic. I was using the entire paddle with the antifreeze, while now I use a smaller portion. This means I can now adjust from over to under damped and here are two example calibration coil pulse tests. The pulse from today was 5.76uN as I added a 2.7ohm resistor to get the current down to 1A from 2.6A. But I think I still need a capacitor to keep the voltage steady.

(http://www.agrenergy.com/agr/files/image/svo_fig2.jpg)

Quote
Compared to No. 2 diesel fuel, all of the vegetable oils are much more viscous, are more reactive to oxygen, and have higher cloud point and pour temperatures
Jones, Samuel T.; Peterson, Charles L.; Thompson, Joseph C. Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, USA. “Used Vegetable Oil Fuel Blend Comparisons Using Injector Coking in a DI Diesel Engine.” Presented at 2001 ASAE Annual International Meeting, Sacramento,California, USA, July 30–August 1, 2001.

(http://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2F2193-0414-1-3/MediaObjects/40038_2011_Article_3_Fig13_HTML.jpg)
Low temperature oxidation of oil

Figure 13 Comparison of anisidine value profiles of several vegetable oils during oxidation at 70°C in a convection oven with the exposure to the circulating air (Guillén & Cabo 2002).

[Anisidine value test is used to assess the secondary oxidation of oil or fat, which is mainly imputable to aldehydes and ketones, and is therefore able to tell the oxidation “history” of an oil or a fat. Furthermore, AnV analysis on oil is an indicator of excessive oil deterioration in deep frying process.]

https://firesciencereviews.springeropen.com/track/pdf/10.1186/2193-0414-1-3?site=firesciencereviews.springeropen.com




Antifreeze

(http://www.viscopedia.com/fileadmin/_processed_/csm_Graph_AntifrzG13_60_40__63_15__2b82f4f533.png)

http://www.viscopedia.com/viscosity-tables/substances/automotive-antifreeze/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/19/2017 08:45 pm
Compared to No. 2 diesel fuel, all of the vegetable oils are much more viscous, are more reactive to oxygen, and have higher cloud point and pour temperatures

I'm using soybean oil right now, but that is easy to change. I need something with a viscosity between antifreeze and vegetable oil. #2 diesel fuel looks promising as well as other fuel oils.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/19/2017 09:07 pm
Compared to No. 2 diesel fuel, all of the vegetable oils are much more viscous, are more reactive to oxygen, and have higher cloud point and pour temperatures

I'm using soybean oil right now, but that is easy to change. I need something with a viscosity between antifreeze and vegetable oil. #2 diesel fuel looks promising as well as other fuel oils.
was not advocating to use diesel fuel (*), it was just there in the viscosity vs temperature chart for sunflower oil  ;)

(*) Hazard Class II, Flash point=   101-140°F (39-60°C)

Here is a Material Safety Data Sheet for soybean oil http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9925064


Viscosity vs temperature for soybean oil:

(http://www.scielo.br/img/revistas/bjce/v29n3/21f01.jpg)

(https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jordi-Roger_Riba/publication/255910594/figure/fig2/AS:392576256495621@1470608881435/Fig-2-Dependence-of-log-e-kinematic-viscosity-versus-temperature-1-for-automotive.png)

(https://oilpalmblog.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/viscosity.png)

(https://www.rroij.com/articles-images/IJIRSET-195-t003.gif)

(http://www.scielo.br/img/revistas/jbchs/v24n2/a19fig02.jpg)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/19/2017 10:00 pm
Mineral oil looks like it may work better than soybean. Depending on grade, its viscosity is about half at 20°C. It's cheap, widely available, and it won't evaporate at room temp.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/19/2017 10:13 pm
Mineral oil looks like it may work better than soybean. Depending on grade, its viscosity is about half at 20°C. It's cheap, widely available, and it won't evaporate at room temp.

(http://www.cwbearing.com/img/abbildung1_gross.jpg)

(http://www.skf.com/binary/30-127141/0908%200070%20-%2010000%20-%20A5_tcm_12-127141.png)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/19/2017 10:53 pm
Actually spindle machine oil looks ideal. It is available in five "velocite" grades with the viscosity well known.
No 6. is available for $30 a gallon:

https://www.mobil.com/English-US/Industrial/pds/GLXXMobil-Velocite-Oil-No-Series

https://goo.gl/JfB7ut
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: jmossman on 09/19/2017 11:30 pm
...
This means I can now adjust from over to under damped and here are two example calibration coil pulse tests. The pulse from today was 5.76uN as I added a 2.7ohm resistor to get the current down to 1A from 2.6A. But I think I still need a capacitor to keep the voltage steady.

Monomorphic,

Congrats on the continued progress with you build!

If you could provide a circuit diagram, some of us here on the forum may be able to provide some assistance with the calibration pulse circuit design. 

If a true constant current pulse is desired, I suspect the ideal circuit may be a little bit more involved than just adding a capacitor to a voltage divider circuit.  (although I suspect the primary requirement is merely a reproducable current/voltage profile during the calibration pulse)

Best regards,
James
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/19/2017 11:32 pm
Someone finally translated Dr Chen Yue's recent interview on CCTV in English. Not perfect but much better than Google's automatic gibberish translation.
You will not discover much, other than the fact CAST seems at the vey beginning of this research and they do not even know if it could work. To me, this is an attempt to make a propellantless RF resonant cavity thruster, but is has little to do with Shawyer's EmDrive, which is a very high-Q frustum resonant cavity with spherically shaped end plates, whereas this one is a flat cylinder with some slits and diaphragms at the bottom interior part.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mdcer1QQLrA&hl=en&cc_lang_pref=en&cc_load_policy=1
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: kamill85 on 09/19/2017 11:36 pm
...
...
Utterly and completely wrong. Any information travelling faster than light would allow for sending messages to the past. See the FTL paradox thread for details.

Whatever they said aside, I thought we've been through this, meberbs... You cannot sent messages "to the past" with Apparent FTL, it can only appear so to an observer. Traveling to actual location would reveal that whatever was seen, was ultimately a lie. Light/information that Observer can intercept can make him come to a conclusion that if he travels to a location X to tell this "message from the future", causality will be broken, but if you do the transformations correctly, it turns out upon arrival the time would be in the future of the said event. I only looks like messages can be sent to the past (and only from one frame of reference), but it wont work that way.

-----

Another thing, could someone jump in and explain the effect I witnessed personally today. I was boiling some water in a kettle, water around here is very hard, hence there is considerable "stone" buildup in a short period of time. Kettle was full, 3.5L, made out of stainless steel, so everything was quite heavy. Anyway, during heating, I assume around 90'C, there was an "explosion" inside, those happen quite often when a bubble wants to burst beneath a quite thick layer of the "stone". The kettle moved to the side, probably 2-3cm. There was no exhaust hence my question: what could possibly be the mechanics behind this event? I'm not asking because my kettle is pretty much EM Drive cavity-shaped by the way ;D - it was just quite strange to see...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/20/2017 12:08 am
...
...
Utterly and completely wrong. Any information travelling faster than light would allow for sending messages to the past. See the FTL paradox thread for details.

Whatever they said aside, I thought we've been through this, meberbs... You cannot sent messages "to the past" with Apparent FTL, it can only appear so to an observer. Traveling to actual location would reveal that whatever was seen, was ultimately a lie. Light/information that Observer can intercept can make him come to a conclusion that if he travels to a location X to tell this "message from the future", causality will be broken, but if you do the transformations correctly, it turns out upon arrival the time would be in the future of the said event. I only looks like messages can be sent to the past (and only from one frame of reference), but it wont work that way.
Yes, I thought we went over this, and the method of FTL does not matter. Wormholes, warp bubbles and other such concepts that have the ship maintain a local slower than light speed still break causality. You can see this plainly from the Lorentz transformations which apply in the flat space that remains after the warp drive is turned off, and existed before it was turned on. Talking about "looks" is irrelevant, because none of the causality breaking situations described in the FTL thread involve discussing the apparent order of events by an observer measuring signals that are light delayed, but instead use knowledge of the situation to calculate the actual times and positions of events.

You never responded to my last post to you in the FTL thread. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43385.msg1720280#msg1720280) This conversation should continue there to reduce the clutter in this thread if you want to continue waving your hands and pretending that it isn't an issue when you don't want it to be.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/20/2017 12:25 am
If you could provide a circuit diagram, some of us here on the forum may be able to provide some assistance with the calibration pulse circuit design. 

If a true constant current pulse is desired, I suspect the ideal circuit may be a little bit more involved than just adding a capacitor to a voltage divider circuit.  (although I suspect the primary requirement is merely a reproducable current/voltage profile during the calibration pulse)

Right now it is very simple so I haven't bothered to draw it up. The calibration coil and supply wires are 2.2ohm. I am using a 5V 2A power supply to energize the coil.  The coil was getting hot and the pulse was too strong so I added a 2.6ohm 10W resistor in series with the coil to bring resistance up to ~5ohm and the current down to ~1A. On/off is controlled via a separately powered relay switch so it can be toggled from two different locations.

The current/voltage profile is reproducible now, but if you look closely, there is still a small increase in voltage.  It would be nice if both were regulated and constant throughout the 30 second pulse.     
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 09/20/2017 01:24 am
Someone finally translated Dr Chen Yue's recent interview on CCTV in English. Not perfect but much better than Google's automatic gibberish translation.
You will not discover much, other than the fact CAST seems at the vey beginning of this research and they do not even know if it could work. To me, this is an attempt to make a propellantless RF resonant cavity thruster, but is has little to do with Shawyer's EmDrive, which is a very high-Q frustum resonant cavity with spherically shaped end plates, whereas this one is a flat cylinder with some slits and diaphragms at the bottom interior part.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mdcer1QQLrA&hl=en&cc_lang_pref=en&cc_load_policy=1

flux_capacitor,

the advantages of this design are; simplicity of design and production, low mass and reduced overall volume and stackability and it may yet be found to have other advantages as a resonator, hopefully a high Q.

Either way it clearly is an emdrive, which is Shawyer's invention.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 09/20/2017 01:58 am
...You ask for an explanation of inertia differing from that which you accept...
An explanation of inertia that I accept?  On the contrary, I asked for experiments confirming the opinions expressed in the last few pages.  For all the spilled ink in expressing subjective opinions (unsupported by experimental evidence) nobody has come up with a single experiment confirming any of those opinions.  The fact is that there is no experiment showing any "Machian effect" not already present in Einstein's General Relativity.   On the contrary, all the experiments (since the 1960's, trying to confirm Brans-Dicke's theory) looking for such Machian effects have failed to find any such evidence of Machian effects not present in Einstein's GR.   Coalescence of black holes is calculated nowadays analytically and numerically using General Relativity and the results (gravitational waves including the kick of a binary black hole with accompanying star cluster out of its galaxy) are in excellent agreement with General Relativity. 

If anybody thinks that Mach's principle has anything to add to General Relativity that is lacking in General Relativity, please cite experiments supporting such opinion, and explain what is missing in General Relativity that is present in Mach's principle and cite experimental support for any such claim.

Rodal,

the flaw in GR is quantum mechanics. Why is this so hard for you to accept? GR relies on the assumption that mass has inertia, due to some undefined internal mechanism, without any explanation as to why that inertia varies with the degree of time dilation that it exists within relative to the greater universe. The experiment that calls GR into question is the emdrive itself, which defies explanation within GR.

Mach simply asked the question, what if inertia is an interaction with the wider universe, and I have given you an outline for a mechanism by which that is feasible. Of course you reject it, you are invested in your own truth, as we all are. I admire your skills and wish that I could focus them on my solution but I doubt that will happen because my notions are insulting to academia. Truth is I do not think GR is flawed, it describes time dilation and its effects beautifully, it is just incomplete in that it fails to include charge interaction as a mechanism driven by time dilation, which it obviously is.

That inclusion would allow a deep simplification of the math of relativity. That inclusion would allow a Machian explanation for inertia which does not rely on the magical thinking which the co-existence of GR and quantum mechanics currently relies upon. That inclusion would allow an explanation for emdrive thrust which is what we strive for here on this thread. Please consider.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.LeBel on 09/20/2017 02:36 am
If you could provide a circuit diagram, some of us here on the forum may be able to provide some assistance with the calibration pulse circuit design. 

If a true constant current pulse is desired, I suspect the ideal circuit may be a little bit more involved than just adding a capacitor to a voltage divider circuit.  (although I suspect the primary requirement is merely a reproducable current/voltage profile during the calibration pulse)

Right now it is very simple so I haven't bothered to draw it up. The calibration coil and supply wires are 2.2ohm. I am using a 5V 2A power supply to energize the coil.  The coil was getting hot and the pulse was too strong so I added a 2.6ohm 10W resistor in series with the coil to bring resistance up to ~5ohm and the current down to ~1A. On/off is controlled via a separately powered relay switch so it can be toggled from two different locations.

The current/voltage profile is reproducible now, but if you look closely, there is still a small increase in voltage.  It would be nice if both were regulated and constant throughout the 30 second pulse.   

A switch mode power supply would eliminate line fluctuations (brownouts). With proper RF ferrite blocks on the leads and a clipping diode across the coil to prevent back EMF in the leads. One way to prepare and warm up the power supply would be to send the power to a 5 ohm dummy load and, when warmed up and ready, toggle to the coil for calibration, thereby removing the warm up effect. ???

 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 09/20/2017 06:17 am

flux_capacitor,

the advantages of this design are; simplicity of design and production, low mass and reduced overall volume and stackability and it may yet be found to have other advantages as a resonator, hopefully a high Q.

Either way it clearly is an emdrive, which is Shawyer's invention.

Yep, this puts all the comments about Chen Yue's work being about ionic thrusters (but somehow lost in translation) to rest.

This is an Emdrive, in the sense of being an asymmetric microwave resonant cavity (not in shape, but probably in its electromagnetic properties) which supposedly provides some thrust.

And they are indeed looking forward to test and use it in space.

Thus I presume there has been a track of ground based tests already.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Propylox on 09/20/2017 08:50 am
- what you posted ... is just nonsensical:
Emissions from what magnetic pole? ... Depending on the antenna type, the antenna might be roughly a magnetic dipole, but even then your sentence doesn't make sense because the only thing emitted from the antenna is the electromagnetic fields...
I'm struggling to understand what you don't about my comment and thus declared as nonsensical.
This is basic stuff, known as the electromagnetic field, divergence and the thermionic effect.

Quote
- Any information travelling faster than light would allow for sending messages to the past.
- Photons are pure energy. They have 0 rest mass
- Particle/wave duality doesn't have anything to do with "energy confined to time vs creating a ripple in it" mostly because that doesn't mean anything. "Confined to time" does not have any meaning.
This begins to make sense; that quantum entanglement and instantaneous force, as well as the nature of time's dimension and energy's ability to transit between the single dimension of time and three of our universe are concepts you're unaware of, clearly defiant to acknowledging and will require explaining.

Quote
- Einstein showed that gravitational waves travel at the speed of light, and he did not propose any kind of "mass carrier" for them. We still don't know if there is a graviton particle associated with these or not.
Don't you consider it a contradiction to call distortions in spacetime as "gravity waves" while referencing Einstein who said gravity isn't a force, but observation? Isn't it also contradictory for you to admit gravitons and the nature of gravity are debatable, but declare gravity's effect and velocity on spacetime and certain? I do and would gladly correct your confusion of the subject.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/20/2017 09:38 am
Someone finally translated Dr Chen Yue's recent interview on CCTV in English. Not perfect but much better than Google's automatic gibberish translation.
You will not discover much, other than the fact CAST seems at the vey beginning of this research and they do not even know if it could work. To me, this is an attempt to make a propellantless RF resonant cavity thruster, but is has little to do with Shawyer's EmDrive, which is a very high-Q frustum resonant cavity with spherically shaped end plates, whereas this one is a flat cylinder with some slits and diaphragms at the bottom interior part.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mdcer1QQLrA&hl=en&cc_lang_pref=en&cc_load_policy=1

flux_capacitor,

the advantages of this design are; simplicity of design and production, low mass and reduced overall volume and stackability and it may yet be found to have other advantages as a resonator, hopefully a high Q.

Either way it clearly is an emdrive, which is Shawyer's invention.


Both CAST and Roger has reported they, CAST, started EmDrive research in 2010. Roger also reported an independent Beijing Chinese lab, CAST?, did replicated Prof Yang's results.

Of course to deniers, this means nothing as they believe there us no way the EmDrive works and ALL experimental data is either bad setup, bad measurement or intentional reporting of bad data.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Propylox on 09/20/2017 09:40 am
A differential in the rate of time is gravity (quote from Unruh, posted n times already).
A lot of interesting comments, LeBel, but it may be incorrect gravity, whether a force or observation, is an outcome of time's variation. It depends on the nature and limits of space's distortion (note: I separated time) and if gravity exists. Here's a handful of options;

1) Time and space are the same, placing the same bounds on space's distortion as time. In the absence of matter, space will expand and time will advance at a constant and will slow to near zero in presence of abundant mass. This definition prevents space from contracting, only limiting its expansion, and thus gravity must be an actual force - One locked to the local rate of spacetime, defined by mass's presence. note: it'd also mean our universe isn't cyclical, but a one-off.

2) Time and space are aspects of one system called spacetime. But while time expands at a rate from near zero to one, space can expand or contract at rates between one and -one. Both time and space's distortion is again dependent on mass and again returns to "one" in mass's absence. It can thus be stated gravity is only an observation of spacetime's distortion due to mass.

3) Time is a dimension and space an unrelated, decreasing field. Again, time and space are retarded by mass, but space would not return to expansion in mass's absence. The rate of space's expansion decreases with time, but appears otherwise (aka: dark energy) due to the geometry of the universe. Gravity is again an observation of space's contraction due to mass while time is separately, but similarly effected - thus there is no relation between time and gravity other than appearance.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/20/2017 11:32 am
Guys,

I've decided to move forward with a replication of my original flat end plate S band thruster design as it was public knowledge before my contract work.

Now doing videos of every stage of builing this thruster. Will be using Yonlit 25W rf amp and USB freq gen with USB 2 channel scope for monitoring fwd/rev power as low cost quasi VNA to observe resonance and best freq vs lowest reflected power.

Output will be on a simple rotary test rig that will rotate cw and ccw as thruster position is reversed.

This test rig will prove CofE and CofM is not violated, plus show short bursts of acceleration, from pulsed Rf, with short rest frames between acceleration frames can achieve constant acceleration with very little KE gain reduction in EmDrive force generation.

As I suggest happens in MEGA drive and needs no new physics.

Phil
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/20/2017 11:47 am
...
Rodal,

the flaw in GR is quantum mechanics. Why is this so hard for you to accept? GR relies on the assumption that mass has inertia, due to some undefined internal mechanism, without any explanation as to why that inertia varies with the degree of time dilation that it exists within relative to the greater universe. The experiment that calls GR into question is the emdrive itself, which defies explanation within GR.
...
So you think that the explanation for the EM Drive is something in Mach's principle that is not present in Einstein's General Relativity (GR), you ignore all the tests (starting with Shapiro and ending with Gravity Probe B) that have conclusively shown no such extra-Mach-effect,

I ask you for experimental proof

and your experimental proof for this extra-Mach effect being responsible for the EM Drive experimental claim is....the EM Drive experiment itself?

And you wonder why I find unacceptable the claim that there are extra-Mach effects not present in GR?

----

And you say that this extra-Mach effect, not present in GR, is what,...quantum mechanics?

Mach, the man that could not even accept the existence atoms, you find responsible for... quantum mechanic effects?

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/gpb_results.html

(https://www.nasa.gov/images/content/168806main_sv_rising_web_330.jpg)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 09/20/2017 12:05 pm
Monomorphic -

Eyeballing your calibration charts above, it looks like you've set the LDS to be both horizontal displacement at opposite ends of the beam, as discussed earlier. Any chance you could post the excel files the charts come from so that I can have a look?

Can you give us the horizontal distances from the pivot to Lds01 and LDS02?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/20/2017 01:13 pm
Eyeballing your calibration charts above, it looks like you've set the LDS to be both horizontal displacement at opposite ends of the beam, as discussed earlier. Any chance you could post the excel files the charts come from so that I can have a look?

Can you give us the horizontal distances from the pivot to Lds01 and LDS02?

Sure, those files are attached. The mounted radius of the laser displacement sensors is (434mm).

EDIT: Just measured the LDS radius again since the changes.  It is easier to measure since there are two. I think this number is more accurate.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mr. Peter on 09/20/2017 03:00 pm
Recommended Practice for Thrust Measurement in Electric Propulsion Testing

https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/1.B35564
http://hpepl.ae.gatech.edu/sites/default/files/Journal_Articles/JPP%20V33%20No3%20MayJune2017_ThrustMeasurement.pdf

Comprehensive and very useful paper on the subject.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/20/2017 03:10 pm
- what you posted ... is just nonsensical:
Emissions from what magnetic pole? ... Depending on the antenna type, the antenna might be roughly a magnetic dipole, but even then your sentence doesn't make sense because the only thing emitted from the antenna is the electromagnetic fields...
I'm struggling to understand what you don't about my comment and thus declared as nonsensical.
This is basic stuff, known as the electromagnetic field, divergence and the thermionic effect.
I asked specific questions, such as where you physically propose that the magnetic pole is, and whether you meant monopole as your wording implied, or if you meant something that actually exists such as dipole.

Instead of answering my specific questions, you respond by bringing up an effect that only occurs at temperatures hundreds of degrees higher than any emDrive experiment reaches, because experimenters try to mitigate thermal effects.

The only conclusions I can take from this are that you are either trolling or have no idea what you are talking about.

If the first, then stop wasting everyone's time. If the second, could you please explain why you think you understand these things when you couldn't even be bothered to spend a minute to look up at what temperature the thermal effect you are discussing even becomes significant?

Quote
- Any information travelling faster than light would allow for sending messages to the past.
- Photons are pure energy. They have 0 rest mass
- Particle/wave duality doesn't have anything to do with "energy confined to time vs creating a ripple in it" mostly because that doesn't mean anything. "Confined to time" does not have any meaning.
This begins to make sense; that quantum entanglement and instantaneous force, as well as the nature of time's dimension and energy's ability to transit between the single dimension of time and three of our universe are concepts you're unaware of, clearly defiant to acknowledging and will require explaining.
You are the one who seems to be unaware of the actual meaning of any of the words you just used. I provided an explanation, while your response contains no explanation, or even an acknowledgement of what I said, so clearly you are the one that "clearly defiant to acknowledging" applies to.

Quote
- Einstein showed that gravitational waves travel at the speed of light, and he did not propose any kind of "mass carrier" for them. We still don't know if there is a graviton particle associated with these or not.
Don't you consider it a contradiction to call distortions in spacetime as "gravity waves" while referencing Einstein who said gravity isn't a force, but observation?
Even if Einstein said that, it wouldn't contradict my first sentence. I can't find any such quote, and his description of gravity doesn't call gravity an "observation," but calls it curvature of spacetime which supports my statement. Also your use of "gravity waves" is wrong. That term is used for waves such as those found in the ocean. While understandable, it is not common for anyone who is familiar with GR to use that term when referring to gravitational waves.

Isn't it also contradictory for you to admit gravitons and the nature of gravity are debatable, but declare gravity's effect and velocity on spacetime and certain? I do and would gladly correct your confusion of the subject.
Well, you didn't do any explanations here, and if you actually were familiar with the field at all, or even reading other posts in this thread (such as Rodal referencing gravity probe B) you would know that the predictions of general relativity have been measured quite accurately, so the certainty comes from experimental results. Any differences in the behavior of gravity based on whether or not gravitons exist are well beyond our current experimental capability, and either way, your original claim of instantaneous gravity simply contradicts experimental evidence.

Edit: Somehow failed to type the second half of one sentence.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/20/2017 03:16 pm
This test rig will prove CofE and CofM is not violated
How exactly are you going to show that conservation of momentum is not violated?
The only ways to do this are for either the device to not move, or for you to demonstrate that there is some form of exhaust.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 09/20/2017 03:28 pm
This test rig will prove CofE and CofM is not violated
How exactly are you going to show that conservation of momentum is not violated?
The only ways to do this are for either the device to not move, or for you to demonstrate that there is some form of exhaust.

His move should be encouraged.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/20/2017 03:36 pm
This test rig will prove CofE and CofM is not violated
How exactly are you going to show that conservation of momentum is not violated?
The only ways to do this are for either the device to not move, or for you to demonstrate that there is some form of exhaust.

His move should be encouraged.
Yes, if he is actually going to do an experiment and provide evidence this time, it would be great, but saying the experiment will demonstrate something that it cannot demonstrate if it works is not a good start. I am asking how he intends to demonstrate conservation of momentum so that any associated flaws in the experiment can be worked out early.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/20/2017 04:01 pm
...
Rodal,

the flaw in GR is quantum mechanics. Why is this so hard for you to accept? GR relies on the assumption that mass has inertia, due to some undefined internal mechanism, without any explanation as to why that inertia varies with the degree of time dilation that it exists within relative to the greater universe. The experiment that calls GR into question is the emdrive itself, which defies explanation within GR.
...
So you think that the explanation for the EM Drive is something in Mach's principle that is not present in Einstein's General Relativity (GR), you ignore all the tests (starting with Shapiro and ending with Gravity Probe B) that have conclusively shown no such extra-Mach-effect,

I ask you for experimental proof

and your experimental proof for this extra-Mach effect being responsible for the EM Drive experimental claim is....the EM Drive experiment itself?

And you wonder why I find unacceptable the claim that there are extra-Mach effects not present in GR?

----

And you say that this extra-Mach effect, not present in GR, is what,...quantum mechanics?

Mach, the man that could not even accept the existence atoms, you find responsible for... quantum mechanic effects?

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/gpb_results.html

(https://www.nasa.gov/images/content/168806main_sv_rising_web_330.jpg)

Rodal I have a lot of respect for you remaining objective about Mach effects despite your collaboration with the Woodward team.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 09/20/2017 05:00 pm
This test rig will prove CofE and CofM is not violated
How exactly are you going to show that conservation of momentum is not violated?
The only ways to do this are for either the device to not move, or for you to demonstrate that there is some form of exhaust.

His move should be encouraged.
Yes, if he is actually going to do an experiment and provide evidence this time, it would be great, but saying the experiment will demonstrate something that it cannot demonstrate if it works is not a good start. I am asking how he intends to demonstrate conservation of momentum so that any associated flaws in the experiment can be worked out early.

I think that TT believes that CoM and CoE are fundamental to physics and thus, any demonstration of a working EmDrive is a de facto demonstration that it does not violate either CoM or CoE.

Just a few posts back he admitted that he did not know that Shawyer's theory of operation is an accurate description of why it works only a model that predicts design limits, when he posted,



Do I know why the EmDrive does what it does? No. However using SPR theory to drive design does seem to work.

Basically it sounds like he is now saying that if he demonstrates that it does work, he is also proving that it does not violate CoM... because CoM cannot be violated.

But you are correct, he will not have proven that there is not some new physics involved, that in the least requires that we reexamine our fundamental understanding of CoM.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/20/2017 05:35 pm
...
Rodal,

the flaw in GR is quantum mechanics. Why is this so hard for you to accept? GR relies on the assumption that mass has inertia, due to some undefined internal mechanism, without any explanation as to why that inertia varies with the degree of time dilation that it exists within relative to the greater universe. The experiment that calls GR into question is the emdrive itself, which defies explanation within GR.
...
So you think that the explanation for the EM Drive is something in Mach's principle that is not present in Einstein's General Relativity (GR), you ignore all the tests (starting with Shapiro and ending with Gravity Probe B) that have conclusively shown no such extra-Mach-effect,

I ask you for experimental proof

and your experimental proof for this extra-Mach effect being responsible for the EM Drive experimental claim is....the EM Drive experiment itself?

And you wonder why I find unacceptable the claim that there are extra-Mach effects not present in GR?

----

And you say that this extra-Mach effect, not present in GR, is what,...quantum mechanics?

Mach, the man that could not even accept the existence atoms, you find responsible for... quantum mechanic effects?

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/gpb_results.html

(https://www.nasa.gov/images/content/168806main_sv_rising_web_330.jpg)

It's too easy to "mock" Mach  ;D for not recognizing the existence of atoms. It really was a deep scientific controversy at the time. Einstein played a role in making it clear in his thesis.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/20/2017 05:45 pm
This test rig will prove CofE and CofM is not violated
How exactly are you going to show that conservation of momentum is not violated?
The only ways to do this are for either the device to not move, or for you to demonstrate that there is some form of exhaust.

Which is really the bigger problem for you, that TT thinks momentum is conserved in a working EMDrive, a position professor Woodward appeared to hold until recently, or if a proven force exists without an exhaust showing momentum isn't conserved (at least locally)? Personally, I didn't mind Woodward's old position. Either way would lead to energy devices with greater output than input.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/20/2017 06:01 pm
This test rig will prove CofE and CofM is not violated
How exactly are you going to show that conservation of momentum is not violated?
The only ways to do this are for either the device to not move, or for you to demonstrate that there is some form of exhaust.

Which is really the bigger problem for you, that TT thinks momentum is conserved in a working EMDrive, a position professor Woodward appeared to hold until recently, or if a proven force exists without an exhaust showing momentum isn't conserved (at least locally)? Personally, I didn't mind Woodward's old position. Either way would lead to energy devices with greater output than input.

Please cite a source for your unsourced claim that

Quote
momentum is conserved in a working EMDrive, a position professor Woodward appeared to hold until recently

The paper I read from him in the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society was actually arguing against White's QV theory for the EM Drive. 

http://www.jbis.org.uk/paper.php?p=2016.69.331

Are you suggesting that he previously stated that a working EM Drive would conserve momentum and now he states that a working EM Drive would not conserve momentum?   I would bet instead that previously, and presently he would maintain that conservation of momentum has to be satisfied by every phenomenon as one of the most important laws of nature.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/20/2017 06:10 pm
...
Rodal,

the flaw in GR is quantum mechanics. Why is this so hard for you to accept? GR relies on the assumption that mass has inertia, due to some undefined internal mechanism, without any explanation as to why that inertia varies with the degree of time dilation that it exists within relative to the greater universe. The experiment that calls GR into question is the emdrive itself, which defies explanation within GR.
...
So you think that the explanation for the EM Drive is something in Mach's principle that is not present in Einstein's General Relativity (GR), you ignore all the tests (starting with Shapiro and ending with Gravity Probe B) that have conclusively shown no such extra-Mach-effect,

I ask you for experimental proof

and your experimental proof for this extra-Mach effect being responsible for the EM Drive experimental claim is....the EM Drive experiment itself?

And you wonder why I find unacceptable the claim that there are extra-Mach effects not present in GR?

----

And you say that this extra-Mach effect, not present in GR, is what,...quantum mechanics?

Mach, the man that could not even accept the existence atoms, you find responsible for... quantum mechanic effects?

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/gpb_results.html


It's too easy to "mock" Mach  ;D for not recognizing the existence of atoms. It really was a deep scientific controversy at the time. Einstein played a role in making it clear in his thesis.
A lot of your posts are about you seeing mocking where there is no mocking.

The post you are commenting on reads

Quote
And you say that this extra-Mach effect, not present in GR, is what,...quantum mechanics?

Mach, the man that could not even accept the existence atoms, you find responsible for... quantum mechanic effects?

How does it make sense that the same Mach that was never able to accept the existence of atoms would have a principle that would involve quantum mechanics somehow?

There is nothing about quantum mechanics in Mach's principle.  It is about stars, billions of light years away, being responsible for inertia.

Sorry if that offended you but did you notice the quotes and the emoji which both indicated it was intended as a pun, not an accusation.  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 09/20/2017 06:14 pm
A reminder about the NASA sponsored NIAC Symposium that starts Monday morning at 8:30 am Denver time.


IT will be live streamed at www.livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/www.livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017)

Agenda: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/niac_2017_symposium_agenda_dener.pdf (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/niac_2017_symposium_agenda_dener.pdf)[


Wednesday morning: 11:10 Heidi Fearn, Space Studies Institute, Mach Effects for In Space Propulsion: Interstellar Mission
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 09/20/2017 06:32 pm
Hi. I think we should keep Mach Effect related discussions on their own thread, until there is enough evidence that Emdrive exists and that it could be explained as a extended GR/Mach effect phenomenon.

Mods have been patient with us so far, but let's not over-stress that good disposition.  :-\
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/20/2017 06:33 pm
This test rig will prove CofE and CofM is not violated
How exactly are you going to show that conservation of momentum is not violated?
The only ways to do this are for either the device to not move, or for you to demonstrate that there is some form of exhaust.

Which is really the bigger problem for you, that TT thinks momentum is conserved in a working EMDrive, a position professor Woodward appeared to hold until recently, or if a proven force exists without an exhaust showing momentum isn't conserved (at least locally)? Personally, I didn't mind Woodward's old position. Either way would lead to energy devices with greater output than input.

Please cite a source for your unsourced claim that

Quote
momentum is conserved in a working EMDrive, a position professor Woodward appeared to hold until recently

The paper I read from him in the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society was actually arguing against White's QV theory for the EM Drive. 

http://www.jbis.org.uk/paper.php?p=2016.69.331

please cite a source where he commented about <<a working EMDrive>>.  Are you suggesting that he previously stated that a working EM Drive would conserve momentum and now he states that a working EM Drive would not conserve momentum?   I am sure he would say that conservation of momentum has to be satisfied before, now and in the future.

Sorry, I didn't meant to imply prof. Woodward said there was "a working EMDrive" that was sloppy sentence construction. I meant if there was a working propellent less propulsion device. I have professor Woodward's paper to the effect that he believed momentum and energy were conserved locally. It seems to me TT's position and prof. Woodward's position, each for their respective candidate propellent less devices were similar. That's all I meant. And I got the first part about prof. Woodward's position change from a post by Paul March a few weeks ago in the Woodward Effect forum msg. 976. I'll be disappointed if the members of the team now disagree about what prof. Woodward's position really is. Besides, I got that also from the slide published with the names of the whole NIAC team on it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/20/2017 06:37 pm
Hi. I think we should keep Mach Effect related discussions on their own thread, until there is enough evidence that Emdrive exists and that it could be explained as a extended GR/Mach effect phenomenon.

Mods have been patient with us so far, but let's not over-stress that good disposition.  :-\
I don't see why a well reasoned discussion of Machian explanations (based on experiments and theory) for the EM Drive would be prevented in this thread.  If people (not me!) think that there is an extra-Machian effect not present in General Relativity that is responsible for acceleration of the EM Drive they should be allowed to discuss that, just as much as they are allowed to discuss any other explanation: Shawyer's explanation, Minotti's explanation, McCulloch's explanation.  There is no such thing as a thread for "Mach Effects in the EM Drive" or about "Unruh effects in the EM Drive" or about "Newtonian effects in the EM Drive", or about "General Relativity effects in the EM Drive", or about "Quantum Mechanics effects in the EM Drive" nor do I think there should be when people are still debating whether the experiments are an artifact and if not what is responsible.

All that has happened here is that some have asserted an extra-Machian effect (not present in GR) explanation and I have been asking them to cite experiments showing such extra-Machian effect (not already present in GR).  The reason being, that all the experiments I am aware of (since Shapiro all the way to Gravity Probe B) that have looked for such extra-Machian effects have failed to find any such effect not already present in General Relativity.  Maybe somebody will find such an experiment.  Maybe the assertions will fall off on their own.  Just like it happens with all the other explanations.   We are all curious to find out what could explain what is claimed by Shawyer and others.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/20/2017 06:58 pm
..Sorry, ..
Perhaps the discussion you are referring to was about energy conservation issues in GR under dynamic conditions, see these fine points, which occur for example when trying to localize the energy in gravitational waves: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35431/is-the-law-of-conservation-of-energy-still-valid, but I can't speak for other people.  My opinions are only my own  ;)

In any case, in this thread we should only speak about the EM Drive, not about other, different, devices. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/20/2017 07:24 pm
..Sorry, ..
Perhaps the discussion you are referring to was about energy conservation issues in GR under dynamic conditions, see these fine points, which occur for example when trying to localize the energy in gravitational waves: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35431/is-the-law-of-conservation-of-energy-still-valid, but I can't speak for other people.  My opinions are only my own  ;)

In any case, in this thread we should only speak about the EM Drive, not about other, different, devices.

Thanks, I'm pretty clear. But I certainly hope you agree with the slide I referenced that has your name on it.  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.LeBel on 09/20/2017 07:59 pm
The CoM is an empirical law, a description. Kick (precise) some object in space (no additional forces) and it will keep going with proper mv. We must understand that the reason it keeps going (inertia) is not because it read the CoM law (or Newton’s) ! It keeps going for other unknown factors (not empirical-Newton-GR etc.) but because of some pilot wave or something specifically associated with the object. It is not inconceivable that we may recreate some such “pilot wave” (or whatever) in the emDrive device, later requiring an adjustment or extension to the CoM.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: wicoe on 09/20/2017 08:20 pm
The CoM is an empirical law, a description. Kick (precise) some object in space (no additional forces) and it will keep going with proper mv. We must understand that the reason it keeps going (inertia) is not because it read the CoM law (or Newton’s) ! It keeps going for other unknown factors (not empirical-Newton-GR etc.) but because of some pilot wave or something specifically associated with the object. It is not inconceivable that we may recreate some such “pilot wave” (or whatever) in the emDrive device, later requiring an adjustment or extension to the CoM.

Actually, CoM/CoE are not just empirical laws, they follow from one of the most fundamental symmetries of physics (i.e. that the same physical process exhibits the same outcomes regardless of place and time - refer to Noether's theorem).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 09/20/2017 08:52 pm

I don't see why a well reasoned discussion of Machian explanations (based on experiments and theory) for the EM Drive would be prevented in this thread.  If people (not me!) think that there is an extra-Machian effect not present in General Relativity that is responsible for acceleration of the EM Drive they should be allowed to discuss that, just as much as they are allowed to discuss any other explanation: Shawyer's explanation, Minotti's explanation, McCulloch's explanation.  There is no such thing as a thread for "Mach Effects in the EM Drive" or about "Unruh effects in the EM Drive" or about "Newtonian effects in the EM Drive", or about "General Relativity effects in the EM Drive", or about "Quantum Mechanics effects in the EM Drive" nor do I think there should be when people are still debating whether the experiments are an artifact and if not what is responsible.

All that has happened here is that some have asserted an extra-Machian effect (not present in GR) explanation and I have been asking them to cite experiments showing such extra-Machian effect (not already present in GR).  The reason being, that all the experiments I am aware of (since Shapiro all the way to Gravity Probe B) that have looked for such extra-Machian effects have failed to find any such effect not already present in General Relativity.  Maybe somebody will find such an experiment.  Maybe the assertions will fall off on their own.  Just like it happens with all the other explanations.   We are all curious to find out what could explain what is claimed by Shawyer and others.

OK, I get it. GR/Machian effects for explaining the Emdrive could very well be on topic, the same as the other explanations as long as there is no definitive answer to the actual existence, or lack thereof, of the Emdrive and to its internal functioning.

My concern here is: do the mods see it that way? or are we losing focus?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/20/2017 09:31 pm
I was able to pick up the ISO 10 spindle oil today locally and it works just as anticipated.  The viscosity seems right between antifreeze and soybean oil.   ;D

Here is a dual calibration pulse to see how repeatable they are. Eyeballing it, I would say the pendulum is now just below critically damped.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/20/2017 09:44 pm
I was able to pick up the ISO 10 spindle oil today locally and it works just as anticipated.  The viscosity seems right between antifreeze and soybean oil.   ;D

Here is a dual calibration pulse to see how repeatable they are. Eyeballing it, I would say the pendulum is now critically damped.
What is the rationale to conduct the test with damping high enough such that it is critically damped?

Wouldn't it be better to run it underdamped?

* most microNewton thrust measurement torsional pendulum measurements are done with an underdamped pendulum
* the critically damped condition is at the edge of a different solution to the differential equation of motion of the torsional pendulum.  Wouldn't it be better to be definitely on the underdamped side (for the whole range of temperatures that you may encounter during testing) such that the solution to the equation of motion display always the same type of solution? If you run critically damped at today's temperature, the pendulum may exhibit overdamped conditions at a colder temperature tomorrow, and underdamped conditions at a hotter temperature the day after tomorrow.  Ideally one would run always at the same temperature, hence same damping, but given that assuring perfect temperature control is impossible, wouldn't it be better to be on the underdamped side for all temperatures?


(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/images/oscda12.gif)

Following quotes are from:  http://hpepl.ae.gatech.edu/sites/default/files/Journal_Articles/JPP%20V33%20No3%20MayJune2017_ThrustMeasurement.pdf

hat tip to Mr. Peter's great post https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1725093#msg1725093

CalTech's "Recommended Practice for Thrust Measurement in Electric Propulsion Testing"

Quote
As noted previously, the thrust stand sensitivity can vary with
frequency for dynamic thrust loads. To achieve a flat response for
relevant thrust input frequencies, the stand should be designed to be
underdamped with a damping ratio of ∼0.5–0.6
and a natural
frequency much higher than the input frequencies. High natural
frequencies can be achieved with high stiffness or a low moment of
inertia. Of these strategies, decreasing the moment of inertia is
preferred; otherwise, sensitivity (which scales inversely with
stiffness) will be sacrificed for a flat response. The amplification in
response near the resonant frequency has been exploited in at least
one design [4] to increase sensitivity. In this approach, a pulsed
thruster was fired every half-period at the natural frequency of a
minimally damped torsional thrust stand i
n order to amplify the
amplitude of the stand oscillation and achieve sub-micronewton
sensitivity

Quote
the maximum
overshoot, and the settling time ts (the time required for the variations
around the steady-state value to drop to within 2% of that value).
Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the effect of damping ratio on these
parameters. A damping ratio of 0.4 ≤ ζ ≤ 0.8 generally gives a good
step response.
For this range, ts  4∕ζωn

Quote
. Thrust stands used in
impulse measurements are typically underdamped pendulums
that
are allowed to oscillate at their natural frequency after an impulse
perturbation

Quote
The known calibration impulse will perturb the natural motion of
the stand and cause it to ring or oscillate at its natural frequency.
Figure 14 shows a plot of LVDT voltage as a function of time for a
torsional balance that has experienced an impulsive perturbation. The
impulse causes the stand to deflect with an initial velocityΔx_0 and a
maximum range of travel, defined as the difference between the first
peak and the first valley in the oscillatory response. These parameters
can be estimated by fitting a damped sinusoid (for underdamped
pendulums) to the data.

Quote
The known calibration impulse will perturb the natural motion of
the stand and cause it to ring or oscillate at its natural frequency.
Figure 14 shows a plot of LVDT voltage as a function of time for a
torsional balance that has experienced an impulsive perturbation. The
impulse causes the stand to deflect with an initial velocityΔx_0 and a
maximum range of travel, defined as the difference between the first
peak and the first valley in the oscillatory response. These parameters
can be estimated by fitting a damped sinusoid (for underdamped
pendulums) to the data
.

Others in this thread have previously argued for critically damped and overdamped measurement systems, but I have found such argumentation unconvincing in the final analysis.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/20/2017 09:51 pm
What is the rationale to conduct the test with damping such that it is critically damped?

Wouldn't it be better to run it underdamped?

The only rationale is this is the first test with the new dampening fluid. It is just chance that this test ended up being just under critically-damped. I can adjust the dampening paddle to get underdamped now if desired.

With regard to temperature, I do plan on trying to conduct all tests at as close to the same temperature as possible. Part of the advantage of waiting until October is it will be cooler. It is easier for me to control the temperature in the workshop during cooler weather as all I need is a space heater.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.LeBel on 09/20/2017 09:53 pm
The CoM is an empirical law, a description. Kick (precise) some object in space (no additional forces) and it will keep going with proper mv. We must understand that the reason it keeps going (inertia) is not because it read the CoM law (or Newton’s) ! It keeps going for other unknown factors (not empirical-Newton-GR etc.) but because of some pilot wave or something specifically associated with the object. It is not inconceivable that we may recreate some such “pilot wave” (or whatever) in the emDrive device, later requiring an adjustment or extension to the CoM.

Actually, CoM/CoE are not just empirical laws, they follow from one of the most fundamental symmetries of physics (i.e. that the same physical process exhibits the same outcomes regardless of place and time - refer to Noether's theorem).

- Actually, CoM and CoE came before Noether’s theorem (So, inspired from, re-derived but not follow)

- “fundamental symmetries of physics”. Still, physics is empirical. (based on experience)

-  If my “not inconceivable” was clearly and absolutely wrong for everyone, both meberbs and Rodal would have been long gone from this thread. (not a proof, but some indication)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/20/2017 10:47 pm
What is the rationale to conduct the test with damping such that it is critically damped?

Wouldn't it be better to run it underdamped?

The only rational is this is the first test with the new dampening fluid. It is just chance that this test ended up being just under critically-damped. I can adjust the dampening paddle to get underdamped now if desired.

With regard to temperature, I do plan on trying to conduct all tests at as close to the same temperature as possible. Part of the advantage of waiting until October is it will be cooler. It is easier for me to control the temperature in the workshop during cooler weather as all I need is a space heater.
Back then I calculated the damping ratios based on your previous runs.

Do you recall what damping ratio did I previously calculate you had at that time (when you were using SeeShell's antifreeze)?

Notice that the CalTech authors recommend 0.4 ≤ ζ ≤ 0.8  or 0.5 ≤ ζ ≤ 0.6 as ideal:


CalTech's "Recommended Practice for Thrust Measurement in Electric Propulsion Testing"

Quote
As noted previously, the thrust stand sensitivity can vary with
frequency for dynamic thrust loads. To achieve a flat response for
relevant thrust input frequencies, the stand should be designed to be
underdamped with a damping ratio of ∼0.5–0.6
and a natural
frequency much higher than the input frequencies. High natural
frequencies can be achieved with high stiffness or a low moment of
inertia. Of these strategies, decreasing the moment of inertia is
preferred; otherwise, sensitivity (which scales inversely with
stiffness) will be sacrificed for a flat response. The amplification in
response near the resonant frequency has been exploited in at least
one design [4] to increase sensitivity. In this approach, a pulsed
thruster was fired every half-period at the natural frequency of a
minimally damped torsional thrust stand i
n order to amplify the
amplitude of the stand oscillation and achieve sub-micronewton
sensitivity

Quote
the maximum
overshoot, and the settling time ts (the time required for the variations
around the steady-state value to drop to within 2% of that value).
Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the effect of damping ratio on these
parameters. A damping ratio of 0.4 ≤ ζ ≤ 0.8 generally gives a good
step response.
For this range, ts  4∕ζωn
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mr. Peter on 09/20/2017 11:27 pm
Do you recall what damping ratio did I previously calculate you had at that time (when you were using SeeShell's antifreeze)?
Dr. Rodal,
It was ζ =0.23 afair
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1648589#msg1648589
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/20/2017 11:45 pm
Do you recall what damping ratio did I previously calculate you had at that time (when you were using SeeShell's antifreeze)?
Dr. Rodal,
It was ζ =0.23 afair
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1648589#msg1648589

Yes, ~0.2 is what I recall as well. I'm glad CalTech recommends more damping. ζ =0.22 was very loose. It was hard to keep the noise level down because of the electronics. With 0.4 ≤ ζ ≤ 0.8, noise levels will be easier to mitigate.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 09/21/2017 01:33 am
A differential in the rate of time is gravity (quote from Unruh, posted n times already).
A lot of interesting comments, LeBel, but it may be incorrect gravity, whether a force or observation, is an outcome of time's variation. It depends on the nature and limits of space's distortion (note: I separated time) and if gravity exists. Here's a handful of options;

1) Time and space are the same, placing the same bounds on space's distortion as time. In the absence of matter, space will expand and time will advance at a constant and will slow to near zero in presence of abundant mass. This definition prevents space from contracting, only limiting its expansion, and thus gravity must be an actual force - One locked to the local rate of spacetime, defined by mass's presence. note: it'd also mean our universe isn't cyclical, but a one-off.

2) Time and space are aspects of one system called spacetime. But while time expands at a rate from near zero to one, space can expand or contract at rates between one and -one. Both time and space's distortion is again dependent on mass and again returns to "one" in mass's absence. It can thus be stated gravity is only an observation of spacetime's distortion due to mass.

3) Time is a dimension and space an unrelated, decreasing field. Again, time and space are retarded by mass, but space would not return to expansion in mass's absence. The rate of space's expansion decreases with time, but appears otherwise (aka: dark energy) due to the geometry of the universe. Gravity is again an observation of space's contraction due to mass while time is separately, but similarly effected - thus there is no relation between time and gravity other than appearance.
4) Time is a property of matter and the space it exists within is a human (animal) construct which depends upon a point perspective.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 09/21/2017 02:13 am
...
Rodal,

the flaw in GR is quantum mechanics. Why is this so hard for you to accept? GR relies on the assumption that mass has inertia, due to some undefined internal mechanism, without any explanation as to why that inertia varies with the degree of time dilation that it exists within relative to the greater universe. The experiment that calls GR into question is the emdrive itself, which defies explanation within GR.
...
So you think that the explanation for the EM Drive is something in Mach's principle that is not present in Einstein's General Relativity (GR), you ignore all the tests (starting with Shapiro and ending with Gravity Probe B) that have conclusively shown no such extra-Mach-effect,

I ask you for experimental proof

and your experimental proof for this extra-Mach effect being responsible for the EM Drive experimental claim is....the EM Drive experiment itself?

And you wonder why I find unacceptable the claim that there are extra-Mach effects not present in GR?

----

And you say that this extra-Mach effect, not present in GR, is what,...quantum mechanics?

Mach, the man that could not even accept the existence atoms, you find responsible for... quantum mechanic effects?

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/gpb_results.html

(https://www.nasa.gov/images/content/168806main_sv_rising_web_330.jpg)

Rodal,
you attack the person (Mach) not the idea. But no, I have no 'time' for quantum mechanics, I think it mostly a delusion born of the point perspective the weakness of which has already been made clear by Einstein.

What I think is that the photon is a bandwagon fallacy, a contrived solution made necessary by the inability of folk, including Einstein, to take in the notion that time is complex. By 'time is complex' I mean that time is not and cannot be linear when it runs at different rates in different places, and that the only math which encompasses the truth of this situation is that time has a complex conjugate. The combination of real time (whose rate never varies at any point even when that point is in motion) and its complex conjugate, is the structure of time which allows energy to move by the mechanisms we understand to be 'photons'. Emission and absorption being at locations coincident in complex time. Difficult to visualize but worth the effort.

Then again, I believe the complex conjugate to be a fundamental component of all mathematics because it arises naturally in all analysis starting with the quadratic equation. The coincidence which allows absorption of a quantum to be an intimate and immediate part of its emission, can only exist in complex time and I can find no other explanation which satisfies all the experimental evidence.

So, good Dr Rodal, must I confess my curiosity. If the emdrive does eventually provide us with abundant thrust, what will be your explanation?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/21/2017 02:25 am
...you attack the person (Mach) not the idea...
spupeng, The Mach Principle states that the distant stars are responsible for inertia.  It is not a statement about quantum mechanics.  Your statement that saying this implies an attack on Mach is unfair, as he never accepted even the existence of the atom, much less quantum mechanics (which had not even seen Schrödinger and Heissenberg by the time Mach passed away in 1916).   Give Mach credit for inspiring Einstein and for his work in supersonic flow instead.  Asking for experimental proof of a Principle is also not attacking anybody.  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThinkerX on 09/21/2017 05:15 am
...you attack the person (Mach) not the idea...
spupeng, The Mach Principle states that the distant stars are responsible for inertia.  It is not a statement about quantum mechanics.  Your statement that saying this implies an attack on Mach is unfair, as he never accepted even the existence of the atom, much less quantum mechanics (which had not even seen Schrödinger and Heissenberg by the time Mach passed away in 1916).   Give Mach credit for inspiring Einstein and for his work in supersonic flow instead.  Asking for experimental proof of a Principle is also not attacking anybody.  :)

Doctor Rodal - I thought you'd authored a mathematical paper that supported (?) the Woodward/Mach Drive/Effect, and possibly (?) linked it with the EM Drive.  Apologies, memory is a bit hazy.

I also seem to remember you being involved with some sort of NASA side (?) program involving Woodward/Mach Drive or effect.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/21/2017 12:29 pm
.. I thought you'd authored a mathematical paper that supported (?) the Woodward/Mach Drive/Effect, and possibly (?) linked it with the EM Drive.  Apologies, memory is a bit hazy.

I also seem to remember you being involved with some sort of NASA side (?) program involving Woodward/Mach Drive or effect.
* it is well-known that Einstein recognized Mach as one of his main sources of inspiration
* what constitutes Mach's principle is subjective because Mach was very vague and did not formulate it mathematically.  Bondi (an expert in general relativity that supported steady-state cosmology) co-authored a well known paper that defines 10 possible interpretations of Mach's principle. 
* Einstein recognized his theory of General Relativity does not incorporate all possible interpretations of Mach's principle, only some of them.
* none of these versions of Mach's principle deals with quantum mechanics.  Mach died in 1916, before Quantum Mechanics (Schrodinger , Heissenberg, etc.) was fully developed.
* Sciama wrote his paper (1953) at the time that Sciama himself describes as before the revolution in astronomy: a time in which there were no astronomical measurements of cosmic background radiation, neutron stars, black holes, dark mass, dark energy etc. 
* In the late 1950's to early 1960's there were many theories (Brans-Dicke prominent among them) that claimed extra-Machian effects not present in General Relativity.
* Starting with Shapiro at MIT there have been up to now a large number of investigations of all such extra-Machian effects
* all measurements, including the recent Gravity Probe B reveals the complete absence of any such extra-Machian effects.  All measurements are in complete agreement with Einstein's general relativity
* what we are discussing is whether there are any super-Machian effects not present in General Relativity.  All measurements so far reveal there is no such thing
* A couple of years after Sciama, Davidson showed in a paper that the theory that was described by Sciama already existed: it is called Einstein's general relativity.
* as far as me linking any of this to the EM Drive I have posted Internet links to Montillet's work in this thread as Montillet's work pertains to the EM Drive. I am not Montillet.  Montillet is in Switzerland, I am in the USA.  My opinions are my own.
* the gravitational term dependent on the second time derivative of variable mass density can be shown to exist in Einstein's general relativity.  I do not claim the existence of any extra-Machian effect not present in general relativity. 
* to those that claim extra-Machian effects that are absent in general relativity I have asked them to explain what these effects are and what experimental evidence exists for such effects and how such existence can be compatible with our cosmological measurements.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/21/2017 12:38 pm
.. I thought you'd authored a mathematical paper that supported (?) the Woodward/Mach Drive/Effect, and possibly (?) linked it with the EM Drive.  Apologies, memory is a bit hazy.

I also seem to remember you being involved with some sort of NASA side (?) program involving Woodward/Mach Drive or effect.
* it is well-known that Einstein recognized Mach as one of his main sources of inspiration
* what constitutes Mach's principle is subjective because Mach was very vague and did not formulate it mathematically.  Bondi (and expert in general relativity) co-authored a well known paper that defines 10 possible interpretations of Mach's principle.  Einstein recognized his theory of General Relativity does not incorporate all possible interpretations of Mach's principle, only some of them.
* Sciama wrote his paper (1953) at the time that Sciama himself describes as before the revolution in astronomy: a time in which there was no cosmic background radiation, neutron stars, black holes, dark mass, dark energy etc. 
* In the late 1950's to early 1960's there were many theories (Brans-Dicke prominent among them) that claimed extra-Machian effects not present in General Relativity.
* Starting with Shapiro at MIT there have been up to now a large number of investigations of all such extra-Machian effects
* all measurements, including the recent Gravity Probe B reveals the complete absence of any such extra-Machian effects.  All measurements are in complete agreement with Einstein's general relativity
* what we are discussing is whether there are any super-Machian effects not present in General Relativity.  All measurements so far reveal there is no such thing
* A couple of years after Sciama, Davidson showed in a paper that the theory that was described by Sciama already existed: it is called Einstein's general relativity.
* as far as me linking any of this to the EM Drive I have posted links to Montillet's work.   Montillet is not using any extra-Machian effects
* the gravitational term dependent on the second time derivative of variable mass density can be shown to exist in Einstein's general relativity

As you say, there are several interpretations of Mach's principle. The "lightest" one is to say that the inertia of a body is dependent of the other masses around, involving nothing more than gravitation. The "strong" Mach's principle on the other hand, as advocated by Jim Woodward (see my previous post (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1724621#msg1724621) where I cite him and where his specific view on that subject is made evident) – as well as Fred Hoyle and Jayant Narlikar with their own theory of gravity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle–Narlikar_theory_of_gravity), and now Heidi Fearn with the Gravitational Absorber Theory derived from it – implies that inertia of bodies comes from all the masses in the entire universe instantaneously interacting with each others, through retarded/advanced waves. This "strong Mach's principle" is a view that must be ADDED to general relativity (i.e. the addition of some kind of Wheeler-Feynman radiative field applied to gravity) in order to make the instantaneity of gravitational interaction possible, i.e. a gravitational interaction source of inertia that is not limited to the speed limit c of "plain vanilla" general relativity.

What is your own view on Mach's principle, among all the possibilities it suggests?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 09/21/2017 12:58 pm
Monomorphic -

First of all congrats on the calibration work, the last posts I saw with the double calibration pulse looked great! Scarily, I think your results could be pretty clear!

Second, I did take a look at one of the earlier calibration runs. The good news is that the pivot point doesn't appear to be moving much - the overall amplitude of motion at the pivot in the test run looks like about 1-2% of the amplitude of the difference between the two LDS measurements. So it's a source of error, but maybe not large enough to worry about. (I scaled one of the measurements to avoid assuming that the pivot was exactly central. The excel is attached if you want to see what I did.)

Third, just eye-balling the raw measurements, it is clear that during the course of the run, the 'balance point' of the torsion wire shifted a little: the calibration pulse twisted the wire, which seemed to stay somewhat twisted afterwards, in the absence of input. You can see that the blue/orange lines are no longer equal and opposite, the blue line has been deflected up and the orange down - i.e. the beam has permanently twisted a little.

Possibly this speaks to whatever grips the wire having capacity to slip/stick.

Anyway, back to the start: the test rig looks great, and looking forward to more data!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: vladimirph on 09/21/2017 02:01 pm
I'm sure that EMDrive will not work if the cylinder is cut in a circle and place a dielectric between two halves.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 09/21/2017 02:23 pm
.. I thought you'd authored a mathematical paper that supported (?) the Woodward/Mach Drive/Effect, and possibly (?) linked it with the EM Drive.  Apologies, memory is a bit hazy.

I also seem to remember you being involved with some sort of NASA side (?) program involving Woodward/Mach Drive or effect.
* it is well-known that Einstein recognized Mach as one of his main sources of inspiration
* what constitutes Mach's principle is subjective because Mach was very vague and did not formulate it mathematically.  Bondi (and expert in general relativity) co-authored a well known paper that defines 10 possible interpretations of Mach's principle.  Einstein recognized his theory of General Relativity does not incorporate all possible interpretations of Mach's principle, only some of them.
* Sciama wrote his paper (1953) at the time that Sciama himself describes as before the revolution in astronomy: a time in which there was no cosmic background radiation, neutron stars, black holes, dark mass, dark energy etc. 
* In the late 1950's to early 1960's there were many theories (Brans-Dicke prominent among them) that claimed extra-Machian effects not present in General Relativity.
* Starting with Shapiro at MIT there have been up to now a large number of investigations of all such extra-Machian effects
* all measurements, including the recent Gravity Probe B reveals the complete absence of any such extra-Machian effects.  All measurements are in complete agreement with Einstein's general relativity
* what we are discussing is whether there are any super-Machian effects not present in General Relativity.  All measurements so far reveal there is no such thing
* A couple of years after Sciama, Davidson showed in a paper that the theory that was described by Sciama already existed: it is called Einstein's general relativity.
* as far as me linking any of this to the EM Drive I have posted links to Montillet's work.   Montillet is not using any extra-Machian effects
* the gravitational term dependent on the second time derivative of variable mass density can be shown to exist in Einstein's general relativity

As you say, there are several interpretations of Mach's principle. The "lightest" one is to say that the inertia of a body is dependent of the other masses around, involving nothing more than gravitation. The "strong" Mach's principle on the other hand, as advocated by Jim Woodward (see my previous post (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1724621#msg1724621) where I cite him and where his specific view on that subject is made evident) – as well as Fred Hoyle and Jayant Narlikar with their own theory of gravity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle–Narlikar_theory_of_gravity), and now Heidi Fearn with the Gravitational Absorber Theory derived from it – implies that inertia of bodies comes from all the masses in the entire universe instantaneously interacting with each others, through retarded/advanced waves. This "strong Mach's principle" is a view that must be ADDED to general relativity (i.e. the addition of some kind of Wheeler-Feynman radiative field applied to gravity) in order to make the instantaneity of gravitational interaction possible, i.e. a gravitational interaction source of inertia that is not limited to the speed limit c of "plain vanilla" general relativity.

What is your own view on Mach's principle, among all the possibilities it suggests?

To the following portion, "implies that inertia of bodies comes from all the masses in the entire universe instantaneously interacting with each others, through retarded/advanced waves. This "strong Mach's principle" is a view that must be ADDED to general relativity...", I say hogwash!

While I would agree that the inertia of an object is an instantaneous reaction to the local dynamics of however one interprets spacetime.., as causative or descriptive, the idea that there is any instantaneous connect between distant objects is just.., an artifact of imagination. To assert that it represents reality and must be added/incorporated in GR, is just plain hogwash, and inconsistent with experience.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: bunjatec on 09/21/2017 03:16 pm
Just read this:

https://phys.org/news/2017-09-gravitational-oscillate-neutrinos.html

Could bigravity help to explain the EM drive observations so far?



Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/21/2017 03:36 pm
Just read this:

https://phys.org/news/2017-09-gravitational-oscillate-neutrinos.html

Could bigravity help to explain the EM drive observations so far?
Thank you for bringing us back to the present (year 2017) to discuss current experimental observations in agreement with current theories rather than  old theories some of whose predictions have been invalidated by astronomical measurements.  We are in the year 2017, not 1953, and not in 1964.  Please notice that bimetric gravity theory  (https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.07785) contains two gravitational fields (that in a quantizable version would correspond to two particles not just one) : Einstein's gravitational field travelling at the speed of light (with a corresponding massless graviton) and an additional field with a speed travelling at less than the speed of light  with a corresponding gravitational particle having mass. There are two dynamical metrics instead of just one. Only one of them couples to matter while the other doesn't; and a linear combination of them becomes massive (slower than the speed of light) while the other (the one in Einstein's theory) is massless (speed of light).

There are many other theories.  This one is also interesting:

Quote
extra dimensions should have two different effects on gravitational waves: they would modify the "standard" gravitational waves and would cause additional waves at high frequencies above 1000 Hz. However, the observation of the latter is unlikely since the existing ground-based gravitational wave detectors are not sensitive enough at high frequencies.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-06-hints-extra-dimensions-gravitational.html#jCp

Physics is not just posing a theory, but obtaining an (analytical or numerical) solution to any such theory and comparing such prediction to experiments.

Otherwise the discussion becomes one of metaphysics and philosophy, the province of subjective opinions that cannot be checked vs. reality  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 09/21/2017 04:52 pm
(http://spiritwalkministry.com/yahoo_site_admin2/assets/images/Metaphysical_Maps.11932743_std.jpg)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 09/21/2017 07:36 pm
(http://spiritwalkministry.com/yahoo_site_admin2/assets/images/Metaphysical_Maps.11932743_std.jpg)
"Why are you here?"
is a excellent question related to the anthropic principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle)!

Maybe because the universe exists as it is and we are interested in its underlying principles and the EM-Drive. ::) That's obvious  ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 09/21/2017 10:18 pm
Been a little under the weather and just now getting a little caught up with some reading.

Reading these last few pages of speculation and ideas I was reminded of Dr. Richard Feynman's answer when a reporter asked him about magnets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeFubSy2Ccs&feature=youtu.be

Maybe we should be asking the correct questions first or we will get the wrong answers.

Back to Bed,
Shell

Corrected a booboo.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 09/21/2017 10:26 pm
Monomorphic -

First of all congrats on the calibration work, the last posts I saw with the double calibration pulse looked great! Scarily, I think your results could be pretty clear!

Second, I did take a look at one of the earlier calibration runs. The good news is that the pivot point doesn't appear to be moving much - the overall amplitude of motion at the pivot in the test run looks like about 1-2% of the amplitude of the difference between the two LDS measurements. So it's a source of error, but maybe not large enough to worry about. (I scaled one of the measurements to avoid assuming that the pivot was exactly central. The excel is attached if you want to see what I did.)

Third, just eye-balling the raw measurements, it is clear that during the course of the run, the 'balance point' of the torsion wire shifted a little: the calibration pulse twisted the wire, which seemed to stay somewhat twisted afterwards, in the absence of input. You can see that the blue/orange lines are no longer equal and opposite, the blue line has been deflected up and the orange down - i.e. the beam has permanently twisted a little.

Possibly this speaks to whatever grips the wire having capacity to slip/stick.

Anyway, back to the start: the test rig looks great, and looking forward to more data!

When guitar strings "slip/stick", it causes the guitar to go out-of-tune. I find a little silicone spray works great to let the string slide cleanly through the Nut. Just saying...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/22/2017 12:05 am
Here are Roger's comments on Jamie's excellent data and following my comments on Roger's comments

==========
Hi Phil

Things to think about when interpreting data from a torsional balance.

The thruster will start to accelerate when there is no spring resistance.

The thruster will accelerate in the direction large end to small end. This is the only way momentum can be conserved, and conforms with Newton’s third law. See attached slide.

When the thrust is equal to the opposite spring force, and the acceleration stops, thrust will fall to zero, and deceleration starts.
=========

Sequence of events:

1) EmDrive starts acceleration and it's mass plus arm mass gains KE as it's velocity increases.

2) EmDrive forward force = torsion wire reverse force = EmDrive stops accelerating, ie velocity gain stops, and it's force production stops.

3) However the EmDrive and other arm mass has gained velocity and KE and will continue moving forward, at a rapidly decreasing velocity, until the gained KE is stored in the torsion wire and velocity is zero.

4) Then once all forward motion is stopped, the mass of the EmDrive and arm will be driven in reverse by the stored torque in the torsion wire, back to the starting position and beyond due to the gained reverse velocity and KE from the torsion wire.

5) Due to frictional losses generated by the paddle in the oil, the EmDrive and arm mass KE will eventually be thermalised and returns to the starting position.

If you look at Jamie's displacement plot, it is very clear when each of these seperate events occurred.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/22/2017 12:06 am
(http://spiritwalkministry.com/yahoo_site_admin2/assets/images/Metaphysical_Maps.11932743_std.jpg)
"Why are you here?"
is a excellent question related to the anthropic principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle)!

Maybe because the universe exists as it is and we are interested in its underlying principles and the EM-Drive. ::) That's obvious  ;)

I really feel like this silly copper can is our Monolith.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/22/2017 12:12 am
(http://spiritwalkministry.com/yahoo_site_admin2/assets/images/Metaphysical_Maps.11932743_std.jpg)
"Why are you here?"
is a excellent question related to the anthropic principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle)!

Maybe because the universe exists as it is and we are interested in its underlying principles and the EM-Drive. ::) That's obvious  ;)

I really feel like this silly copper can is our Monolith.

Hi Jeremiah,

Unlike the Monolith, we can build EmDrives.
But yes a lot of stuff will change.

BTW, nice list of links:
http://share.xmarks.com/folder/bookmarks/bSVKVUD6LU
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/22/2017 01:32 am
SSI President Gary C Hudson just sent out this news

"The NASA sponsored NIAC Symposium starts Monday morning at 8:30 am Denver time and I am very pleased to tell you that SSI SA Dr. Heidi Fearn will be presenting "Mach Effects for In Space Propulsion: Interstellar Mission" at 11:10am on Wednesday.

It will be live streamed at  www.livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017

 Slides of Heidi’s talk, a Q&A handout and a PDF of the poster will all be public documents as of 11am Wednesday and at that time I will send them for posting on the SSI.ORG website and SSI Announcements page on Facebook ."

That is  10:10AM Pacific DT =11:10AM Mountain DT =12:10PM Central DT= 1:10PM Eastern DT, Wednesday September 27 !

(https://www.3dprint.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/NIACLogo_small_whitebackground-300x169.png)

to be held at the Hyatt Regency Denver Tech Center, 7800 E Tufts Avenue Denver, Colorado 80237

https://www.nasa.gov/content/niac-symposium

https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2017_Phase_I_Phase_II/Mach_Effects_for_In_Space_Propulsion_Interstellar_Mission

The poster will contain a "Questions and Answers" section addressing some of the questions that have been commonly asked.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 09/22/2017 02:04 am
Been a little under the weather and just now getting a little caught up with some reading.

Reading these last few pages of speculation and ideas I was reminded of Dr. Richard Feynman's answer when a reporter asked him about magnets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeFubSy2Ccs&feature=youtu.be

Maybe we should be asking the correct questions first or we will get the wrong answers.

Back to Bed,
Shell

Corrected a booboo.

Shell,
for a while now I have been asking one question repeatedly. Time may be linear from the perspective of a single point but it cannot be so when the perspective of separate points are considered. To me it seems logical to use the complex conjugate to better describe a location in time and the consequence of doing so is that there are coincident solutions which, to me at least, make a better explanation for the translation of a quantum of energy from its emission to its absorption.

Complex conjugates of linear measurements are not unusual in engineering. They provide simpler answers to some models, than any other mathematical treatment. Does this add up to an indication that complex time should be investigated for relevance to problems such as the mystery of the mechanism of action for emdrive thrust?

What if photons are interactions between individual pairs of charges which occur when they become resonant, no miraculous collapse of widely disbursed electromagnetic energy would then be required at absorption. What if all charges interact everywhere all of the time, that would account for gravity and inertia far more simply than current models. It would also provide a mechanism for emdrive thrust without anything particulate passing magically through the walls of the frustum. Maybe what we need to do is look outside of Euclid's box.

Not wishing to distract you from your more important works but maybe I should be asking you  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 09/22/2017 02:51 am
Been a little under the weather and just now getting a little caught up with some reading.

Reading these last few pages of speculation and ideas I was reminded of Dr. Richard Feynman's answer when a reporter asked him about magnets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeFubSy2Ccs&feature=youtu.be

Maybe we should be asking the correct questions first or we will get the wrong answers.

Back to Bed,
Shell

Corrected a booboo.

Shell,
for a while now I have been asking one question repeatedly. Time may be linear from the perspective of a single point but it cannot be so when the perspective of separate points are considered. To me it seems logical to use the complex conjugate to better describe a location in time and the consequence of doing so is that there are coincident solutions which, to me at least, make a better explanation for the translation of a quantum of energy from its emission to its absorption.

Complex conjugates of linear measurements are not unusual in engineering. They provide simpler answers to some models, than any other mathematical treatment. Does this add up to an indication that complex time should be investigated for relevance to problems such as the mystery of the mechanism of action for emdrive thrust?

What if photons are interactions between individual pairs of charges which occur when they become resonant, no miraculous collapse of widely disbursed electromagnetic energy would then be required at absorption. What if all charges interact everywhere all of the time, that would account for gravity and inertia far more simply than current models. It would also provide a mechanism for emdrive thrust without anything particulate passing magically through the walls of the frustum. Maybe what we need to do is look outside of Euclid's box.

Not wishing to distract you from your more important works but maybe I should be asking you  :)
Space or time or Spacetime? Better to look at setting some basic parameters. I like the answers given here.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/46112/whats-the-difference-between-space-and-time

For me the current candidates for EMDrive thrusts are as follows.
Hidden Errors (Thermal or Lorentz)
Foofie Dust
Shawyer's
Notsosureofit's
Todd D's

The rest... Sorry if I missed one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RF_resonant_cavity_thruster#Hypotheses

Speculating ... I believe it could be possible to see a stacking of theories working together to apparently exceed a photon rockets thrust although that is a personal "gut feeling" and feelings shouldn't be aired, just data. There are good and bad feelings, but no bad data, if you get my drift. I would assume this, Paul March, Jamie and I are seriously seeking data to plug into theories and maybe, like me, are not wanting to add to the word lettuce of speculation... yet.

Sorry to not make much sense but running a fever.  :o

My Very Best,
Shell

PS: Jamie (monomorphic), you are doing a top notch setup, well engineered!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Tcarey on 09/22/2017 03:21 am
What is the scale for the volts? Its not clear why the voltage is climbing over such a long period of time. Doesn't that have the effect of increasing the magnetic force over the length of the pulse? I feel like I am missing something.

Edit. The reply was supposed to include your data graph. 


I was able to pick up the ISO 10 spindle oil today locally and it works just as anticipated.  The viscosity seems right between antifreeze and soybean oil.   ;D

Here is a dual calibration pulse to see how repeatable they are. Eyeballing it, I would say the pendulum is now just below critically damped.
Title: Straw poll
Post by: Mark7777777 on 09/22/2017 04:41 am
Here's a totally unscientific Emdrive poll people can fill out (and see the results) FWIW:

https://strawpoll.com/yp8y56rc

Based on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RF_resonant_cavity_thruster#Hypotheses, it reads:

"If I had to guess, an Emdrive produces thrust because of:

Choose one answer:

1. Noise or experimental error
2. Radiation pressure
3. Vacuum energy
4. Quantised inertia
5. Photon leakage
6. Mach effect
7. Warp field
8. A combination of one or more of the above
9. Other
10. It doesn't produce thrust"
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/22/2017 07:40 am
.. I thought you'd authored a mathematical paper that supported (?) the Woodward/Mach Drive/Effect, and possibly (?) linked it with the EM Drive.  Apologies, memory is a bit hazy.

I also seem to remember you being involved with some sort of NASA side (?) program involving Woodward/Mach Drive or effect.
* it is well-known that Einstein recognized Mach as one of his main sources of inspiration
* what constitutes Mach's principle is subjective because Mach was very vague and did not formulate it mathematically.  Bondi (and expert in general relativity) co-authored a well known paper that defines 10 possible interpretations of Mach's principle.  Einstein recognized his theory of General Relativity does not incorporate all possible interpretations of Mach's principle, only some of them.
* Sciama wrote his paper (1953) at the time that Sciama himself describes as before the revolution in astronomy: a time in which there was no cosmic background radiation, neutron stars, black holes, dark mass, dark energy etc. 
* In the late 1950's to early 1960's there were many theories (Brans-Dicke prominent among them) that claimed extra-Machian effects not present in General Relativity.
* Starting with Shapiro at MIT there have been up to now a large number of investigations of all such extra-Machian effects
* all measurements, including the recent Gravity Probe B reveals the complete absence of any such extra-Machian effects.  All measurements are in complete agreement with Einstein's general relativity
* what we are discussing is whether there are any super-Machian effects not present in General Relativity.  All measurements so far reveal there is no such thing
* A couple of years after Sciama, Davidson showed in a paper that the theory that was described by Sciama already existed: it is called Einstein's general relativity.
* as far as me linking any of this to the EM Drive I have posted links to Montillet's work.   Montillet is not using any extra-Machian effects
* the gravitational term dependent on the second time derivative of variable mass density can be shown to exist in Einstein's general relativity

As you say, there are several interpretations of Mach's principle. The "lightest" one is to say that the inertia of a body is dependent of the other masses around, involving nothing more than gravitation. The "strong" Mach's principle on the other hand, as advocated by Jim Woodward (see my previous post (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1724621#msg1724621) where I cite him and where his specific view on that subject is made evident) – as well as Fred Hoyle and Jayant Narlikar with their own theory of gravity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle–Narlikar_theory_of_gravity), and now Heidi Fearn with the Gravitational Absorber Theory derived from it – implies that inertia of bodies comes from all the masses in the entire universe instantaneously interacting with each others, through retarded/advanced waves. This "strong Mach's principle" is a view that must be ADDED to general relativity (i.e. the addition of some kind of Wheeler-Feynman radiative field applied to gravity) in order to make the instantaneity of gravitational interaction possible, i.e. a gravitational interaction source of inertia that is not limited to the speed limit c of "plain vanilla" general relativity.

What is your own view on Mach's principle, among all the possibilities it suggests?

To the following portion, "implies that inertia of bodies comes from all the masses in the entire universe instantaneously interacting with each others, through retarded/advanced waves. This "strong Mach's principle" is a view that must be ADDED to general relativity...", I say hogwash!

While I would agree that the inertia of an object is an instantaneous reaction to the local dynamics of however one interprets spacetime.., as causative or descriptive, the idea that there is any instantaneous connect between distant objects is just.., an artifact of imagination. To assert that it represents reality and must be added/incorporated in GR, is just plain hogwash, and inconsistent with experience.

Three questions then:
1) Have your read Woodward's book Making Starships and Stargates (http://www.springer.com/fr/book/9781461456223)?
2) Have you read one or more papers of Heidi Fearn about the Gravitational Absorber Theory (http://ayuba.fr/mach_effect/estes_park/ssi_estes_park_proceedings_fearn.pdf)?* (a very recent development nowadays (year 2017) discussing current experiments about Mach effects in agreement with general relativity)
3) Do you think both are hogwash?


* Basically, GAT is a modern, non steady-state version of the Hoyle-Narlikar theory of gravity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle–Narlikar_theory_of_gravity) in agreement with predictions of general relativity and observations related to the accelerating cosmic expansion, including the strong interpretation of Mach's principle.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: francesco nicoli on 09/22/2017 08:27 am
(http://spiritwalkministry.com/yahoo_site_admin2/assets/images/Metaphysical_Maps.11932743_std.jpg)
"Why are you here?"
is a excellent question related to the anthropic principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle)!

Maybe because the universe exists as it is and we are interested in its underlying principles and the EM-Drive. ::) That's obvious  ;)

I really feel like this silly copper can is our Monolith.

Hi Jeremiah,

Unlike the Monolith, we can build EmDrives.
But yes a lot of stuff will change.

BTW, nice list of links:
http://share.xmarks.com/folder/bookmarks/bSVKVUD6LU

I can also build unicorns, if i'm skilled enough with woodcraft. It doesn't make them alive nor "the thing". it has the shape of an unicorn, but not the functions and features of a real unicorn. Simiarly, plenty of people are building things that they call "emdrives", but we are yet to see a single working emdrive.
This not to say that is impossible. But simply to say that "we can build emdrives" is a lie. We build something that looks like an emdrive (maybe). Before claiming the unproven, better prove it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/22/2017 11:10 am
I can also build unicorns,

Really?

Care to share the unicorn physics equations that govern the design process and the manufacturing quality and tolerance requirements to make unicorns come to life?

As for EmDrives,  there are known microwave design equations and manufacturing guidelines available. Follow them and EmDrives generate force.

BTW in doing all that, you are following the SPR theory.

You really want to engage I build EmDrives that work and you build living unicorns?

Amazing folks here talk about MEGA drives, borrowing monentum and energy from sources outside existing physics and they get a free pass. Yet guys like you dump on EmDrives, rejecting ALL experimantal data, including EW's 2 published papers.

Here is a heads up for you. EmDrives work with-in existing physics and need no new physics.

To understand, you need to adjust your perspective a bit. A jump to the left and a step to the right plus a pelvic thrust works wonders;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkplPbd2f60


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: D_Dom on 09/22/2017 02:06 pm
Lets be excellent to one another! The topic is "EM Drive developments related to space flight applications.
Read your posts carefully before hitting enter. Do not waste this valuable bandwidth. Maximize your signal, minimize your noise.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/22/2017 02:12 pm
Yet guys like you dump on EmDrives, rejecting ALL experimantal data, including EW's 2 published papers.
There is no conclusive evidence that the emDrive works, and in fact there are experiments with a complete null result. Claiming otherwise is rejecting the experimental data. Now stop accusing everyone who says that more evidence is needed of rejecting all experimental data.

Here is a heads up for you. EmDrives work with-in existing physics and need no new physics.
This has been proven false for you so many times, it is unbelievable you are still saying it.

You even recently admitted that Shawyer's theory is wrong:
9) doing end plate radiation calcs pressure shows less pressure on the small end plate vs the big end plate.

10) point 9 suggest the cavity should accelerate big end forward but it accelerates small end forward.

11) I don't understand why 10 happens.
When a theory says that the device will move to the left, and experiments show that if anything, the device moves to the right, it means the theory is wrong and you need a new one.

About a year ago, I tried to demonstrate for you exactly what you said in bullets 9 and 10, but you kept responding to my posts without answering the simple questions I had asked. It is great that you finally came to recognize those points on your own, but now continuing to insist on "no new physics" required for a working drive and "follow Shawyer's theory," in the face of the fact that this clearly is incapable of predicting emDrive behavior, is simply unscientific, and extremely counterproductive.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 09/22/2017 03:59 pm
.. I thought you'd authored a mathematical paper that supported (?) the Woodward/Mach Drive/Effect, and possibly (?) linked it with the EM Drive.  Apologies, memory is a bit hazy.

I also seem to remember you being involved with some sort of NASA side (?) program involving Woodward/Mach Drive or effect.
* it is well-known that Einstein recognized Mach as one of his main sources of inspiration
* what constitutes Mach's principle is subjective because Mach was very vague and did not formulate it mathematically.  Bondi (and expert in general relativity) co-authored a well known paper that defines 10 possible interpretations of Mach's principle.  Einstein recognized his theory of General Relativity does not incorporate all possible interpretations of Mach's principle, only some of them.
* Sciama wrote his paper (1953) at the time that Sciama himself describes as before the revolution in astronomy: a time in which there was no cosmic background radiation, neutron stars, black holes, dark mass, dark energy etc. 
* In the late 1950's to early 1960's there were many theories (Brans-Dicke prominent among them) that claimed extra-Machian effects not present in General Relativity.
* Starting with Shapiro at MIT there have been up to now a large number of investigations of all such extra-Machian effects
* all measurements, including the recent Gravity Probe B reveals the complete absence of any such extra-Machian effects.  All measurements are in complete agreement with Einstein's general relativity
* what we are discussing is whether there are any super-Machian effects not present in General Relativity.  All measurements so far reveal there is no such thing
* A couple of years after Sciama, Davidson showed in a paper that the theory that was described by Sciama already existed: it is called Einstein's general relativity.
* as far as me linking any of this to the EM Drive I have posted links to Montillet's work.   Montillet is not using any extra-Machian effects
* the gravitational term dependent on the second time derivative of variable mass density can be shown to exist in Einstein's general relativity

As you say, there are several interpretations of Mach's principle. The "lightest" one is to say that the inertia of a body is dependent of the other masses around, involving nothing more than gravitation. The "strong" Mach's principle on the other hand, as advocated by Jim Woodward (see my previous post (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1724621#msg1724621) where I cite him and where his specific view on that subject is made evident) – as well as Fred Hoyle and Jayant Narlikar with their own theory of gravity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle–Narlikar_theory_of_gravity), and now Heidi Fearn with the Gravitational Absorber Theory derived from it – implies that inertia of bodies comes from all the masses in the entire universe instantaneously interacting with each others, through retarded/advanced waves. This "strong Mach's principle" is a view that must be ADDED to general relativity (i.e. the addition of some kind of Wheeler-Feynman radiative field applied to gravity) in order to make the instantaneity of gravitational interaction possible, i.e. a gravitational interaction source of inertia that is not limited to the speed limit c of "plain vanilla" general relativity.

What is your own view on Mach's principle, among all the possibilities it suggests?

To the following portion, "implies that inertia of bodies comes from all the masses in the entire universe instantaneously interacting with each others, through retarded/advanced waves. This "strong Mach's principle" is a view that must be ADDED to general relativity...", I say hogwash!

While I would agree that the inertia of an object is an instantaneous reaction to the local dynamics of however one interprets spacetime.., as causative or descriptive, the idea that there is any instantaneous connect between distant objects is just.., an artifact of imagination. To assert that it represents reality and must be added/incorporated in GR, is just plain hogwash, and inconsistent with experience.

Three questions then:
1) Have your read Woodward's book Making Starships and Stargates (http://www.springer.com/fr/book/9781461456223)?
2) Have you read one or more papers of Heidi Fearn about the Gravitational Absorber Theory (http://ayuba.fr/mach_effect/estes_park/ssi_estes_park_proceedings_fearn.pdf)?* (a very recent development nowadays (year 2017) discussing current experiments about Mach effects in agreement with general relativity)
3) Do you think both are hogwash?


* Basically, GAT is a modern, non steady-state version of the Hoyle-Narlikar theory of gravity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle–Narlikar_theory_of_gravity) in agreement with predictions of general relativity and observations related to the accelerating cosmic expansion, including the strong interpretation of Mach's principle.

I believe or believed that the intent of my my post was clear. I also don't believe that attempting to divert to a discussion of the merits of Woodward's, Heidi Fern's and even the Hoyle-Narlikar theory of gravity, would add any clarity to the intent of my earlier comment...

If you re-read my post you should see that what I was referring to as "hogwash" was the implication that any distant mass is instantaneously connected or affected by locally defined dynamics or our local dynamics dependent on any instantaneous interaction or affect with/from/of the distribution and/or dynamics of distant mass... and that the assertion that any theory that involves an instantaneous interaction of any sort between local dynamics and the distant universe, must be attached or added to GR, is also hogwash. While GR must adapt to the scope of our increasing knowledge of gravitational dynamics associated with an ever increasing depth of observation and experience, I have seen nothing suggesting we should return to the past and ideas of instantaneous action at a distance...

While I have found what I have read of both Woodward's and Fern's ideas to be thought provoking, I do not agree with all of their conclusions. I also don't believe that their conclusions are necessary to describe reality...

I have said it before. It would be the most exciting event in my lifetime should anyone demonstrate the ability to manipulate gravity or inertia in a useful manner, but I don't believe that is what is going on in an EmDrive. I also believe that should we ultimately prove the EmDrive to be a useful propelentless drive, it will ultimately be found to function within the context of existing physics, even should that require that we re-evaluate our understanding and interpretation of what we have come to accept as basic laws of physics.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/22/2017 04:29 pm
...
Sequence of events:

1) EmDrive starts acceleration and it's mass plus arm mass gains KE as it's velocity increases.

2) EmDrive forward force = torsion wire reverse force = EmDrive stops accelerating, ie velocity gain stops, and it's force production stops.

3) However the EmDrive and other arm mass has gained velocity and KE and will continue moving forward, at a rapidly decreasing velocity, until the gained KE is stored in the torsion wire and velocity is zero.

4) Then once all forward motion is stopped, the mass of the EmDrive and arm will be driven in reverse by the stored torque in the torsion wire, back to the starting position and beyond due to the gained reverse velocity and KE from the torsion wire.

5) Due to frictional losses generated by the paddle in the oil, the EmDrive and arm mass KE will eventually be thermalised and returns to the starting position.

If you look at Jamie's displacement plot, it is very clear when each of these seperate events occurred.
Looking at your description and the data shows entirely different results. I plotted the green line to show it returning back to the starting position as described by #4. I also plotted the red line off of that one to picture approximately what would happen if the drive started operating again when the drive past the starting position (at that point the drive would be accelerating "forward" so this is what I would expect based on the hypothesis that the drive only functions when accelerating forward.)

Based on this it is clear that this hypothesis does not match the available data at all, so if what was measured was not just experimental error, this hypothesis of "only operates when accelerating forward" is wrong.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/22/2017 05:10 pm
(http://spiritwalkministry.com/yahoo_site_admin2/assets/images/Metaphysical_Maps.11932743_std.jpg)
"Why are you here?"
is a excellent question related to the anthropic principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle)!

Maybe because the universe exists as it is and we are interested in its underlying principles and the EM-Drive. ::) That's obvious  ;)

I really feel like this silly copper can is our Monolith.

Hi Jeremiah,

Unlike the Monolith, we can build EmDrives.
But yes a lot of stuff will change.

BTW, nice list of links:
http://share.xmarks.com/folder/bookmarks/bSVKVUD6LU

I can also build unicorns, if i'm skilled enough with woodcraft. It doesn't make them alive nor "the thing". it has the shape of an unicorn, but not the functions and features of a real unicorn. Simiarly, plenty of people are building things that they call "emdrives", but we are yet to see a single working emdrive.
This not to say that is impossible. But simply to say that "we can build emdrives" is a lie. We build something that looks like an emdrive (maybe). Before claiming the unproven, better prove it.

Your statement is not accurate. People have built EMDrives that appear to work and while the evidence is not yet conclusive,  to say that "we are yet to see a single working EMDrive" assumes the evidence so far is not real while it may be real but weak. In fact, we may have seen a single working EMDrive already.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/22/2017 05:17 pm
Yet guys like you dump on EmDrives, rejecting ALL experimantal data, including EW's 2 published papers.
There is no conclusive evidence that the emDrive works, and in fact there are experiments with a complete null result. Claiming otherwise is rejecting the experimental data. Now stop accusing everyone who says that more evidence is needed of rejecting all experimental data.

Null experiments do not disprove other experiments. The fact is there is some evidence EMDrives may in fact work, but I agree that it's not yet conclusive and exactly when it is conclusive is somewhat subjective.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/22/2017 05:42 pm
Yet guys like you dump on EmDrives, rejecting ALL experimantal data, including EW's 2 published papers.
There is no conclusive evidence that the emDrive works, and in fact there are experiments with a complete null result. Claiming otherwise is rejecting the experimental data. Now stop accusing everyone who says that more evidence is needed of rejecting all experimental data.

Null experiments do not disprove other experiments. The fact is there is some evidence EMDrives may in fact work, but I agree that it's not yet conclusive and exactly when it is conclusive is somewhat subjective.
Null experiments specifically show that there is no force above the experimental sensitivity. They can therefore in fact provide evidence contrary to claims of larger forces. When experiments don't agree with each other, you have to look at the details to figure out which experiment did something wrong. At some point when the data that is "inconclusive" or "null" outweighs any "positive" and you have done enough sensitive enough experiments, the reasonable conclusion is that there is nothing to find. Proponents of the emDrive tend not to specify what "enough" is though. This is important to know so that you don't spend forever walking down a dead end if it doesn't work.

The original point, which it seems you are agreeing with, is that TT's claims that the experimental evidence available is definitive are not reasonable at this point. Especially when he says people are rejecting the evidence when they are asking for more and better evidence.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/22/2017 06:03 pm
Yet guys like you dump on EmDrives, rejecting ALL experimantal data, including EW's 2 published papers.
There is no conclusive evidence that the emDrive works, and in fact there are experiments with a complete null result. Claiming otherwise is rejecting the experimental data. Now stop accusing everyone who says that more evidence is needed of rejecting all experimental data.

Null experiments do not disprove other experiments. The fact is there is some evidence EMDrives may in fact work, but I agree that it's not yet conclusive and exactly when it is conclusive is somewhat subjective.
Null experiments specifically show that there is no force above the experimental sensitivity. They can therefore in fact provide evidence contrary to claims of larger forces. When experiments don't agree with each other, you have to look at the details to figure out which experiment did something wrong. At some point when the data that is "inconclusive" or "null" outweighs any "positive" and you have done enough sensitive enough experiments, the reasonable conclusion is that there is nothing to find. Proponents of the emDrive tend not to specify what "enough" is though. This is important to know so that you don't spend forever walking down a dead end if it doesn't work.

The original point, which it seems you are agreeing with, is that TT's claims that the experimental evidence available is definitive are not reasonable at this point. Especially when he says people are rejecting the evidence when they are asking for more and better evidence.

In general I think it's a mistake to take null results and make conclusions far the beyond the immediate experimental setup, such as conclusions about other setups being wrong. Criticisms of other experimental setups doesn't prove the results invalid or that the criticisms are valid. Judgement is involved. While I may want stronger evidence, I'm not as down on the current evidence as you seem to be. I think it's valid. Both EMDrive data and Mach effect data. What I said was just my opinion, not a statement about how "unreasonable" TT's claims about the data might be.

Also, the process you outlined lends itself too easily to fields of research being squashed by arguments from authority when one well respected researcher claims to show null results and junior researchers just stop working in the field.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/22/2017 07:10 pm
Also, the process you outlined lends itself too easily to fields of research being squashed by arguments from authority when one well respected researcher claims to show null results and junior researchers just stop working in the field.
Read my post again, what you described is the exact opposite of what I described. I talked about multiple null results. I left open the question of what is "enough" but did not discuss arguments from authority at all. Could you provide an answer for what would be enough null results (quantity, sensitivity, etc.) for you to decide that the emDrive does not work?

What does get squashed is when someone says they found something "new" but comparable experiments have been run hundreds of times disagreeing with their results. There is no reason to take such claims seriously unless they provide extremely compelling evidence or a reason to believe that the previous experiments were all wrong.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: wicoe on 09/22/2017 07:14 pm
While I may want stronger evidence, I'm not as down on the current evidence as you seem to be. I think it's valid. Both EMDrive data and Mach effect data.

Can you please clarify what makes the current evidence "valid" in your view?  Is there a single peer-reviewed paper describing an EmDrive experiment that has all the obvious error sources quantified?  Or are you satisfied with experiments that do not account for such errors simply because they originate from "respectable" laboratories (argument of authority?) From what I know (and I welcome others to correct me), the EW paper is currently the most rigorous paper on this subject, and it has many flaws (https://github.com/eric1600/eagleworks/blob/master/Numerical-Results.pdf).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/22/2017 07:37 pm
What is the scale for the volts? Its not clear why the voltage is climbing over such a long period of time. Doesn't that have the effect of increasing the magnetic force over the length of the pulse? I feel like I am missing something.

The voltage increase looks large because we are very zoomed-in to the data. The actual voltage increase is only 0.04V, with (assuming ohm's law) a corresponding increase in current of 0.023A. That means the strength of the electromagnetic field is varying ≤2.5% over the 45 second duration of the pulse. That comes to a difference of 0.081uN (81nN). I think I can live with that...  ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/22/2017 08:51 pm
(http://spiritwalkministry.com/yahoo_site_admin2/assets/images/Metaphysical_Maps.11932743_std.jpg)
"Why are you here?"
is a excellent question related to the anthropic principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle)!

Maybe because the universe exists as it is and we are interested in its underlying principles and the EM-Drive. ::) That's obvious  ;)

I really feel like this silly copper can is our Monolith.

Hi Jeremiah,

Unlike the Monolith, we can build EmDrives.
But yes a lot of stuff will change.

BTW, nice list of links:
http://share.xmarks.com/folder/bookmarks/bSVKVUD6LU

I can also build unicorns, if i'm skilled enough with woodcraft. It doesn't make them alive nor "the thing". it has the shape of an unicorn, but not the functions and features of a real unicorn. Simiarly, plenty of people are building things that they call "emdrives", but we are yet to see a single working emdrive.
This not to say that is impossible. But simply to say that "we can build emdrives" is a lie. We build something that looks like an emdrive (maybe). Before claiming the unproven, better prove it.

It's the symbolism at 0:48, and 2:24, and 3:16 TT. The same thing is happening now. The Monolith is about understanding, understanding what is before you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9woRJ7-mD7Y
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SteveD on 09/23/2017 12:46 am
Yet guys like you dump on EmDrives, rejecting ALL experimantal data, including EW's 2 published papers.
There is no conclusive evidence that the emDrive works, and in fact there are experiments with a complete null result. Claiming otherwise is rejecting the experimental data. Now stop accusing everyone who says that more evidence is needed of rejecting all experimental data.

Here is a heads up for you. EmDrives work with-in existing physics and need no new physics.
This has been proven false for you so many times, it is unbelievable you are still saying it.

You even recently admitted that Shawyer's theory is wrong:
9) doing end plate radiation calcs pressure shows less pressure on the small end plate vs the big end plate.

10) point 9 suggest the cavity should accelerate big end forward but it accelerates small end forward.

11) I don't understand why 10 happens.
When a theory says that the device will move to the left, and experiments show that if anything, the device moves to the right, it means the theory is wrong and you need a new one.

About a year ago, I tried to demonstrate for you exactly what you said in bullets 9 and 10, but you kept responding to my posts without answering the simple questions I had asked. It is great that you finally came to recognize those points on your own, but now continuing to insist on "no new physics" required for a working drive and "follow Shawyer's theory," in the face of the fact that this clearly is incapable of predicting emDrive behavior, is simply unscientific, and extremely counterproductive.

What expirement with null results are you referring to?  Please be specific and provide citation. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 09/23/2017 01:16 am
SSI President Gary C Hudson just sent out this news

"The NASA sponsored NIAC Symposium starts Monday morning at 8:30 am Denver time and I am very pleased to tell you that SSI SA Dr. Heidi Fearn will be presenting "Mach Effects for In Space Propulsion: Interstellar Mission" at 11:10am on Wednesday.

It will be live streamed at  www.livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017

 Slides of Heidi’s talk, a Q&A handout and a PDF of the poster will all be public documents as of 11am Wednesday and at that time I will send them for posting on the SSI.ORG website and SSI Announcements page on Facebook ."

That is  10:10AM Pacific DT =11:10AM Mountain DT =12:10PM Central DT= 1:10PM Eastern DT, Wednesday September 27 !

(https://www.3dprint.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/NIACLogo_small_whitebackground-300x169.png)

to be held at the Hyatt Regency Denver Tech Center, 7800 E Tufts Avenue Denver, Colorado 80237

https://www.nasa.gov/content/niac-symposium

https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2017_Phase_I_Phase_II/Mach_Effects_for_In_Space_Propulsion_Interstellar_Mission

The poster will contain a "Questions and Answers" section addressing some of the questions that have been commonly asked.

NIAC

Several contributors to this forum including myself will be attending the  NIAC symposium.   If you have any specific questions etc you would like us to try and  ask or specific talks to concentrate on - or  if you are going to also be attending the symposium and would like to meet for discussions or a meal etc.  please PM me the questions etc and I will provide a contact info. 

The agenda is on the website for NIAC.   (google NASA NIAC symposium agenda)

Thanks,
Herman
graybeardsyseng
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Tcarey on 09/23/2017 06:23 am
What is the scale for the volts? Its not clear why the voltage is climbing over such a long period of time. Doesn't that have the effect of increasing the magnetic force over the length of the pulse? I feel like I am missing something.

The voltage increase looks large because we are very zoomed-in to the data. The actual voltage increase is only 0.04V, with (assuming ohm's law) a corresponding increase in current of 0.023A. That means the strength of the electromagnetic field is varying ≤2.5% over the 45 second duration of the pulse. That comes to a difference of 0.081uN (81nN). I think I can live with that...  ;)

Thanks for that information. Cleared that up. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Eusa on 09/23/2017 09:58 am
...

Nothing except that mass resists acceleration instantly. GR assumes that mass resists acceleration because it is mass, which is a circular argument based on faith. This could be wrong, if no other explanation for emdrive thrust is found, while it continues to be verified, then GR is an incomplete description of mechanics.
Not a precise statement of Einstein's assumption.   Instead Einstein assumed the equivalence principle. 

                "we [...] assume the complete physical equivalence of a gravitational field and a corresponding
                acceleration of the reference system."

(https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj8mYPN2a3WAhVs74MKHbaBARkQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fslideplayer.com%2Fslide%2F6259759%2F&psig=AFQjCNHYvIg1Q6GoOsGzCqtO4337g_49Dw&ust=1505788544600731)

Not a circular argument.

Please let us know what experiments do you know of that have found a difference between gravitational mass and inertial mass.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/29/18/180301/meta

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle#Tests_of_the_weak_equivalence_principle

Please let us know what experiments you know of that have revealed a Machian effect not present in Einstein's General Relativity.

You also state:  "mass resists acceleration instantly"  please let us know what experiments do you know of that prove that mass resists acceleration instantly (superluminally : much faster than the speed of light) while gravitation travels at the speed of light (not instantly)
A correction: information of the changes in the distribution of masses trvavels at speed c. Gravitation is apparently instantaneous. Similarly inertia seems to get space contact at its position, hence in respect of surrounding masses inertia seems to be instantaneous too. Naturally, those phenomena are common.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/23/2017 10:45 am
Good concept to understand.

https://gizmodo.com/scientists-resolve-mysterious-violation-to-einsteins-re-1818655617
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/23/2017 12:39 pm
...

Nothing except that mass resists acceleration instantly. GR assumes that mass resists acceleration because it is mass, which is a circular argument based on faith. This could be wrong, if no other explanation for emdrive thrust is found, while it continues to be verified, then GR is an incomplete description of mechanics.
Not a precise statement of Einstein's assumption.   Instead Einstein assumed the equivalence principle. 

                "we [...] assume the complete physical equivalence of a gravitational field and a corresponding
                acceleration of the reference system."

(https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj8mYPN2a3WAhVs74MKHbaBARkQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fslideplayer.com%2Fslide%2F6259759%2F&psig=AFQjCNHYvIg1Q6GoOsGzCqtO4337g_49Dw&ust=1505788544600731)

Not a circular argument.

Please let us know what experiments do you know of that have found a difference between gravitational mass and inertial mass.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/29/18/180301/meta

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle#Tests_of_the_weak_equivalence_principle

Please let us know what experiments you know of that have revealed a Machian effect not present in Einstein's General Relativity.

You also state:  "mass resists acceleration instantly"  please let us know what experiments do you know of that prove that mass resists acceleration instantly (superluminally : much faster than the speed of light) while gravitation travels at the speed of light (not instantly)
A correction: information of the changes in the distribution of masses trvavels at speed c. Gravitation is apparently instantaneous. Similarly inertia seems to get space contact at its position, hence in respect of surrounding masses inertia seems to be instantaneous too. Naturally, those phenomena are common.
A correction: Please cite experimental evidence for your assertion above that "Gravitation is apparently instantaneous"
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: moreno7798 on 09/23/2017 01:24 pm
Yet guys like you dump on EmDrives, rejecting ALL experimantal data, including EW's 2 published papers.
There is no conclusive evidence that the emDrive works, and in fact there are experiments with a complete null result. Claiming otherwise is rejecting the experimental data. Now stop accusing everyone who says that more evidence is needed of rejecting all experimental data.

Null experiments do not disprove other experiments. The fact is there is some evidence EMDrives may in fact work, but I agree that it's not yet conclusive and exactly when it is conclusive is somewhat subjective.
Null experiments specifically show that there is no force above the experimental sensitivity. They can therefore in fact provide evidence contrary to claims of larger forces. When experiments don't agree with each other, you have to look at the details to figure out which experiment did something wrong. At some point when the data that is "inconclusive" or "null" outweighs any "positive" and you have done enough sensitive enough experiments, the reasonable conclusion is that there is nothing to find. Proponents of the emDrive tend not to specify what "enough" is though. This is important to know so that you don't spend forever walking down a dead end if it doesn't work.

The original point, which it seems you are agreeing with, is that TT's claims that the experimental evidence available is definitive are not reasonable at this point. Especially when he says people are rejecting the evidence when they are asking for more and better evidence.

In general I think it's a mistake to take null results and make conclusions far the beyond the immediate experimental setup, such as conclusions about other setups being wrong. Criticisms of other experimental setups doesn't prove the results invalid or that the criticisms are valid. Judgement is involved. While I may want stronger evidence, I'm not as down on the current evidence as you seem to be. I think it's valid. Both EMDrive data and Mach effect data. What I said was just my opinion, not a statement about how "unreasonable" TT's claims about the data might be.

Also, the process you outlined lends itself too easily to fields of research being squashed by arguments from authority when one well respected researcher claims to show null results and junior researchers just stop working in the field.

I for one would like to see meberbs publish his assertions on his interpretation of Dr. Harold White's papers. I'm guessing getting past the peer review process would be a better way to be vindicated than getting into endless argument loops here. Maybe he could score a position at EW.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 09/23/2017 01:36 pm
Yet guys like you dump on EmDrives, rejecting ALL experimantal data, including EW's 2 published papers.
There is no conclusive evidence that the emDrive works, and in fact there are experiments with a complete null result. Claiming otherwise is rejecting the experimental data. Now stop accusing everyone who says that more evidence is needed of rejecting all experimental data.

Null experiments do not disprove other experiments. The fact is there is some evidence EMDrives may in fact work, but I agree that it's not yet conclusive and exactly when it is conclusive is somewhat subjective.
Null experiments specifically show that there is no force above the experimental sensitivity. They can therefore in fact provide evidence contrary to claims of larger forces. When experiments don't agree with each other, you have to look at the details to figure out which experiment did something wrong. At some point when the data that is "inconclusive" or "null" outweighs any "positive" and you have done enough sensitive enough experiments, the reasonable conclusion is that there is nothing to find. Proponents of the emDrive tend not to specify what "enough" is though. This is important to know so that you don't spend forever walking down a dead end if it doesn't work.

The original point, which it seems you are agreeing with, is that TT's claims that the experimental evidence available is definitive are not reasonable at this point. Especially when he says people are rejecting the evidence when they are asking for more and better evidence.

In general I think it's a mistake to take null results and make conclusions far the beyond the immediate experimental setup, such as conclusions about other setups being wrong. Criticisms of other experimental setups doesn't prove the results invalid or that the criticisms are valid. Judgement is involved. While I may want stronger evidence, I'm not as down on the current evidence as you seem to be. I think it's valid. Both EMDrive data and Mach effect data. What I said was just my opinion, not a statement about how "unreasonable" TT's claims about the data might be.

Also, the process you outlined lends itself too easily to fields of research being squashed by arguments from authority when one well respected researcher claims to show null results and junior researchers just stop working in the field.

I for one would like to see meberbs publish his assertions on his interpretation of Dr. Harold White's papers. I'm guessing getting past the peer review process would be a better way to be vindicated than getting into endless argument loops here. Maybe he could score a position at EW.

Before peer-review (a difficult task for things the author thinks may be fundamentally trivial) a simpler refuting paper uploaded on arXiv or viXra would be a good start.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Eusa on 09/23/2017 02:41 pm
...

Nothing except that mass resists acceleration instantly. GR assumes that mass resists acceleration because it is mass, which is a circular argument based on faith. This could be wrong, if no other explanation for emdrive thrust is found, while it continues to be verified, then GR is an incomplete description of mechanics.
Not a precise statement of Einstein's assumption.   Instead Einstein assumed the equivalence principle. 

                "we [...] assume the complete physical equivalence of a gravitational field and a corresponding
                acceleration of the reference system."

(https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj8mYPN2a3WAhVs74MKHbaBARkQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fslideplayer.com%2Fslide%2F6259759%2F&psig=AFQjCNHYvIg1Q6GoOsGzCqtO4337g_49Dw&ust=1505788544600731)

Not a circular argument.

Please let us know what experiments do you know of that have found a difference between gravitational mass and inertial mass.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/29/18/180301/meta

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle#Tests_of_the_weak_equivalence_principle

Please let us know what experiments you know of that have revealed a Machian effect not present in Einstein's General Relativity.

You also state:  "mass resists acceleration instantly"  please let us know what experiments do you know of that prove that mass resists acceleration instantly (superluminally : much faster than the speed of light) while gravitation travels at the speed of light (not instantly)
A correction: information of the changes in the distribution of masses trvavels at speed c. Gravitation is apparently instantaneous. Similarly inertia seems to get space contact at its position, hence in respect of surrounding masses inertia seems to be instantaneous too. Naturally, those phenomena are common.
A correction: Please cite experimental evidence for your assertion above that "Gravitation is apparently instantaneous"
It's apparently instantaneous at static field. The experimentalist Kopeikin: https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0507001

That's because of no changes propagates - bodies just follow geodesics of spacetime.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/23/2017 02:47 pm
...
It's apparently instantaneous at static field. The experimentalist Kopeikin: https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0507001

That's because of no changes propagates - bodies just follow geodesics of spacetime.
Thanks, I need some time to carefully read his paper.  Extended bodies (as opposed to particles) should not exactly follow geodesics as shown in a remarkable series of papers by Dixon in the 1970's (for example http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/314/1519/499.short ,  http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/319/1539/509.short
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/277/1264/59.short).  Only point particles follow geodesics.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 09/23/2017 03:04 pm
Another theory of gravity.

Quote
Tilloy has modified this model to show how it can lead to a theory of gravity. In his model, when a flash collapses a wave function and causes a particle to be in one place, it creates a gravitational field at that instant in space-time. A massive quantum system with a large number of particles is subject to numerous flashes, and the result is a fluctuating gravitational field.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23531444-600-spontaneous-collapses-may-show-how-to-unite-quantum-theory-and-gravity/

https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.03809
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Eusa on 09/23/2017 03:36 pm
...
It's apparently instantaneous at static field. The experimentalist Kopeikin: https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0507001

That's because of no changes propagates - bodies just follow geodesics of spacetime.
Thanks, I need some time to carefully read his paper.  Extended bodies (as opposed to particles) should not exactly follow geodesics as shown in a remarkable series of papers by Dixon in the 1970's (for example http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/314/1519/499.short ,  http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/319/1539/509.short
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/277/1264/59.short).  Only point particles follow geodesics.
True. Considering gravitational force equivalent with centripetal force at orbit the tidal effects i.e. mass distribution changes travelling speed c are negligible.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/23/2017 04:14 pm
...
It's apparently instantaneous at static field. The experimentalist Kopeikin: https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0507001

That's because of no changes propagates - bodies just follow geodesics of spacetime.
Thanks, I need some time to carefully read his paper.  Extended bodies (as opposed to particles) should not exactly follow geodesics as shown in a remarkable series of papers by Dixon in the 1970's (for example http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/314/1519/499.short ,  http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/319/1539/509.short
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/277/1264/59.short).  Only point particles follow geodesics.
True. Considering gravitational force equivalent with centripetal force at orbit the tidal effects i.e. mass distribution changes travelling speed c are negligible.
1. considering speed of effects acting locally at an idealized point the problem is mathematically not well-posed because there is no distance to travel so there is no well-posed speed dx/dt as a derivative.  Yes the time of propagation dt is zero, hence instantaneous instead of infinitesimal, but dx/dt is undefinable because dx is also zero (not infinitesimal).  I think that since the speed of propagation problem is not mathematically well-posed or physically well posed (can something be much smaller than a Planck length?  can something be just a point) then the idealization to a point is not subject to experimental analysis.

2. for finite bodies, the speed of propagation of gravitational field disturbances from one material point to another material point (or from one point in space to another point in space) is c (or less than c when involving particles having mass).  Never instantaneous between different points [except entanglement].  This applies to mass distribution changes.  As confirmed by experiments [nothing instantaneous except entanglement]. I like the term "mass distribution changes"  :)  Thanks
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/23/2017 04:25 pm
What expirement with null results are you referring to?  Please be specific and provide citation.
I haven't been keeping a list, but there are multiple at:
http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results

Of course that list isn't exhaustive, I feel like there have been experiments reported here that aren't on that list, and there is also the unfortunate trend in science where people tend not to publish null results, which still applies here. One that appears missing from the list is rfmwguy's results, which is reasonable since he didn't have enough data for a solid conclusion before his RF equipment broke, but the last data he reported was an accidental control test which pointed to his data being null.
I for one would like to see meberbs publish his assertions on his interpretation of Dr. Harold White's papers. I'm guessing getting past the peer review process would be a better way to be vindicated than getting into endless argument loops here. Maybe he could score a position at EW.

Before peer-review (a difficult task for things the author thinks may be fundamentally trivial) a simpler refuting paper uploaded on arXiv or viXra would be a good start.
I really don't think there would be any value in me doing that. For starters, if you go back to when EW's papers were released, you will find others who went into much more detail than me proposing potential error sources.

As a side note, I really like my current job, and would have no interest in moving to EW.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Eusa on 09/23/2017 04:41 pm
...
It's apparently instantaneous at static field. The experimentalist Kopeikin: https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0507001

That's because of no changes propagates - bodies just follow geodesics of spacetime.
Thanks, I need some time to carefully read his paper.  Extended bodies (as opposed to particles) should not exactly follow geodesics as shown in a remarkable series of papers by Dixon in the 1970's (for example http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/314/1519/499.short ,  http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/319/1539/509.short
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/277/1264/59.short).  Only point particles follow geodesics.
True. Considering gravitational force equivalent with centripetal force at orbit the tidal effects i.e. mass distribution changes travelling speed c are negligible.
1. considering speed of effects acting locally at an idealized point the problem is mathematically not well-posed because there is no distance to travel so there is no well-posed speed dx/dt as a derivative.  Yes the time of propagation dt is zero, hence instantaneous instead of infinitesimal, but dx/dt is undefinable because dx is also zero (not infinitesimal).  I think that since the speed of propagation problem is not mathematically well-posed or physically well posed (can something be much smaller than a Planck length?  can something be just a point) then the idealization to a point is not subject to experimental analysis.

2. for finite bodies, the speed of propagation of gravitational field disturbances from one material point to another material point (or from one point in space to another point in space) is c (or less than c when involving particles having mass).  Never instantaneous between different points [except entanglement].  This applies to mass distribution changes.  As confirmed by experiments [nothing instantaneous except entanglement]. I like the term "mass distribution changes"  :)  Thanks
Engtanglement isn't instantaneous, definitely. That's misintepretation. It's local. Only the orientation of meter to measure have opposite options which opposition between entangled particles is preserved by spacetime.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/23/2017 05:20 pm
...
Engtanglement isn't instantaneous, definitely. That's misintepretation. It's local. Only the orientation of meter to measure have opposite options which opposition between entangled particles is preserved by spacetime.
OK that gets us here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments

Quote
To date, Bell tests have found that the hypothesis of local hidden variables is inconsistent with the way that physical systems behave.

That  inconsistency would apply to Bohm's pilot wave theory as well
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/23/2017 05:41 pm
While I may want stronger evidence, I'm not as down on the current evidence as you seem to be. I think it's valid. Both EMDrive data and Mach effect data.

Can you please clarify what makes the current evidence "valid" in your view?  Is there a single peer-reviewed paper describing an EmDrive experiment that has all the obvious error sources quantified?  Or are you satisfied with experiments that do not account for such errors simply because they originate from "respectable" laboratories (argument of authority?) From what I know (and I welcome others to correct me), the EW paper is currently the most rigorous paper on this subject, and it has many flaws (https://github.com/eric1600/eagleworks/blob/master/Numerical-Results.pdf).

Some people may claim the EW paper "has many flaws" but that's their judgment. Raising questions about this or that isn't proof flaws exist or had any impact on the results. I place more weight on the people doing the work and writing the papers than I do other people criticizing the work yet criticism does certainly have it's proper place. Are you asking me to justify not having your level of skepticism like I'm supposed to?  I really don't have to at all. Please note I'm not saying I have zero skepticism.  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Eusa on 09/23/2017 05:43 pm
...
Engtanglement isn't instantaneous, definitely. That's misintepretation. It's local. Only the orientation of meter to measure have opposite options which opposition between entangled particles is preserved by spacetime.
OK that gets us here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments

Quote
To date, Bell tests have found that the hypothesis of local hidden variables is inconsistent with the way that physical systems behave.

That  inconsistency would apply to pilot wave theory as well
A(particle/meter) 0 1 - 1 0 - 0 1 - ...
B(particle/meter) 1 0 - 0 1 - 1 0 - ...

That is a description of dual-phased spacetime. Outer perturbation can register either even or odd phase. Once collapsed locally spacetime preserves global interaction "distance parity" and when checked out side by side the partner particle revealed being in opposite state - the spacetime between measuring events preserves phase parity.

Not more complicated "hidden variable". :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/23/2017 07:05 pm
I'm working on automating the testing process using LabView. The WindFreak signal generator already works with LabView natively.  What I am looking at now is a 2 channel USB solid state relay module with 4 analog input channels. This would be mounted on the torsional pendulum and allow me to control the logic level enable pin on the amplifier, which can be used for PTT/KEY control, and for monitoring the direct temperature output pin close to the 30W RF output GaAs FET.   

I found this 2 Channel USB Solid State Relay Module for $60 that looks like it will be a good solution: https://numato.com/product/2-channel-usb-solid-state-relay-module

If anyone with experience in LabView knows of any compatible hardware that may be better, please let me know.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 09/23/2017 07:23 pm
Good concept to understand.

https://gizmodo.com/scientists-resolve-mysterious-violation-to-einsteins-re-1818655617

There is a velocity dependent frictional force in QED. See Milonni Appendix B, which I posted earlier in this thread. http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1721433#msg1721433 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1721433#msg1721433)

It vanishes when the spectral energy density, ρ(ω) ~ ω3, such as the EM ZPF of the quantum vacuum. I do not know how exactly to generate a spectral energy density that is not, but if I could, it would create friction per this equation.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SteveD on 09/23/2017 07:44 pm
What expirement with null results are you referring to?  Please be specific and provide citation.
I haven't been keeping a list, but there are multiple at:
http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results


Do one null result from EW from a null device.  One from Paul, where it was later found that any thrust would be below the sensetivity of his measuring device (is reporting further results at a conference, but may well be null with new info on the devices thermal behavior).  Also one symmetrical  cavity that produced no thrust but had a maybe something is going on but it is occurring randomly enough we cannot rule out the HVAC system provision.  Oh and one paper that go bumped to Vixara for issues.

Dave is interesting as he ended up heating a powerful magnet and injecting stray fields into the can.  While the most likely interpretation is that the power feed line introduced an errorsource that swamped the data. I hope we can come back to this if there are higher quality confirmations.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/23/2017 07:52 pm
Good concept to understand.

https://gizmodo.com/scientists-resolve-mysterious-violation-to-einsteins-re-1818655617

There is a velocity dependent frictional force in QED. See Milonni Appendix B, which I posted earlier in this thread. http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1721433#msg1721433 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1721433#msg1721433)

It vanishes when the spectral energy density, ρ(ω) ~ ω3, such as the EM ZPF of the quantum vacuum. I do not know how exactly to generate a spectral energy density that is not, but if I could, it would create friction per this equation.
Would appreciate knowing how do you go from Milonni Appendix B to the conclusion that

Quote
It vanishes when the spectral energy density, ρ(ω) ~ ω3

the force on an atom in thermal field vanishes? under what conditions? how does that follow from Milonni?

The integration is over the aberration angle.  Why does the power of the spectral energy ρ(ω) ~ ω3 lead to cancellation? Did I misunderstand what you wrote?

Thanks
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 09/23/2017 07:54 pm
What expirement with null results are you referring to?  Please be specific and provide citation.
I haven't been keeping a list, but there are multiple at:
http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results


Do one null result from EW from a null device.  One from Paul, where it was later found that any thrust would be below the sensetivity of his measuring device (is reporting further results at a conference, but may well be null with new info on the devices thermal behavior).  Also one symmetrical  cavity that produced no thrust but had a maybe something is going on but it is occurring randomly enough we cannot rule out the HVAC system provision.  Oh and one paper that go bumped to Vixara for issues.

Dave is interesting as he ended up heating a powerful magnet and injecting stray fields into the can.  While the most likely interpretation is that the power feed line introduced an errorsource that swamped the data. I hope we can come back to this if there are higher quality confirmations.

There are at least two 0 force experiments carried out by IDs on this forum not listed on that wiki: Emmett Brown and  RFplumber

[update] Those were according to my memory. Actually RFplumber had his result listed with his real name on the wiki.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/23/2017 07:59 pm
What expirement with null results are you referring to?  Please be specific and provide citation.
I haven't been keeping a list, but there are multiple at:
http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results


Do one null result from EW from a null device.  One from Paul, where it was later found that any thrust would be below the sensetivity of his measuring device (is reporting further results at a conference, but may well be null with new info on the devices thermal behavior).  Also one symmetrical  cavity that produced no thrust but had a maybe something is going on but it is occurring randomly enough we cannot rule out the HVAC system provision.  Oh and one paper that go bumped to Vixara for issues.

Dave is interesting as he ended up heating a powerful magnet and injecting stray fields into the can.  While the most likely interpretation is that the power feed line introduced an errorsource that swamped the data. I hope we can come back to this if there are higher quality confirmations.

There are at least two 0 force experiments carried out by IDs on this forum not listed on that wiki: Emmett Brown and  RFplumber
Incorrect. RFPlumber is listed two times in the wiki list (with the real name under which he published), and the listing in wiki was done under his approval while he was active on this forum.   I don't quite recall Emmett Brown's experiments, and whether he wanted to be listed in the wiki as a null experiment, but I recall  experimenters that did not approve to list their experiments as a null result because they were not yet convinced.  Also there was at least one experimenter that first posted their experiments (as a positive result) and then decided to take out the information (which is their prerogative).  I stopped curating that list a long time ago, but while I was active I clearly recall corresponding with RFPlumber and very much motivating him to include his experiments in the list and publishing, so I am surprised to see you saying that he is not listed without even qualifying it with "according to [your] memory".  Perhaps you forgot to identify him by his real name ?  ???  RFPlumber's experiments are noteworthy for being the only DIY in the list (to my recollection) having all the electronics in the balance's arm.  The list also includes Yang's 2016 results which she claims are null within her noise error bands (which experiments were her first where she used all electronics in the balance's arm).

Looking forward to Monomorphic adding his great experiments to the list   ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SteveD on 09/23/2017 08:33 pm
It's a Mach effect.

(http://www.mathalino.com/sites/default/files/images/frustum-of-a-right-circular-cone.jpg)

Here's what I think is happening.  A photon impacts or is released from the small end, creating a photon rocket effect. 
KE=1/2MV^2.  For simplicity let's say m = 1kg and velocity increases from 100m/s to 101 m/s.

KE of in the initial state = (.5)(1)(100)^2 = 5000
KE at 101 = (.5)(1)(101)^2 = 5100.5

The photons now travel to the large base in a straight line. 

(http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/38600/38654/bistri1_38654_md.gif)

This causes a problem with relativity.  The path the photons have taken in the shortest possible path between two points at speed c.

When the photon's arrive point D does not know if it should be accelerating or not.  For point D to be accelerating, point A which connects it to point C would also need to be accelerating.  Point A cannot know that it is accelerating any faster than light can travel from point A to point C.  This is a longer distance than the direct path light took between point C and point D. 

(If we stop to think about it for a minute, we realize that an outside observer setting up the experiment could setup a precisely timed device to separate the large end plate from the rest of the frustum prior to the time it takes light to travel from point A to point C but after light transited from point C to point D).

When photons from point C arrive at point D we must conclude that point D has not yet undergone acceleration and is still moving at 100 m/s. 

The impacting light will slow the small end to 99 m/s.

KE of in the initial state = (.5)(1)(99)^2 = 4900.5

5100.5 (small end) - 4900.5 (big end) = 200 joule difference in KE between the two end plates.

E=MC^2 so there is a (small mass) fluctuation between the two end plates.

If I am understanding the Mach Effect correctly, it requires a system to be heavier when moving in one direction than the other.  That is what we now have.

If you work this out over a couple of bounces the small endpates gets up quite a head of steam.

Such a solution would satisfy both CoM (Momentum being preserved through the Mach effect) and CoE (it should be immediately obvious that this system cannot go over unity).

Conclusion: The EMDrive is moving through a Mach effect caused by a Newtonian mechanic having a non-intuitive effect in an Einsteinian universe when the mechanism causing the Newtonian reaction is moving at c.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: moreno7798 on 09/23/2017 08:39 pm
What expirement with null results are you referring to?  Please be specific and provide citation.
I haven't been keeping a list, but there are multiple at:
http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results

Of course that list isn't exhaustive, I feel like there have been experiments reported here that aren't on that list, and there is also the unfortunate trend in science where people tend not to publish null results, which still applies here. One that appears missing from the list is rfmwguy's results, which is reasonable since he didn't have enough data for a solid conclusion before his RF equipment broke, but the last data he reported was an accidental control test which pointed to his data being null.
I for one would like to see meberbs publish his assertions on his interpretation of Dr. Harold White's papers. I'm guessing getting past the peer review process would be a better way to be vindicated than getting into endless argument loops here. Maybe he could score a position at EW.

Before peer-review (a difficult task for things the author thinks may be fundamentally trivial) a simpler refuting paper uploaded on arXiv or viXra would be a good start.
I really don't think there would be any value in me doing that. For starters, if you go back to when EW's papers were released, you will find others who went into much more detail than me proposing potential error sources.

As a side note, I really like my current job, and would have no interest in moving to EW.

What value is there to peer review? That's funny. Cause I thought that is what you're doing with TT? Or could it be that you're cherry picking where you fight your battles?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/23/2017 09:15 pm
I for one would like to see meberbs publish his assertions on his interpretation of Dr. Harold White's papers. I'm guessing getting past the peer review process would be a better way to be vindicated than getting into endless argument loops here. Maybe he could score a position at EW.

Before peer-review (a difficult task for things the author thinks may be fundamentally trivial) a simpler refuting paper uploaded on arXiv or viXra would be a good start.
I really don't think there would be any value in me doing that. For starters, if you go back to when EW's papers were released, you will find others who went into much more detail than me proposing potential error sources.

As a side note, I really like my current job, and would have no interest in moving to EW.

What value is there to peer review? That's funny. Cause I thought that is what you're doing with TT? Or could it be that you're cherry picking where you fight your battles?
How in the world did you get that take away (value of peer review) from my post?
The issue is the value in me specifically writing such a paper, particularly when others have already done more thorough critiques.

And yes, I pick my battles to be ones where I know I have data to support my points. Especially in this section of the forum, I try to stick to things where I thoroughly know what I am talking about, because there are too many people in this section who try to engage in discussions about things they don't have the background for. (Note I am referring to people who act as if they know what they are talking about when they clearly don't. People who admit they don't have the background and want someone to review their ideas are different i.e. they are trying to learn.)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 09/23/2017 09:45 pm
Good concept to understand.

https://gizmodo.com/scientists-resolve-mysterious-violation-to-einsteins-re-1818655617

There is a velocity dependent frictional force in QED. See Milonni Appendix B, which I posted earlier in this thread. http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1721433#msg1721433 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1721433#msg1721433)

It vanishes when the spectral energy density, ρ(ω) ~ ω3, such as the EM ZPF of the quantum vacuum. I do not know how exactly to generate a spectral energy density that is not, but if I could, it would create friction per this equation.
Would appreciate knowing how do you go from Milonni Appendix B to the conclusion that

Quote
It vanishes when the spectral energy density, ρ(ω) ~ ω3

the force on an atom in thermal field vanishes? under what conditions? how does that follow from Milonni?

The integration is over the aberration angle.  Why does the power of the spectral energy ρ(ω) ~ ω3 lead to cancellation? Did I misunderstand what you wrote?

Thanks

Look at equation (B.11), the part in the square brackets.

[ρ(ω) - (ω/3)*dρ(ω)/dω] = 0 if ρ(ω) ~ ω3

This is equation (1.93) and (2.112) in the book, section 2.9 on Zero-Point Spectrum Invariance.

"..That is, the condition that ρ0(ω) (the ZPF) be the same in all inertial frames requires it to be proportional to ω3. This conforms with our expectation that an observer moving with constant velocity in the electromagnetic vacuum cannot tell that he is moving!"

Edit: This is what I mean when I say the EM vacuum is degenerate and conformal. "Any" spectral energy density where ρ(ω) ~ ω3 is a solution. As such, there are an infinite number of possible EM vacuum states. The vacuum state is not unique in QED.

(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1447050;image)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: moreno7798 on 09/23/2017 10:23 pm
I for one would like to see meberbs publish his assertions on his interpretation of Dr. Harold White's papers. I'm guessing getting past the peer review process would be a better way to be vindicated than getting into endless argument loops here. Maybe he could score a position at EW.

Before peer-review (a difficult task for things the author thinks may be fundamentally trivial) a simpler refuting paper uploaded on arXiv or viXra would be a good start.
I really don't think there would be any value in me doing that. For starters, if you go back to when EW's papers were released, you will find others who went into much more detail than me proposing potential error sources.

As a side note, I really like my current job, and would have no interest in moving to EW.

What value is there to peer review? That's funny. Cause I thought that is what you're doing with TT? Or could it be that you're cherry picking where you fight your battles?
How in the world did you get that take away (value of peer review) from my post?
The issue is the value in me specifically writing such a paper, particularly when others have already done more thorough critiques.

And yes, I pick my battles to be ones where I know I have data to support my points. Especially in this section of the forum, I try to stick to things where I thoroughly know what I am talking about, because there are too many people in this section who try to engage in discussions about things they don't have the background for. (Note I am referring to people who act as if they know what they are talking about when they clearly don't. People who admit they don't have the background and want someone to review their ideas are different i.e. they are trying to learn.)

I agree. But this is not about my knowledge or experience. This is about yours, Mr. Sawyer and Dr. White.

So, then It would be fair to say that you really don't have the background or experience of people like Roger Sawyer and Harold White (but please do tell if you believe yours is on par). So I'd question what kind of weight you'd have in questioning Dr. Whites results. Do you work for an institution on par with EW? Because I think you'd agree they do not employ just any charlatan off the street. I will repeat what I said in a different post:

Publish something. Get something tangible out there or you're basically just the same person that you described in your post above.

You really should take your posts to a different thread.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/23/2017 11:03 pm
...
Edit: This is what I mean when I say the EM vacuum is degenerate and conformal. "Any" spectral energy density where ρ(ω) ~ ω3 is a solution. As such, there are an infinite number of possible EM vacuum states. The vacuum state is not unique in QED.

Thank you for taking your time to thoroughly answer
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 09/24/2017 02:07 am
...
It's apparently instantaneous at static field. The experimentalist Kopeikin: https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0507001

That's because of no changes propagates - bodies just follow geodesics of spacetime.
Thanks, I need some time to carefully read his paper.  Extended bodies (as opposed to particles) should not exactly follow geodesics as shown in a remarkable series of papers by Dixon in the 1970's (for example http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/314/1519/499.short ,  http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/319/1539/509.short
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/277/1264/59.short).  Only point particles follow geodesics.
True. Considering gravitational force equivalent with centripetal force at orbit the tidal effects i.e. mass distribution changes travelling speed c are negligible.
1. considering speed of effects acting locally at an idealized point the problem is mathematically not well-posed because there is no distance to travel so there is no well-posed speed dx/dt as a derivative.  Yes the time of propagation dt is zero, hence instantaneous instead of infinitesimal, but dx/dt is undefinable because dx is also zero (not infinitesimal).  I think that since the speed of propagation problem is not mathematically well-posed or physically well posed (can something be much smaller than a Planck length?  can something be just a point) then the idealization to a point is not subject to experimental analysis.

2. for finite bodies, the speed of propagation of gravitational field disturbances from one material point to another material point (or from one point in space to another point in space) is c (or less than c when involving particles having mass).  Never instantaneous between different points [except entanglement].  This applies to mass distribution changes.  As confirmed by experiments [nothing instantaneous except entanglement]. I like the term "mass distribution changes"  :)  Thanks

Rodal,
the notion of distance assumed in "Never instantaneous between different points [except entanglement]." is necessarily a Euclidian notion. Is it not?

How is the concept of simultaneity between points separated by ict not superior to this clumsy and complicated frame that you insist on using to interpret the transfer of energy?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 09/24/2017 02:16 am
(http://spiritwalkministry.com/yahoo_site_admin2/assets/images/Metaphysical_Maps.11932743_std.jpg)
"Why are you here?"
is a excellent question related to the anthropic principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle)!

Maybe because the universe exists as it is and we are interested in its underlying principles and the EM-Drive. ::) That's obvious  ;)

I really feel like this silly copper can is our Monolith.

Maybe it is our Rosetta stone, guiding us toward a better understanding of remotely acting forces.
Title: Straw poll results
Post by: Mark7777777 on 09/24/2017 02:20 am
Here are the results of https://strawpoll.com/yp8y56rc

"If I had to guess, an Emdrive produces thrust because of:

 Noise or experimental error
 Radiation pressure
 Vacuum energy
 Quantised inertia
 Photon leakage
 Mach effect
 Warp field
 A combination of one or more of the above
 Other
 It doesn't produce thrust"

The poll is still open for those that haven't submitted and want to.


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/24/2017 02:31 am
...

Nothing except that mass resists acceleration instantly. GR assumes that mass resists acceleration because it is mass, which is a circular argument based on faith. This could be wrong, if no other explanation for emdrive thrust is found, while it continues to be verified, then GR is an incomplete description of mechanics.
Not a precise statement of Einstein's assumption.   Instead Einstein assumed the equivalence principle. 

                "we [...] assume the complete physical equivalence of a gravitational field and a corresponding
                acceleration of the reference system."

(https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj8mYPN2a3WAhVs74MKHbaBARkQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fslideplayer.com%2Fslide%2F6259759%2F&psig=AFQjCNHYvIg1Q6GoOsGzCqtO4337g_49Dw&ust=1505788544600731)

Not a circular argument.

Please let us know what experiments do you know of that have found a difference between gravitational mass and inertial mass.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/29/18/180301/meta

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle#Tests_of_the_weak_equivalence_principle

Please let us know what experiments you know of that have revealed a Machian effect not present in Einstein's General Relativity.

You also state:  "mass resists acceleration instantly"  please let us know what experiments do you know of that prove that mass resists acceleration instantly (superluminally : much faster than the speed of light) while gravitation travels at the speed of light (not instantly)
A correction: information of the changes in the distribution of masses trvavels at speed c. Gravitation is apparently instantaneous. Similarly inertia seems to get space contact at its position, hence in respect of surrounding masses inertia seems to be instantaneous too. Naturally, those phenomena are common.
A correction: Please cite experimental evidence for your assertion above that "Gravitation is apparently instantaneous"
It's apparently instantaneous at static field. The experimentalist Kopeikin: https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0507001

That's because of no changes propagates - bodies just follow geodesics of spacetime.
Comment on the paper by Kopeikin:


1.) There also was Tom van Flandern  and the "speed of gravity" Jupiter experiment. 


van Flandern:


http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Speed_of_Gravity.htm
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960198006501?via%3Dihub


2.) Just like the Newtonian case, in PPN you use _coordinates of date_, not retarded, in doing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parameterized_post-Newtonian_formalism) PPN gravity.,  van Flandern  was found incorrect by Carlip.  The arguments by Carlip are convincing (to me):



https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909087

In any case (in one of the above links) Van Flandern admits "research support for promising but unpopular alternative ideas in astronomy" -- admits that the idea is unpopular.

3.) There was an attempt that involved the VLBI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very-long-baseline_interferometry) measurement of the gravitational lensing (deflection) from Jupiter, and whether that could be used to measure the "speed of gravity"


https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0206266

https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0310059.pdf

https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0310065

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0303346

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0304006

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0308343

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0311063

https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0403060

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0412401

https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0510048

https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0510056

https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0510077

Conclusions:

1) in view of the above papers it appears to me that Kopeikin's views on  the "speed of gravity" as reflected by the paper you are quoting were not proven correct.  I will withhold any further opinion on this controversy in this thread, as debating this will take us too far away from "EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications."  We have enough controversy already with the EM Drive itself  ;)
Readers interested in this controversy can follow this further here:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity#Possible_experimental_measurements

I quote:

Quote
However, Kopeikin and Fomalont continue to vigorously argue their case and the means of presenting their result at the press-conference of AAS that was offered after the peer review of the results of the Jovian experiment had been done by the experts of the AAS scientific organizing committee. In later publication by Kopeikin and Fomalont, which uses a bi-metric formalism that splits the space-time null cone in two – one for gravity and another one for light, the authors claimed that Asada's claim was theoretically unsound.[21] The two null cones overlap in general relativity, which makes tracking the speed-of-gravity effects difficult and requires a special mathematical technique of gravitational retarded potentials, which was worked out by Kopeikin and co-authors[22][23] but was never properly employed by Asada and/or the other critics.

2) Yes, in the PPN coordinate system everything appears instantaneous.   Recall that PPN is a scheme to compare Newtonian and Einsteinian gravity in the limit in which the gravitational field is weak and generated by objects moving slowly compared to the speed of light.  Recall that in Newtonian gravity, the speed of gravity is instantaneous.

3) But of course, how it appears in a PPN coordinate system is a separate issue from the question of the actual physical speed of gravitational waves.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/24/2017 07:48 am
I agree. But this is not about my knowledge or experience. This is about yours, Mr. Sawyer and Dr. White.

So, then It would be fair to say that you really don't have the background or experience of people like Roger Sawyer and Harold White (but please do tell if you believe yours is on par).
I am going to pretend you didn't mention Shawyer, since he has demonstrated repeatedly that he has trouble with basic physics concepts like force balances.

I can't say that I have the same background as Dr. White, but I have plenty of relevant background. You seem to going down a path of argument from authority with this though, you don't necessarily need a Phd to find flaws in an experiment run by a Phd.

Do you work for an institution on par with EW?
Depends on what you mean by institution and what criteria you are judging on. I mentioned no interest in moving to EW and there is a reason for that. In my opinion, the place where I work is much better.

Publish something. Get something tangible out there or you're basically just the same person that you described in your post above.
Publishing something does not differentiate between the types of people I described.

You still seem to not have understood anything I said. Other people have already written critiques of the Eagleworks experiments. Remember that this discussion started with something from you:
I for one would like to see meberbs publish his assertions on his interpretation of Dr. Harold White's papers. I'm guessing getting past the peer review process would be a better way to be vindicated than getting into endless argument loops here. Maybe he could score a position at EW.
I have not made any assertions recently about those experiments. I have no idea why you are specifically insisting I publish something on those experiments. If you think publishing something should be a discriminator for who should be posting here why don't you publish a rebuttal to the criticisms that others have made about Dr. White's experiments?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/24/2017 12:23 pm
This is a pretty recent study of the speed of gravity using Ligo data. It isn't constrained to exactly c just yet. Instantaneous propagation is outside their bounds.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.06101

A well written article about this subject:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/04/28/why-does-gravity-move-at-the-speed-of-light/?s=trending#fbd41ca62110
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Eusa on 09/24/2017 12:56 pm
Gravitational waves signal just for mass distribution changes and propagates at speed c. When static curvature of spacetime considered it seems to be instantaneous gravity signal but there is no signal indeed.

These principles are important when trying understand propellantless thrusters. When something (mass field?) accelerate drive, drive must accelerate back and finally some objects accelerates keeping sum of momentum the same everywhere under affecting phenomenon...

Before Jamies results from spheroidical cavity I think the emdrive effect can be a temporal magnetic field reaction.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/24/2017 01:14 pm
...

Nothing except that mass resists acceleration instantly. GR assumes that mass resists acceleration because it is mass, which is a circular argument based on faith. This could be wrong, if no other explanation for emdrive thrust is found, while it continues to be verified, then GR is an incomplete description of mechanics.
Not a precise statement of Einstein's assumption.   Instead Einstein assumed the equivalence principle. 

                "we [...] assume the complete physical equivalence of a gravitational field and a corresponding
                acceleration of the reference system."

(https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj8mYPN2a3WAhVs74MKHbaBARkQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fslideplayer.com%2Fslide%2F6259759%2F&psig=AFQjCNHYvIg1Q6GoOsGzCqtO4337g_49Dw&ust=1505788544600731)

Not a circular argument.

Please let us know what experiments do you know of that have found a difference between gravitational mass and inertial mass.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/29/18/180301/meta

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle#Tests_of_the_weak_equivalence_principle

Please let us know what experiments you know of that have revealed a Machian effect not present in Einstein's General Relativity.

You also state:  "mass resists acceleration instantly"  please let us know what experiments do you know of that prove that mass resists acceleration instantly (superluminally : much faster than the speed of light) while gravitation travels at the speed of light (not instantly)
A correction: information of the changes in the distribution of masses trvavels at speed c. Gravitation is apparently instantaneous. Similarly inertia seems to get space contact at its position, hence in respect of surrounding masses inertia seems to be instantaneous too. Naturally, those phenomena are common.
A correction: Please cite experimental evidence for your assertion above that "Gravitation is apparently instantaneous"
It's apparently instantaneous at static field. The experimentalist Kopeikin: https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0507001

That's because of no changes propagates - bodies just follow geodesics of spacetime.
Comment on the paper by Kopeikin:


1.) There also was Tom van Flandern  and the "speed of gravity" Jupiter experiment. 


van Flandern:


http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Speed_of_Gravity.htm
...

Lots of "useful fiction" on that site; useful if you don't actually read (besides for entertainment purposes) or believe any of it. I mostly just look at the pictures. Intriguing. Bunk technical descriptions and meaningless woo aside; I wonder how well that fictional wedge would do at interfering shear waves if the large end wasn't a perfect reflector?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThinkerX on 09/24/2017 07:25 pm
Gravitational waves signal just for mass distribution changes and propagates at speed c. When static curvature of spacetime considered it seems to be instantaneous gravity signal but there is no signal indeed.

These principles are important when trying understand propellantless thrusters. When something (mass field?) accelerate drive, drive must accelerate back and finally some objects accelerates keeping sum of momentum the same everywhere under affecting phenomenon...

Before Jamies results from spheroidical cavity I think the emdrive effect can be a temporal magnetic field reaction.

I have wondered a time or three if the EM Drives 'movement' isn't the result of a sort of 'magnetic trick,' perhaps something roughly akin to a rail-gun or magnetically levitating a coin.  I seem to remember Shell saying her experiments indicated something like this a few weeks ago.  I have no clue as to whether or not this mechanism would move the device in space at 'EM Drive speeds.'

 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCDB4YTT_0E
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/24/2017 08:08 pm
Interesting activity happening at the corner. Imagine two (or many) of such shear waves constructively interfering at a point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXm4fNXY7ko
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 09/25/2017 01:23 am

(...)

2. for finite bodies, the speed of propagation of gravitational field disturbances from one material point to another material point (or from one point in space to another point in space) is c (or less than c when involving particles having mass).  Never instantaneous between different points [except entanglement].  This applies to mass distribution changes.  As confirmed by experiments [nothing instantaneous except entanglement]. I like the term "mass distribution changes"  :)  Thanks

Rodal, you argue that GR is established almost beyond question but then write about entanglement being an instantaneous interaction, as if there were no contradiction between these interpretations. You write about distance between points at a moment of time as if that moment was definable outside of complex time but that definition requires a preferred perspective, without which the simultaneity breaks down.

What path does the measure, of distance between the points at which particles which are entangled, take. "[nothing instantaneous except entanglement]" instantaneous from whose perspective?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 09/25/2017 04:42 am

(...)

2. for finite bodies, the speed of propagation of gravitational field disturbances from one material point to another material point (or from one point in space to another point in space) is c (or less than c when involving particles having mass).  Never instantaneous between different points [except entanglement].  This applies to mass distribution changes.  As confirmed by experiments [nothing instantaneous except entanglement]. I like the term "mass distribution changes"  :)  Thanks

Rodal, you argue that GR is established almost beyond question but then write about entanglement being an instantaneous interaction, as if there were no contradiction between these interpretations. You write about distance between points at a moment of time as if that moment was definable outside of complex time but that definition requires a preferred perspective, without which the simultaneity breaks down.

What path does the measure, of distance between the points at which particles which are entangled, take. "[nothing instantaneous except entanglement]" instantaneous from whose perspective?

GR is a very good description of the dynamics of gravitation... With some caveats for the necessity of adding dark matter and energy into the mix. To adjust for otherwise unexplained observations.

The velocity limitations for massive and massless particles, is well defined. Massless photons travel at the speed of light and all massive particles or objects travel at velocities less than the speed of light.

No information travels between entangled particles. The properties of an entangled pair of particles are established at their instance of origin. When you later measure some property of one of the pair, nothing changes about its counterpart, other than because they are entangled you then know something about the unmeasured particle. Again no information travels between the two. Because they are entangled when you measure one you instantly know something about the other. That all.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Stormbringer on 09/25/2017 04:53 am
https://phys.org/news/2017-09-gravitational-oscillate-neutrinos.html

https://www.sciencealert.com/quantum-flashes-could-be-what-finally-links-relativity-and-quantum-theory

We do not know what gravity actually is yet.

GR works but describes gravity as the result of mass or energy deforming space time with no recourse to quanticised particles like gravitons.

Sometimes a model that describes a thing isn't really the thing or really how the thing actually works. There were fantastic mechanical models that imitated the orbital positions of the known planets, the moon the sun and the stars. you could use them to predict where these celestial objects would be in advance and backtrack them to show where they were in the past but they certainly bore no other relationship to reality as came to be known. They used all sorts of improbable relationships and components to imitate the way the sky appeared to an observer on earth's surface,-even to explain retrogrades. But they certainly would not support the equations that came to be known as celestial and orbital mechanics. some of these were made even before the geocentric view of the universe was discredited. Thus they were based on the idea that all celestial objects orbited the earth. their apriori assumptions were fundamentally incorrect but they were jiggered until they matched observation. they were models that produced correct predictions, matched observations but were otherwise completely wrong.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 09/25/2017 10:13 am
It is truly a small world. The WG Dixon Dr. Rodal cited last page was my undergraduate director of studies. He was the person I referred to ages ago who said the he had chosen the (fearsomely complicated) study of the elastodynamics of extended bodies in GR in order to avoid the conceptual minefield which was Quantum Mechanics. He never lectured to me himself.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: JonathanD on 09/25/2017 01:54 pm
We do not know what gravity actually is yet.

Well, glad I"m not the only one!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 09/25/2017 03:07 pm
I found this 2 Channel USB Solid State Relay Module for $60 that looks like it will be a good solution:

https://numato.com/product/2-channel-usb-solid-state-relay-module


Mono... did you see these ?

http://relaypros.com/Relay/Relay/USB_Relay_Controller

there's stuff from "NI" too, but I suspect they won't be cheap

http://www.ni.com/en-us/support/model.usb-6525.html

(edit)

check out these too

http://denkovi.com/usb-relay-board-four-channels-for-home-automation

(example http://denkovi.com/SoftwareExamples/usb_4_8_labview/USB_4_8_RelayDemoVI.jpg )

HTH

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/25/2017 04:25 pm
Mono... did you see these ?

http://relaypros.com/Relay/Relay/USB_Relay_Controller

there's stuff from "NI" too, but I suspect they won't be cheap

http://www.ni.com/en-us/support/model.usb-6525.html

(edit)

check out these too

http://denkovi.com/usb-relay-board-four-channels-for-home-automation

(example http://denkovi.com/SoftwareExamples/usb_4_8_labview/USB_4_8_RelayDemoVI.jpg )

HTH

Those relay switches are electromechanical. They use a small EM coil to make contact. I chose solid-state to avoid putting EM coils on the torsional pendulum. Of course the NI USB-6525 would be nice, but it is overkill and expensive. I ordered the numato solid-state relay and it gets here Wednesday.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 09/25/2017 04:40 pm
Mono... did you see these ?

http://relaypros.com/Relay/Relay/USB_Relay_Controller

there's stuff from "NI" too, but I suspect they won't be cheap

http://www.ni.com/en-us/support/model.usb-6525.html

(edit)

check out these too

http://denkovi.com/usb-relay-board-four-channels-for-home-automation

(example http://denkovi.com/SoftwareExamples/usb_4_8_labview/USB_4_8_RelayDemoVI.jpg )

HTH

Those relay switches are electromechanical. They use a small EM coil to make contact. I chose solid-state to avoid putting EM coils on the torsional pendulum. Of course the NI USB-6525 would be nice, but it is overkill and expensive. I ordered the numato solid-state relay and it gets here Wednesday.

I recall that when I carried out my experiment (published in the grounding loop paper), I designed and made a light driven solid state relay without *any* ferromagnetic material in it. Note that most cheap resistors, capacitors, LEDs and photo-diodes on the market have iron leads.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 09/25/2017 06:10 pm
Mono... did you see these ?

http://relaypros.com/Relay/Relay/USB_Relay_Controller

there's stuff from "NI" too, but I suspect they won't be cheap

http://www.ni.com/en-us/support/model.usb-6525.html

(edit)

check out these too

http://denkovi.com/usb-relay-board-four-channels-for-home-automation

(example http://denkovi.com/SoftwareExamples/usb_4_8_labview/USB_4_8_RelayDemoVI.jpg )

HTH

Those relay switches are electromechanical. They use a small EM coil to make contact. I chose solid-state to avoid putting EM coils on the torsional pendulum. Of course the NI USB-6525 would be nice, but it is overkill and expensive. I ordered the numato solid-state relay and it gets here Wednesday.

When using SS relays, you must be very careful of stray inductance in the switched wires. Turning off current can cause "spikes" that could damage the relay, or create spurious noise signals that could damage LV components. I typically put MOV's across the output of an SSR, to prevent the relay from being damaged by transients.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: jmossman on 09/25/2017 06:36 pm
Mono... did you see these ?

http://relaypros.com/Relay/Relay/USB_Relay_Controller
...
Those relay switches are electromechanical. They use a small EM coil to make contact. I chose solid-state to avoid putting EM coils on the torsional pendulum.
...

When using SS relays, you must be very careful of stray inductance in the switched wires. Turning off current can cause "spikes" that could damage the relay, or create spurious noise signals that could damage LV components. I typically put MOV's across the output of an SSR, to prevent the relay from being damaged by transients.

http://www.circuitstoday.com/metal-oxide-varistor-mov
(http://www.circuitstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Working-of-Metal-Oxide-Varistor-MOV.jpg)

Quote
The working of a MOV is shown in the figure above.

The resistance of the MOV is very high. First, let us consider the component to have an open-circuit as shown in figure 1(a). The component starts conducting as soon as the voltage across it reaches the threshold voltage. When it exceeds the threshold voltage, the resistance in the MOV makes a huge drop and reaches zero. This is shown in the figure 1(b). As the device has very small impedance at this time due to the heavy voltage across it, all the current will pass through the metal oxide varistor itself. The component has to be connected in parallel to the load. The maximum voltage that will pass through the load will be the sum of the voltage that appears across the wiring and disconnect given for the device. The clamp voltage across the MOV will also be added. After the transient voltage passes through the component, the MOV will again wait for the next transient voltage. This is shown in the figure 1(c).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 09/26/2017 04:58 am

(...)

2. for finite bodies, the speed of propagation of gravitational field disturbances from one material point to another material point (or from one point in space to another point in space) is c (or less than c when involving particles having mass).  Never instantaneous between different points [except entanglement].  This applies to mass distribution changes.  As confirmed by experiments [nothing instantaneous except entanglement]. I like the term "mass distribution changes"  :)  Thanks

Rodal, you argue that GR is established almost beyond question but then write about entanglement being an instantaneous interaction, as if there were no contradiction between these interpretations. You write about distance between points at a moment of time as if that moment was definable outside of complex time but that definition requires a preferred perspective, without which the simultaneity breaks down.

What path does the measure, of distance between the points at which particles which are entangled, take. "[nothing instantaneous except entanglement]" instantaneous from whose perspective?

GR is a very good description of the dynamics of gravitation... With some caveats for the necessity of adding dark matter and energy into the mix. To adjust for otherwise unexplained observations.

The velocity limitations for massive and massless particles, is well defined. Massless photons travel at the speed of light and all massive particles or objects travel at velocities less than the speed of light.

No information travels between entangled particles. The properties of an entangled pair of particles are established at their instance of origin. When you later measure some property of one of the pair, nothing changes about its counterpart, other than because they are entangled you then know something about the unmeasured particle. Again no information travels between the two. Because they are entangled when you measure one you instantly know something about the other. That all.
OnlyMe,
is not the fate of an entangled photon the mirror image of its twin from the perspective located at their creation. How else would they qualify as being entangled?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/26/2017 06:52 am
No information travels between entangled particles. The properties of an entangled pair of particles are established at their instance of origin. When you later measure some property of one of the pair, nothing changes about its counterpart, other than because they are entangled you then know something about the unmeasured particle. Again no information travels between the two. Because they are entangled when you measure one you instantly know something about the other. That all.
OnlyMe,
is not the fate of an entangled photon the mirror image of its twin from the perspective located at their creation. How else would they qualify as being entangled?
Entanglement is weirder and more complicated than most people realize.

A typical example is a measurement of spin. For a classical object, the spin is about a specific axis. In quantum you can know the angular momentum about one axis (z) and the total angular momentum, but you can't know the x and y angular momentum as a result. Basically you could picture that it is a top spinning with its axis at an angle to vertical. The weird thing is you know how fast it is spinning about its axis, and if it is clockwise or counterclockwise when looking from the top, and the angle between the z-axis and the spin axis, but by the strangeness of quantum, you can't tell what direction the axis is in the x-y plane.

So when you measure an entangled particle, and get "up" that means it is spinning counterclockwise, and you know that if someone measures the z axis angular momentum of the other particle (or already did so) they will/would get "down." After that I believe entanglement is broken, and if you measure a different direction, like x or y, it won't be tied to the other particle's state anymore (I think it may be entangled with the measuring device in a way though). The weirdest part is what happens if you decide to measure angular momentum about some weird angle (say rotate the measurement device by 45 degrees). Since your measurement is not lined up with the eigenstate of the particle, you will get different statistics in your results. If someone else also does a measurement on the other particle, but they keep theirs lined up with the eigenstates, it turns out the results you get will be different depending on whether they measured up or down, but since they get either one half of the time, your own statistics will not show this difference, it only appears when correlating the data sets and splitting yours based on the other person's results. It turns out (Bell's inequality) that you get different results depending on whether you assume the result of "up or down" was predetermined when the entanglement started, or if it was not determined until it was measured. The answer is the second one, which means that somehow the one measurement affects the results of the other instantly. At the same time no actual information is passed, since there is now way to tell that this happened without correlating the data sets.

Basically something happens "instantly" but in a way that it doesn't matter the order of events, because no real information is passed. (There are a couple interpretations, and the only one ruled out by experiment so far is the state having already been known.)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/26/2017 01:21 pm
30W amplifier is working! Looks like ~35dB of gain as advertised.  The yellow wire is the logic level enable pin which requires grounding to enable power to this amplifier. I will use this wire and the solid-state USB relay to toggle power on/off because the amplifier does draw 6.6A idle.  I just need to clean up the wiring a bit and wrap it with shielding. 

I'm getting very close to being finished and am looking forward to getting everything working with LabView.  ;D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 09/26/2017 02:19 pm
30W amplifier is working! Looks like ~35dB of gain as advertised.  The yellow wire is the logic level enable pin which requires grounding to enable power to this amplifier. I will use this wire and the solid-state USB relay to toggle power on/off because the amplifier does draw 6.6A idle.  I just need to clean up the wiring a bit and wrap it with shielding. 

I'm getting very close to being finished and am looking forward to getting everything working with LabView.  ;D

Thanks. Please use two separate commands/lines to turn on "signal generator" and "power amplifier". In their 2014 paper, EW made the mistake of turning them on and off together thus it is impossible for them to separate thrust (if there is any) and Lorentz force caused by the 6+ Ampere DC current.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 09/26/2017 04:16 pm

(...)

2. for finite bodies, the speed of propagation of gravitational field disturbances from one material point to another material point (or from one point in space to another point in space) is c (or less than c when involving particles having mass).  Never instantaneous between different points [except entanglement].  This applies to mass distribution changes.  As confirmed by experiments [nothing instantaneous except entanglement]. I like the term "mass distribution changes"  :)  Thanks

Rodal, you argue that GR is established almost beyond question but then write about entanglement being an instantaneous interaction, as if there were no contradiction between these interpretations. You write about distance between points at a moment of time as if that moment was definable outside of complex time but that definition requires a preferred perspective, without which the simultaneity breaks down.

What path does the measure, of distance between the points at which particles which are entangled, take. "[nothing instantaneous except entanglement]" instantaneous from whose perspective?

GR is a very good description of the dynamics of gravitation... With some caveats for the necessity of adding dark matter and energy into the mix. To adjust for otherwise unexplained observations.

The velocity limitations for massive and massless particles, is well defined. Massless photons travel at the speed of light and all massive particles or objects travel at velocities less than the speed of light.

No information travels between entangled particles. The properties of an entangled pair of particles are established at their instance of origin. When you later measure some property of one of the pair, nothing changes about its counterpart, other than because they are entangled you then know something about the unmeasured particle. Again no information travels between the two. Because they are entangled when you measure one you instantly know something about the other. That all.
OnlyMe,
is not the fate of an entangled photon the mirror image of its twin from the perspective located at their creation. How else would they qualify as being entangled?

First entanglement is far more complex than the my simplistic description. That said...

When you ask about "the fate of..." it suggests to me some persistent entangled connection between two particles.., meaning some entangled connection that continues beyond the interaction of either of the entangled pair with an event (or measurement) that occurs after the instant of their entangled origin. To that I would answer no! There is no entanglement that could be described in terms of "the fate of..." independent of the fate of either particle of the pair.

As a crude example of this consider that you begin with an entangled pair of photons and after the instant of their origin one of the pair, without being observed or measured, is involved in an absorption/emission event with an atom. That half of the pair for all intents and purposes, no longer exists. One photon is absorbed and a second emitted, or even one photon is absorbed changing the energy state of the atom, to a state that is stable and no photon remitted. What happens to the other half of the entangled pair? It does not just disappear. But if you later measure some aspect of that remaining half of the entangled pair, Will can know something about the other half, before it was absorbed and remitted (or not) by the atom...

Entanglement does not persist beyond the first measurement or interaction of either of the entangled particles, after their initial entangled origin. If it were otherwise information would have to have traveled between the two a velocities greater than the speed of light. This is not as yet consistent with any observation or experience.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: aero on 09/26/2017 04:24 pm
So, in that case, the atom takes on the role of the observer.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 09/26/2017 05:06 pm
No information travels between entangled particles. The properties of an entangled pair of particles are established at their instance of origin. When you later measure some property of one of the pair, nothing changes about its counterpart, other than because they are entangled you then know something about the unmeasured particle. Again no information travels between the two. Because they are entangled when you measure one you instantly know something about the other. That all.
OnlyMe,
is not the fate of an entangled photon the mirror image of its twin from the perspective located at their creation. How else would they qualify as being entangled?
Entanglement is weirder and more complicated than most people realize.

A typical example is a measurement of spin. For a classical object, the spin is about a specific axis. In quantum you can know the angular momentum about one axis (z) and the total angular momentum, but you can't know the x and y angular momentum as a result. Basically you could picture that it is a top spinning with its axis at an angle to vertical. The weird thing is you know how fast it is spinning about its axis, and if it is clockwise or counterclockwise when looking from the top, and the angle between the z-axis and the spin axis, but by the strangeness of quantum, you can't tell what direction the axis is in the x-y plane.

So when you measure an entangled particle, and get "up" that means it is spinning counterclockwise, and you know that if someone measures the z axis angular momentum of the other particle (or already did so) they will/would get "down." After that I believe entanglement is broken, and if you measure a different direction, like x or y, it won't be tied to the other particle's state anymore...

This much I am in full agreement with, in that entanglement is/must be broken at the first interaction/measurement of either half of an entangled pair.

… (I think it may be entangled with the measuring device in a way though).

I am less sure of this last qualification.

The weirdest part is what happens if you decide to measure angular momentum about some weird angle (say rotate the measurement device by 45 degrees). Since your measurement is not lined up with the eigenstate of the particle, you will get different statistics in your results. If someone else also does a measurement on the other particle, but they keep theirs lined up with the eigenstates, it turns out the results you get will be different depending on whether they measured up or down, but since they get either one half of the time, your own statistics will not show this difference, it only appears when correlating the data sets and splitting yours based on the other person's results. It turns out (Bell's inequality) that you get different results depending on whether you assume the result of "up or down" was predetermined when the entanglement started, or if it was not determined until it was measured. The answer is the second one, which means that somehow the one measurement affects the results of the other instantly. At the same time no actual information is passed, since there is now way to tell that this happened without correlating the data sets.

Basically something happens "instantly" but in a way that it doesn't matter the order of events, because no real information is passed. (There are a couple interpretations, and the only one ruled out by experiment so far is the state having already been known.)

And again I am not sure I agree with the above interpretation, as it relies on, as you said a comparison of data sets and thus has questionable significance when attempting to apply the statistical results to individual entangled pairs.

…….. But.., I have not seen any of the raw statistical data and have no clear memory of specific published work, to be certain in my uncertainty. It may just be that, I am fundamentally suspicious of statistical interpretations, which rely to some extent on assumptions and are thus subjective... Other than my own of course,  (This last said tongue in cheek.).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 09/26/2017 05:42 pm
… (I think it may be entangled with the measuring device in a way though).

I am less sure of this last qualification.
As I tried to indicate with my wording I am uncertain as well. I only added it because it is a piece required for how I get quantum to almost make sense in my head, and maybe it might help things fit together for someone else as well. It could be completely wrong though.


...

And again I am not sure I agree with the above interpretation, as it relies on, as you said a comparison of data sets and thus has questionable significance when attempting to apply the statistical results to individual entangled pairs.

…….. But.., I have not seen any of the raw statistical data and have no clear memory of specific published work, to be certain in my uncertainty. It may just be that, I am fundamentally suspicious of statistical interpretations, which rely to some extent on assumptions and are thus subjective... Other than my own of course,  (This last said tongue in cheek.).
I was only attempting to describe as simple as possible the way tests of Bell's inequality work, however it is possible that I misstated something, because it is confusing. Researchers who spend a lot more time than me on this seem to think these have been conclusive. What these specifically rule out is "local realism." Generally alternative interpretations end up needing something non-local, but as far as I know, there is no testable difference in any other interpretations anyway. I tried to stick to the description of what happens and away from interpretation, but a bit of interpretation slipped in, because it is hard to avoid doing so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 09/26/2017 06:00 pm
… (I think it may be entangled with the measuring device in a way though).

I am less sure of this last qualification.
As I tried to indicate with my wording I am uncertain as well. I only added it because it is a piece required for how I get quantum to almost make sense in my head, and maybe it might help things fit together for someone else as well. It could be completely wrong though.


...

And again I am not sure I agree with the above interpretation, as it relies on, as you said a comparison of data sets and thus has questionable significance when attempting to apply the statistical results to individual entangled pairs.

…….. But.., I have not seen any of the raw statistical data and have no clear memory of specific published work, to be certain in my uncertainty. It may just be that, I am fundamentally suspicious of statistical interpretations, which rely to some extent on assumptions and are thus subjective... Other than my own of course,  (This last said tongue in cheek.).
I was only attempting to describe as simple as possible the way tests of Bell's inequality work, however it is possible that I misstated something, because it is confusing. Researchers who spend a lot more time than me on this seem to think these have been conclusive. What these specifically rule out is "local realism." Generally alternative interpretations end up needing something non-local, but as far as I know, there is no testable difference in any other interpretations anyway. I tried to stick to the description of what happens and away from interpretation, but a bit of interpretation slipped in, because it is hard to avoid doing so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments

If Quantum Mechanics actually made sense, it wouldn't be weird! A quote widely attributed to Feynman goes as "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."   That may be a paraphrase but it captures the essence of the idea which is if you feel confused, you're in good company!  :)


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 09/26/2017 06:16 pm
Bouncing photons

http://www.sciencealert.com/light-continues-to-behave-really-weirdly-in-the-large-hadron-collider

Quote
One thing they had never been observed doing was bouncing off each other and changing direction like snooker balls. But new research from the ATLAS experiment at CERN describes the first direct evidence of this actually happening.

The phenomenon is called light-by-light scattering, described by the Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangian published in 1936 by Hans Heinrich Euler and Werner Heisenberg (of uncertainty principle fame), and calculated by Robert Karplus and Maurice Neuman in 1951.

could the above effect be related to the anomalous thrust ?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 09/26/2017 08:09 pm
… (I think it may be entangled with the measuring device in a way though).

I am less sure of this last qualification.
As I tried to indicate with my wording I am uncertain as well. I only added it because it is a piece required for how I get quantum to almost make sense in my head, and maybe it might help things fit together for someone else as well. It could be completely wrong though.


...

And again I am not sure I agree with the above interpretation, as it relies on, as you said a comparison of data sets and thus has questionable significance when attempting to apply the statistical results to individual entangled pairs.

…….. But.., I have not seen any of the raw statistical data and have no clear memory of specific published work, to be certain in my uncertainty. It may just be that, I am fundamentally suspicious of statistical interpretations, which rely to some extent on assumptions and are thus subjective... Other than my own of course,  (This last said tongue in cheek.).
I was only attempting to describe as simple as possible the way tests of Bell's inequality work, however it is possible that I misstated something, because it is confusing. Researchers who spend a lot more time than me on this seem to think these have been conclusive. What these specifically rule out is "local realism." Generally alternative interpretations end up needing something non-local, but as far as I know, there is no testable difference in any other interpretations anyway. I tried to stick to the description of what happens and away from interpretation, but a bit of interpretation slipped in, because it is hard to avoid doing so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments

My comments were intended more as a statement of my own interpretation and uncertainty, as it relates to the general issue. Emphasis on uncertainty...

I almost went back and deleted that last portion of my post but decided too much time had past since posting.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 09/26/2017 08:51 pm
30W amplifier is working! Looks like ~35dB of gain as advertised.  The yellow wire is the logic level enable pin which requires grounding to enable power to this amplifier. I will use this wire and the solid-state USB relay to toggle power on/off because the amplifier does draw 6.6A idle.  I just need to clean up the wiring a bit and wrap it with shielding. 

I'm getting very close to being finished and am looking forward to getting everything working with LabView.  ;D

You ROCK!

Seriously - getting the full 30 watts (+44.7 dBm) from these type of amps is great work.  I like your setup too, although PM's suggestion of separate control lines is excellent.

Labview is a terrific way to automate the system.  NI has a "home bundle" which is sold via various distributors such as sparkfun.  Its not very expensive BUT not sure if the application restrictions (mostly non-commercial) which may be too restrictive for what you are doing.   

Herman
graybeardsyseng
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/26/2017 10:42 pm
Seriously - getting the full 30 watts (+44.7 dBm) from these type of amps is great work.  I like your setup too, although PM's suggestion of separate control lines is excellent.

I have not pushed the amp to 45dB yet. The 12V power supply I am using tops out at 8.5A, but it takes ~10A to fully power this amplifier. I will have to use the lipo battery to test it at full power. At 2.404GHz I can expect ~28W for this amp due to its falloff curve. With other losses from the sma cables and circulator, I am expecting ~25W max into the frustum.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.LeBel on 09/26/2017 11:45 pm
No information travels between entangled particles. The properties of an entangled pair of particles are established at their instance of origin. When you later measure some property of one of the pair, nothing changes about its counterpart, other than because they are entangled you then know something about the unmeasured particle. Again no information travels between the two. Because they are entangled when you measure one you instantly know something about the other. That all.
OnlyMe,
is not the fate of an entangled photon the mirror image of its twin from the perspective located at their creation. How else would they qualify as being entangled?
Entanglement is weirder and more complicated than most people realize.

A typical example is a measurement of spin. For a classical object, the spin is about a specific axis. In quantum you can know the angular momentum about one axis (z) and the total angular momentum, but you can't know the x and y angular momentum as a result. Basically you could picture that it is a top spinning with its axis at an angle to vertical. The weird thing is you know how fast it is spinning about its axis, and if it is clockwise or counterclockwise when looking from the top, and the angle between the z-axis and the spin axis, but by the strangeness of quantum, you can't tell what direction the axis is in the x-y plane.

So when you measure an entangled particle, and get "up" that means it is spinning counterclockwise, and you know that if someone measures the z axis angular momentum of the other particle (or already did so) they will/would get "down." After that I believe entanglement is broken, and if you measure a different direction, like x or y, it won't be tied to the other particle's state anymore (I think it may be entangled with the measuring device in a way though). The weirdest part is what happens if you decide to measure angular momentum about some weird angle (say rotate the measurement device by 45 degrees). Since your measurement is not lined up with the eigenstate of the particle, you will get different statistics in your results. If someone else also does a measurement on the other particle, but they keep theirs lined up with the eigenstates, it turns out the results you get will be different depending on whether they measured up or down, but since they get either one half of the time, your own statistics will not show this difference, it only appears when correlating the data sets and splitting yours based on the other person's results. It turns out (Bell's inequality) that you get different results depending on whether you assume the result of "up or down" was predetermined when the entanglement started, or if it was not determined until it was measured. The answer is the second one, which means that somehow the one measurement affects the results of the other instantly. At the same time no actual information is passed, since there is now way to tell that this happened without correlating the data sets.

Basically something happens "instantly" but in a way that it doesn't matter the order of events, because no real information is passed. (There are a couple interpretations, and the only one ruled out by experiment so far is the state having already been known.)
`

Very interesting ... and weird! 
Two particles are entangled because they briefly shared a moment and place together ... Two particles in one place cannot have all the same quantum numbers because of Pauli exclusion. But here, the only parameter actually being quantized is the one which is under constraint i.e. the one being measured. At the meeting, the particles must “draw” which one gets the “up” and which one get the “down”, and then they part their way. A one “up” will always correspond to a one “down”, no matter how far they are apart. 
Or do I have this wrong?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RonM on 09/27/2017 01:07 am
Bouncing photons

http://www.sciencealert.com/light-continues-to-behave-really-weirdly-in-the-large-hadron-collider

Quote
One thing they had never been observed doing was bouncing off each other and changing direction like snooker balls. But new research from the ATLAS experiment at CERN describes the first direct evidence of this actually happening.

The phenomenon is called light-by-light scattering, described by the Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangian published in 1936 by Hans Heinrich Euler and Werner Heisenberg (of uncertainty principle fame), and calculated by Robert Karplus and Maurice Neuman in 1951.

could the above effect be related to the anomalous thrust ?

No, it's an elastic collision, so total kinetic energy is conserved.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 09/27/2017 01:31 am
No information travels between entangled particles. The properties of an entangled pair of particles are established at their instance of origin. When you later measure some property of one of the pair, nothing changes about its counterpart, other than because they are entangled you then know something about the unmeasured particle. Again no information travels between the two. Because they are entangled when you measure one you instantly know something about the other. That all.
OnlyMe,
is not the fate of an entangled photon the mirror image of its twin from the perspective located at their creation. How else would they qualify as being entangled?
Entanglement is weirder and more complicated than most people realize.

A typical example is a measurement of spin. For a classical object, the spin is about a specific axis. In quantum you can know the angular momentum about one axis (z) and the total angular momentum, but you can't know the x and y angular momentum as a result. Basically you could picture that it is a top spinning with its axis at an angle to vertical. The weird thing is you know how fast it is spinning about its axis, and if it is clockwise or counterclockwise when looking from the top, and the angle between the z-axis and the spin axis, but by the strangeness of quantum, you can't tell what direction the axis is in the x-y plane.

So when you measure an entangled particle, and get "up" that means it is spinning counterclockwise, and you know that if someone measures the z axis angular momentum of the other particle (or already did so) they will/would get "down." After that I believe entanglement is broken, and if you measure a different direction, like x or y, it won't be tied to the other particle's state anymore (I think it may be entangled with the measuring device in a way though). The weirdest part is what happens if you decide to measure angular momentum about some weird angle (say rotate the measurement device by 45 degrees). Since your measurement is not lined up with the eigenstate of the particle, you will get different statistics in your results. If someone else also does a measurement on the other particle, but they keep theirs lined up with the eigenstates, it turns out the results you get will be different depending on whether they measured up or down, but since they get either one half of the time, your own statistics will not show this difference, it only appears when correlating the data sets and splitting yours based on the other person's results. It turns out (Bell's inequality) that you get different results depending on whether you assume the result of "up or down" was predetermined when the entanglement started, or if it was not determined until it was measured. The answer is the second one, which means that somehow the one measurement affects the results of the other instantly. At the same time no actual information is passed, since there is now way to tell that this happened without correlating the data sets.

Basically something happens "instantly" but in a way that it doesn't matter the order of events, because no real information is passed. (There are a couple interpretations, and the only one ruled out by experiment so far is the state having already been known.)
`

Very interesting ... and weird! 
Two particles are entangled because they briefly shared a moment and place together ... Two particles in one place cannot have all the same quantum numbers because of Pauli exclusion. But here, the only parameter actually being quantized is the one which is under constraint i.e. the one being measured. At the meeting, the particles must “draw” which one gets the “up” and which one get the “down”, and then they part their way. A one “up” will always correspond to a one “down”, no matter how far they are apart. 
Or do I have this wrong?
Marcel, mon ami,
knowing that we don't know, but yet that there may be an answer that does not require Feynman's donkey, is the hope we hold for a real answer to this essential dilemma.

What everyone seems to forget is that photons travel at the speed of light, whatever that may be in the medium that they are in. This indicates that there remains the unexplored possibility that entanglement is the direct result of simultaneity  :)

Of course that would require time to have its complex conjugate, from any but the point perspective. A leap of faith (a roll of the dice) which it seems, most folk are unwilling to take.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 09/27/2017 04:03 am
Seriously - getting the full 30 watts (+44.7 dBm) from these type of amps is great work.  I like your setup too, although PM's suggestion of separate control lines is excellent.

I have not pushed the amp to 45dB yet. The 12V power supply I am using tops out at 8.5A, but it takes ~10A to fully power this amplifier. I will have to use the lipo battery to test it at full power. At 2.404GHz I can expect ~28W for this amp due to its falloff curve. With other losses from the sma cables and circulator, I am expecting ~25W max into the frustum.
Great work Jamie! Looking forward to the end of test characterization and full power tests.

We miss you here at NIAC, but understand your need to move forward. Greybeardsyseng, Rodal and and I have  been here and have great discussions. I can't remember when I have had this kind of fun. So many challenging projects on the cutting edge across many disciplines. As a non-scientist I have been amazed how gracious and patient folks have been with me and my old college roomie Brad, in explaining their projects, especially Dr Fearn who engaged in several conversations. The enthusiasm is truly contagious.

Wednesday Dr. Fearn will be giving her presentation on the Mach Effect MEGA thruster at 11:20 Mountain Time.  It's available live at

Word is that the Q & A may be very interesting.

Keep focused and keep up the good work.

 (https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017[/url)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 09/27/2017 04:19 am
Seriously - getting the full 30 watts (+44.7 dBm) from these type of amps is great work.  I like your setup too, although PM's suggestion of separate control lines is excellent.

I have not pushed the amp to 45dB yet. The 12V power supply I am using tops out at 8.5A, but it takes ~10A to fully power this amplifier. I will have to use the lipo battery to test it at full power. At 2.404GHz I can expect ~28W for this amp due to its falloff curve. With other losses from the sma cables and circulator, I am expecting ~25W max into the frustum.
My bad Jamie - I misread you post - I was catching up on the forum in between speakers at NIAC. 

Speaking of which the NIAC symposium is outstanding.   If anyone needs some encouragement on NASA and space exploration log into the live-streaming video.
www.livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017 (http://www.livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017)

 Nothing uniquely on EMdrive itself but quite a few applications that would benefit from working EMdrive technology.   Several asteroid mining projects, outer planet exploration concepts, quite a few competitors i.e. fusion drive systems.  About 2/3s of the Phase I NIAC projects and probably 3/4 of the Phase 2 projects look workable.  Some will likely fly within a couple of years.  A lot of interest in really exploiting the cubesat approach. 

NASA has done an outstanding job setting up this symposium and keeping it on schedule and running smoothly.

graybeardsyseng
Herman
From Denver - one mile closer to LEO !!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 09/27/2017 12:38 pm
Of all the things this year I wanted to do, attending the NIAC meeting in Denver was at the very top of my list. Seeing and meeting all of you that were going to attend... it was going to be so much fun. I've been battling a health issue that's not life threatening but has stopped me from traveling.

I'm keeping up from the NIAC video, watching the excellent presentations and NASA has done a great job.

Hugs and my best to all and I'm so very sorry I missed you.

Shell

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 09/27/2017 02:06 pm
Bouncing photons

http://www.sciencealert.com/light-continues-to-behave-really-weirdly-in-the-large-hadron-collider

Quote
One thing they had never been observed doing was bouncing off each other and changing direction like snooker balls. But new research from the ATLAS experiment at CERN describes the first direct evidence of this actually happening.

The phenomenon is called light-by-light scattering, described by the Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangian published in 1936 by Hans Heinrich Euler and Werner Heisenberg (of uncertainty principle fame), and calculated by Robert Karplus and Maurice Neuman in 1951.

could the above effect be related to the anomalous thrust ?

No, it's an elastic collision, so total kinetic energy is conserved.

This might suggest a non-linear photon-photon interaction or (maybe something else).  Normally this happens at very large electric field strengths.  It would need to be specified what field strengths this is occurring at.  Haven't read the article yet. 

Wishing you a quick recovery Shell. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RonM on 09/27/2017 02:28 pm
Bouncing photons

http://www.sciencealert.com/light-continues-to-behave-really-weirdly-in-the-large-hadron-collider

Quote
One thing they had never been observed doing was bouncing off each other and changing direction like snooker balls. But new research from the ATLAS experiment at CERN describes the first direct evidence of this actually happening.

The phenomenon is called light-by-light scattering, described by the Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangian published in 1936 by Hans Heinrich Euler and Werner Heisenberg (of uncertainty principle fame), and calculated by Robert Karplus and Maurice Neuman in 1951.

could the above effect be related to the anomalous thrust ?

No, it's an elastic collision, so total kinetic energy is conserved.

Actually this suggests a non-linear photon-photon interaction and possibly light interacting with the electron-position background.  Normally this happens at very large electric field strengths.  It would need to be specified what field strengths this is occurring at.  Haven't read the article yet. 

Wishing you a quick recovery Shell.

It specifically states elastic collisions in the paper and the data is from the LHC. I seriously doubt EM drives are anywhere near the energy levels required for light-by-light scattering (GeV, but not noticed until TeV accelerator).

http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v13/n9/full/nphys4208.html
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 09/27/2017 03:22 pm
CORRECTION:



Wednesday Dr. Fearn will be giving her presentation on the Mach Effect MEGA thruster at 11:10 Mountain Time.  It's available live at https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017 (https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: HMXHMX on 09/27/2017 03:42 pm
CORRECTION:



Wednesday Dr. Fearn will be giving her presentation on the Mach Effect MEGA thruster at 11:10 Mountain Time.  It's available live at https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017 (https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017)

And SSI.org will post her slides, Q&A handout and poster at approximately the same time.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/27/2017 05:45 pm
CORRECTION:



Wednesday Dr. Fearn will be giving her presentation on the Mach Effect MEGA thruster at 11:10 Mountain Time.  It's available live at https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017 (https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017)

I'm pretty sure the dark-haired guy that brought up the spring analogy and mentioned the emdrive during Q&A is Philip Lubin of the Deep In project. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/deep-in-directed-energy-propulsion-for-interstellar-exploration

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Tcarey on 09/27/2017 08:36 pm
Is there a board that goes into the MEGA drive? I would like a better understanding of the theory behind it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/27/2017 09:17 pm
Is there a board that goes into the MEGA drive? I would like a better understanding of the theory behind it.

Here you go: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.0
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/27/2017 11:11 pm
Is there a board that goes into the MEGA drive? I would like a better understanding of the theory behind it.

Here you go: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.0

I think these two different classes of devices (electromechanical vs a resonator) are unified. This says a lot considering my attitude and thinking from back around thread 1 days, back during the battle with GIThruster.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/27/2017 11:33 pm
I'd really like to try this (or something else that works better) so we can communicate better. Maybe 2300-0001 GMT for a video conference available daily with the main meeting on say Thursdays or something? I've tried this before without any traction. This definitely isn't the only way of doing this. Comments and recommendations are very welcome. I don't see the point of waiting for conferences (which are far between and you have to travel and take off work and spend money) when we can do this virtually at any time. It's so much easier to just speak like a normal person to other people and bounce around ideas in person.

Join the conversation on Hangouts: https://hangouts.google.com/group/97SLYfJRS01syZDG2

I'm looking to build an EMdrive/MEGA/MET Fireside Chat.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/27/2017 11:53 pm
Who is paying the bills and maintaining the wiki? I remember someone graciously volunteering their time and effort to do this for us, and they deserve credit and support for their work.

http://emdrive.wiki/Main_Page
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: saucyjack on 09/28/2017 12:33 am
Who is paying the bills and maintaining the wiki? I remember someone graciously volunteering their time and effort to do this for us, and they deserve credit and support for their work.

http://emdrive.wiki/Main_Page

I originally set up and am donating the server to run the site - but lots of other people have been updating the content over time.

I just logged in and sadly see now there's been a fair amount of spam. I'll see what I can do to remove it.

-Rolf
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/28/2017 12:48 am
Who is paying the bills and maintaining the wiki? I remember someone graciously volunteering their time and effort to do this for us, and they deserve credit and support for their work.

http://emdrive.wiki/Main_Page

I originally set up and am donating the server to run the site - but lots of other people have been updating the content over time.

I just logged in and sadly see now there's been a fair amount of spam. I'll see what I can do to remove it.

-Rolf

I remember now and I thank you for helping us by making the EMdrive wiki happen. I want to support you for your efforts and time and money spent on your project, and a job well done. I don't want to see our wiki go away, which you made for us. How can we assist you in the upkeep?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/28/2017 01:46 am
CORRECTION:

Wednesday Dr. Fearn will be giving her presentation on the Mach Effect MEGA thruster at 11:10 Mountain Time.  It's available live at https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017 (https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017)

NIAC video:

https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017/videos/163432557 starts at approx 48:00

Dr. Fearn's NIAC presentation is now up on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLs9NEt9LRQ

Believe Prof Tajmar has presented his paper at IAC 2017 on his MEGA drive replication.

Trust it will surface some time soon.

https://iafastro.directory/iac/paper/id/38595/summary/

Simplified theory as attached:

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 09/28/2017 09:38 am
30W amplifier is working! Looks like ~35dB of gain as advertised.  The yellow wire is the logic level enable pin which requires grounding to enable power to this amplifier. I will use this wire and the solid-state USB relay to toggle power on/off because the amplifier does draw 6.6A idle.  I just need to clean up the wiring a bit and wrap it with shielding. 

I'm getting very close to being finished and am looking forward to getting everything working with LabView.  ;D

Nice stuff !

Just a question; do you have a schedule (you can share) about your next series of cavity tests ?

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 09/28/2017 09:39 am
Of all the things this year I wanted to do, attending the NIAC meeting in Denver was at the very top of my list. Seeing and meeting all of you that were going to attend... it was going to be so much fun. I've been battling a health issue that's not life threatening but has stopped me from traveling.

I'm keeping up from the NIAC video, watching the excellent presentations and NASA has done a great job.

Hugs and my best to all and I'm so very sorry I missed you.

Shell

So sorry to read this, Shells, all my best and I hope you'll get well very soon
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 09/28/2017 09:43 am
Bouncing photons

http://www.sciencealert.com/light-continues-to-behave-really-weirdly-in-the-large-hadron-collider

Quote
One thing they had never been observed doing was bouncing off each other and changing direction like snooker balls. But new research from the ATLAS experiment at CERN describes the first direct evidence of this actually happening.

The phenomenon is called light-by-light scattering, described by the Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangian published in 1936 by Hans Heinrich Euler and Werner Heisenberg (of uncertainty principle fame), and calculated by Robert Karplus and Maurice Neuman in 1951.

could the above effect be related to the anomalous thrust ?

No, it's an elastic collision, so total kinetic energy is conserved.

Actually this suggests a non-linear photon-photon interaction and possibly light interacting with the electron-position background.  Normally this happens at very large electric field strengths.  It would need to be specified what field strengths this is occurring at.  Haven't read the article yet. 

Wishing you a quick recovery Shell.

It specifically states elastic collisions in the paper and the data is from the LHC. I seriously doubt EM drives are anywhere near the energy levels required for light-by-light scattering (GeV, but not noticed until TeV accelerator).

http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v13/n9/full/nphys4208.html

Ok, I see that now; see, I was wondering about that "bouncing" because (forgive me for my ignorance, not my cup of coffee) I though to a similar effect happening inside the frustum; in that case, given the shape, there's much more probability of photon-photon collision and bouncing near the narrow plate than near the wide one, this would mean that the number of photons hitting the narrow end would be less (due to bouncing) than the number of photons hitting the wide end and this could cause thrust... but then, as you wrote, achieve such an effect we should have higher level of energy than the one used in EMdrive cavities, so, well... no cigar :)


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/28/2017 01:38 pm
Just a question; do you have a schedule (you can share) about your next series of cavity tests ?

I need to mount the 30W amp to the torsional pendulum, clean up/shield the wiring, and add the solid-state relay with analogue input (which arrived today) for PTT/KEY and amp board temp sensor. Today I am also going to pick up another temperature sensor that will be mounted inside the draft enclosure. I noticed mechanical resonance at certain times that I think is related to specific temperatures. I want to map those out so I can avoid testing at those temperatures.

I'm in the final stretch and expect to be completed by the weekend. I could and may perform a couple of manual tests then but also want to get LabView working so all I have to do is change the batteries. Then ~three weeks of testing with results released Nov. 1. 

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Qoelet on 09/28/2017 02:45 pm
...
Engtanglement isn't instantaneous, definitely. That's misintepretation. It's local. Only the orientation of meter to measure have opposite options which opposition between entangled particles is preserved by spacetime.
OK that gets us here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments

Quote
To date, Bell tests have found that the hypothesis of local hidden variables is inconsistent with the way that physical systems behave.

That  inconsistency would apply to Bohm's pilot wave theory as well
Maybe it is only tangential to the discussion here, but while you are certainly correct on the fact that entanglement is non local, the pilot wave theory is a non-local hidden variables theory, while the Bell's theorem is about local hidden variables theories: it does not disprove the pilot wave theory. Source (somewhat cheap, I know):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave#Principles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem

This in one of the best theads I ever read: please keep it going, thank you.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 09/28/2017 08:54 pm
Is there a board that goes into the MEGA drive? I would like a better understanding of the theory behind it.
Beside the forum page there was a SSI conference last year on the subject now discussed at NIAC, there are alot of details available.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0wmh6b9UQM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mliNE_B_vNQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9DjHfDj0Vc&t=3783

http://ssi.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/ssi_estes_park_proceedings_201609.pdf

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/28/2017 11:13 pm
So there's the great Dr. Rodal in the flesh. Nice to (kind of) meet you.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/29/2017 12:42 am
Fireside chat was live starting (just as a test to see if it will even work) from 2300z plus one hour. I thinking that in order to accommodate our west coast community (which is 3 hours behind the east coast) that it may be better to move it up one hour to 9 EST (6 PT) because of traffic (which is awful in California) and the time it takes to get home and settled. I'm curious to see if this will be an effective video chat platform for multiple people. It's supposed to support up to 25 simultaneous video users. I'm live for testing until 0130z (and I want to make sure that I don't need to be in the loop too). All this GMT/ZULU stuff is to synchronize the community which is worldwide. I lived in Europe for a number of years so I get it.

EMdrive/MEGA/MET Fireside Chat:

https://hangouts.google.com/group/97SLYfJRS01syZDG2
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 09/29/2017 01:17 am
Interesting data, which suggests that the MEGA drive efficiency, ie Specific Force in uN/kW doubles as input power doubles.

This is NOT a characteristic of either the Shawyer EmDrive or a White QV Thruster, which both exhibit a 1:1 relationship between input power, generated force and Specific Force.

MEGA drive load impedance was selected as 200 ohm from Dr. Fearn's comment the input power was 200W. It is also assumed that the load impedance stays constant as voltage and power are varied.

While this data is primarily MEGA drive related, it does touch on the Specific Force characteristics difference between the MEGA drive and the EmDrive in regard to Specific Force vs power scaling.

This to me suggests that the physics behind the MEGA drive and the physics behind the EmDrive, no matter what you think of the theory, is different as the input power vs Specific Force scaling is different, ie EmDrive 1:1, MEGA drive 1:2.

Two P-P thrusters with very different operational characteristics.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mark7777777 on 09/29/2017 08:39 am
CORRECTION:

Wednesday Dr. Fearn will be giving her presentation on the Mach Effect MEGA thruster at 11:10 Mountain Time.  It's available live at https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017 (https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017)

NIAC video:

https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017/videos/163432557 starts at approx 48:00

Dr. Fearn's NIAC presentation is now up on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLs9NEt9LRQ

Believe Prof Tajmar has presented his paper at IAC 2017 on his MEGA drive replication.

Trust it will surface some time soon.

https://iafastro.directory/iac/paper/id/38595/summary/

Simplified theory as attached:

Apologies for non-physicist questions but:

I was wondering why she said the spaceship gets up to about .4c as that is about the limit it could survive. Is that because of space dust or something?

Also I read somewhere that as a spacecraft approaches c, the power needed to go faster tends to infinity. Does that apply here to?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/29/2017 12:49 pm
CORRECTION:

Wednesday Dr. Fearn will be giving her presentation on the Mach Effect MEGA thruster at 11:10 Mountain Time.  It's available live at https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017 (https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017)

NIAC video:

https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017/videos/163432557 starts at approx 48:00

Dr. Fearn's NIAC presentation is now up on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLs9NEt9LRQ

Believe Prof Tajmar has presented his paper at IAC 2017 on his MEGA drive replication.

Trust it will surface some time soon.

https://iafastro.directory/iac/paper/id/38595/summary/

Simplified theory as attached:

Apologies for non-physicist questions but:

I was wondering why she said the spaceship gets up to about .4c as that is about the limit it could survive. Is that because of space dust or something?

Also I read somewhere that as a spacecraft approaches c, the power needed to go faster tends to infinity. Does that apply here to?

Definitely some head in the clouds thinking, and I can understand that, especially when you're presenting to a NASA crowd. It's not ultimately useful to expend so much time and resources planning lofty space missions, when the basics haven't been covered yet. The ugly reality is that we're dealing with devices here that barely produce any thrust whatsoever, and you need a carefully calibrated balance combined with statistical analysis in order to even see the signal. At 20:43 to 20:54, Dr. Fearn acknowledges the importance of the damper, and begins talking about converting from kinetic and potential energy (and back and forth), which is describing conservative force fields. The issue I want to raise is that the damper represents a nonconservative element, meaning that if you integrate the work done around a closed loop you don't end up back at zero.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/lectures/node59.html

I would recommend completely dropping all the Mach effects talk, which in my opinion is an even worse tar baby being used to explain the first tar baby....how is momentum and energy conserved? In physics, we want to be able to explain things and to understand things as simply and as accurately as possible. When you say that the device is coupling with the distant matter of the universe, and sprinkle some Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory (which is not proven to be real) in for good measure, what is this saying? Does it have any meaning? Saying that it works because of Mach effects doesn't have any meaning. Where's the proof of these Mach effects? They seem like an ad-hoc means to explain away a very important problem, but now instead of there just being one problem (the conservation laws), now there's two.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 09/29/2017 07:31 pm
When you finally reach the conference room, you've all the needed "makeup" but that isn't exactly what's expected (apparently) you'd better look like some "kinda/sorta" Indiana Jones or someone alike and present some "deus ex machina" idea <sigh>
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: rq3 on 09/29/2017 11:10 pm
When you finally reach the conference room, you've all the needed "makeup" but that isn't exactly what's expected (apparently) you'd better look like some "kinda/sorta" Indiana Jones or someone alike and present some "deus ex machina" idea <sigh>
I don't understand your post. Do you need to be in costume? "Deus ex machina" means that there is an un-needed insertion of data to force a plot into an otherwise unrealistic direction.

Can you be specific, as for example, with specific examples that you witnessed and found offensive?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/29/2017 11:23 pm
When you finally reach the conference room, you've all the needed "makeup" but that isn't exactly what's expected (apparently) you'd better look like some "kinda/sorta" Indiana Jones or someone alike and present some "deus ex machina" idea <sigh>
I don't understand your post. Do you need to be in costume? "Deus ex machina" means that there is an un-needed insertion of data to force a plot into an otherwise unrealistic direction.

Can you be specific, as for example, with specific examples that you witnessed and found offensive?

I took it as the tendency of some (it's a human tendency really) to really dress up very simple ideas and hang on all the bells and whistles and put on a big show and wow people; but that really isn't necessary. There's no substance in that.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/29/2017 11:34 pm
I want to introduce a new (possibly but I doubt it because it's obvious) concept that is somewhat Machian I suppose. I don't think this is in any way vague. I know that the gravitational interaction has infinite range, and I know that the universe is considered infinite, and that tells me that I'm feeling the gravitational interaction of everything, everywhere at once from all directions isotropically right here and right now, and the sum of all those gravitational forces acting on me, are zero. I don't need to even think about taking complex mathematical leaps in order to interact with the distant matter in the universe, because it's all happening right here and right now, and the same goes for anywhere I go in the universe.

I'm intentionally neglecting the obviously strong gravitational interactions from here in my neighborhood which isn't smooth and isotropic, planet, solar system, galaxy, etc.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 09/30/2017 01:59 am
30W amplifier successfully mounted to the torsional pendulum.  ;D  I'm showing images from both sides below. I think this is the first time I've shown the back side of the pendulum.

The two temperature sensors for the draft enclosure will be added tomorrow.   
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 09/30/2017 03:48 am
30W amplifier successfully mounted to the torsional pendulum.  ;D  I'm showing images from both sides below. I think this is the first time I've shown the back side of the pendulum.

The two temperature sensors for the draft enclosure will be added tomorrow.


Jamie, you were sorely missed in Denver. Yet, your clearly focused efforts explains the why.

Keep up the good work...

BTW, what about humidity and atmospheric pressure? Doesn't need to be on the rig, but in the room, or maybe just the local National Weather Service readings at the time. Plus, if a furnace/ac or door(s) is located in the area you may want to make sure it's off/closed for the duration of the test runs.

Graybeardsyseng can help you on a written protocol. ;-)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SteveD on 09/30/2017 08:11 am
Have we heard anything about results on the Dresden mini EM-Drive?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: chongma on 09/30/2017 09:04 am
30W amplifier successfully mounted to the torsional pendulum.  ;D  I'm showing images from both sides below. I think this is the first time I've shown the back side of the pendulum.

The two temperature sensors for the draft enclosure will be added tomorrow.

very tidy job. looks ready to go into a cubesat!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 09/30/2017 02:47 pm
30W amplifier successfully mounted to the torsional pendulum.  ;D  I'm showing images from both sides below. I think this is the first time I've shown the back side of the pendulum.

The two temperature sensors for the draft enclosure will be added tomorrow.

very tidy job. looks ready to go into a cubesat!

Just another thought on EMdrive from NIAC,

There was a very interesting phone presentation from the U.S. Naval Academy at NIAC on their cubesat program.  Apparently they have an active program for their midshipmen (what students at USNA are called) to build and fly cubesats, mostly in conjunctions with outside research groups - public and private but generally non-commercial.   They were presenting to the NIAC audience that they are looking for new projects.  I have not found the video/recording of their presentation yet (just got home yesterday) but if I can find it I will post a link and or the email address for the project coordinator. (EDIT Add Time - the phone call and presentation were on Wednesday the 27th at about 1300 MDT.)   I imagine people can find info by googling US Naval Academy and cubesat program but I haven't tried it yet.   Anyway - I am not sure if the USNA would be ready or receptive to something as 'speculative' as an EMdrive test or perhaps Mach Effect Thruster test but if anyone is considering such an effort it might be worth exploring this program. 

Herman
graybeardsyseng
 
EDITED - include approximate time of presentation.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/30/2017 05:13 pm
...
Graybeardsyseng can help you on a written protocol. ;-)
....

Herman
graybeardsyseng
 
EDITED - include approximate time of presentation.
Bob and Herman, great meeting you in person at the Denver NIAC symposium.  Very much enjoyed our conversations.  Thank you for driving all the way to Colorado  :)

Sorry that Michelle could not make it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 09/30/2017 05:48 pm
Bob and Herman, great meeting you in person at the Denver NIAC symposium.  Very much enjoyed our conversations.  Thank you for driving all the way to Colorado  :)

Sorry that Michelle could not make it.


Ditto Jose. It was a hoot and I'm already thinking of next year. And your quick laugh and engagement were a delight.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: jmossman on 09/30/2017 07:50 pm
30W amplifier successfully mounted to the torsional pendulum.  ;D  I'm showing images from both sides below. I think this is the first time I've shown the back side of the pendulum.

The two temperature sensors for the draft enclosure will be added tomorrow.

Your build is coming along nicely!

Curiously you seem to have an experimenters breadboard on the backside with some components (and possible power) connections.  I can see twisted wires in lots of places trying to minimize noise, but the hidden/embedded row and column connections within the breadboard may act like antenna and raise the noise floor in your power bus due to potential harmonic interactions.  (i.e. power buses may pickup RF noise, and then the amplifier may amplify,  or many other possible interactions)

However, simply testing what you have is probably worthwhile before undertaking further modifications to try and address speculative (and unquantified) noise sources such as that unshielded breadboard.

Good luck!
James
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 09/30/2017 08:07 pm
Quote
The issue I want to raise is that the damper represents a nonconservative element, meaning that if you integrate the work done around a closed loop you don't end up back at zero.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/lectures/node59.html

In order to make the leap from this, which does not address momentum, I think I need to treat the damper (in METS, EMdrives, and mass-spring-damper-mass systems) as the application of an external force.

I understand that there damping present in all "real" physical systems. I'm specifically talking about the rubber gasket in METS and the dielectric disc in EMdrives. Even the finite conductivity of copper is a source.

Edit: When I say "external force" I mean it as in the distinction made here and other places.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/energy/Lesson-2/Internal-vs-External-Forces
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 09/30/2017 08:59 pm
...
Graybeardsyseng can help you on a written protocol. ;-)
....

Herman
graybeardsyseng
 
EDITED - include approximate time of presentation.
Bob and Herman, great meeting you in person at the Denver NIAC symposium.  Very much enjoyed our conversations.  Thank you for driving all the way to Colorado  :)

Sorry that Michelle could not make it.

Jose, 

Likewise to both you and Bob- Truly enjoyed it.   Conversations were outstanding and really made me think.  Plus the presentations  and symposium contents were outstanding.   I was extremely intrigued by Dr. Fearn's  presentation and the work you and the SSI team are doing  That too gave me a LOT to think about.

Like Bob - I am already looking forward to next NIAC.   I may have missed it in all the data coming out in Denver but have they announced a date or location yet?   

I hope Michelle is feeling better soon!   . 

Herman
graybeardsyseng
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 09/30/2017 09:30 pm
...

Jose, 

Likewise to both you and Bob- Truly enjoyed it.   Conversations were outstanding and really made me think.  Plus the presentations  and symposium contents were outstanding.   I was extremely intrigued by Dr. Fearn's  presentation and the work you and the SSI team are doing  That too gave me a LOT to think about.

Like Bob - I am already looking forward to next NIAC.   I may have missed it in all the data coming out in Denver but have they announced a date or location yet?   

I hope Michelle is feeling better soon!   . 

Herman
graybeardsyseng
NIAC 2018 is supposed to take place in Boston, Massachusetts  (near MIT, Harvard, Northeastern University, Boston University, etc.).  I don't know the exact dates, but they are usually around the same time every year, so I would expect it to take place near the end of September 2018.   :)

(https://www.bhhsneproperties.com/photolib/community/ma-boston.jpg)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 10/01/2017 10:12 pm
30W amplifier successfully mounted to the torsional pendulum.  ;D  I'm showing images from both sides below. I think this is the first time I've shown the back side of the pendulum.

The two temperature sensors for the draft enclosure will be added tomorrow.

very tidy job. looks ready to go into a cubesat!

Just another thought on EMdrive from NIAC,

There was a very interesting phone presentation from the U.S. Naval Academy at NIAC on their cubesat program.  Apparently they have an active program for their midshipmen (what students at USNA are called) to build and fly cubesats, mostly in conjunctions with outside research groups - public and private but generally non-commercial.   They were presenting to the NIAC audience that they are looking for new projects.  I have not found the video/recording of their presentation yet (just got home yesterday) but if I can find it I will post a link and or the email address for the project coordinator. (EDIT Add Time - the phone call and presentation were on Wednesday the 27th at about 1300 MDT.)   I imagine people can find info by googling US Naval Academy and cubesat program but I haven't tried it yet.   Anyway - I am not sure if the USNA would be ready or receptive to something as 'speculative' as an EMdrive test or perhaps Mach Effect Thruster test but if anyone is considering such an effort it might be worth exploring this program. 

Herman
graybeardsyseng
 
EDITED - include approximate time of presentation.

presentation by US Naval Academy is the first one in this link:  https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017/videos/163439684

by CDR Jeff King and Dr. Jin Kang

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Satellite_Program_(United_States_Naval_Academy)

http://www.aprs.org/satstation.html

https://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/technologies/navy_satellite.html
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 10/02/2017 01:02 pm
The more I study the conservation of momentum problem (that problem being aside from the gravitational induction aspect I've been learning about which may just be for extra credit towards learning about how to control gravity if the effect can become large), it's becoming apparent that the momentum issue can be exactly solved by using plain old classical mechanics. The pie in the sky thinking/ideas led me to the basics of understanding how to solve the still difficult, yet approachable, problem of how to show momentum is conserved. I know what to calculate now.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/02/2017 02:31 pm
Hi Jeremiah,

If CofE is conserved then as in all inelastic events, CofM must also be conserved. Can't have one conserved without the other being conserved.

Should add that when one side are photons, the photon velocity does not change but photon energy or effective photon mass changes.

So for the mass side, velocity changes and for the photon side, effective photon mass changes.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Ricvil on 10/02/2017 05:15 pm
Hi guys.
Just a idea!!!

Pressure/tensions on the walls of cavity are diferent for TE and TM modes.
http://www.m-hikari.com/astp/astp2008/astp13-16-2008/xiangASTP13-16-2008.pdf

High Q and localized TE and TM modes can arises as "imperfections" on electromagnetic structures.
http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/ghost.modes.pdf

A unusual Tx3xx fulstrum mode appears with TE and TM modes toghether, one at each side of cavity.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=39214.0;attach=1091650;sess=48891

Then,


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 10/02/2017 06:27 pm
Hi guys.
Just a idea!!!

Pressure/tensions on the walls of cavity are diferent for TE and TM modes.
http://www.m-hikari.com/astp/astp2008/astp13-16-2008/xiangASTP13-16-2008.pdf

High Q and localized TE and TM modes can arises as "imperfections" on electromagnetic structures.
http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/ghost.modes.pdf

A unusual Tx3xx fulstrum mode appears with TE and TM modes toghether, one at each side of cavity.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=39214.0;attach=1091650;sess=48891

Then,
Hi Ricvil, the idea that degenerated field pattern (mode mixing) may cause the thrust signal, was already discussed in previous threads and is still not fully rejected. The idea is great. However, regarding standard Maxwell equations the vector fields should cancel each other at least over a full cycle of 2Pi.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 10/02/2017 06:48 pm
Hi Jeremiah,

If CofE is conserved then as in all inelastic events, CofM must also be conserved. Can't have one conserved without the other being conserved.

Should add that when one side are photons, the photon velocity does not change but photon energy or effective photon mass changes.

So for the mass side, velocity changes and for the photon side, effective photon mass changes.

I would suggest really understanding what is meant by "external force." I figured out what the external force is.

http://m.sparknotes.com/physics/linearmomentum/conservationofmomentum/section3.rhtml
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 10/02/2017 06:51 pm
Hi guys.
Just a idea!!!

Pressure/tensions on the walls of cavity are diferent for TE and TM modes.
http://www.m-hikari.com/astp/astp2008/astp13-16-2008/xiangASTP13-16-2008.pdf

High Q and localized TE and TM modes can arises as "imperfections" on electromagnetic structures.
http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/ghost.modes.pdf

A unusual Tx3xx fulstrum mode appears with TE and TM modes toghether, one at each side of cavity.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=39214.0;attach=1091650;sess=48891

Then,
Hi Ricvil, the idea that degenerated field pattern (mode mixing) may cause the thrust signal, was already discussed in previous threads and is still not fully rejected. The idea is great. However, regarding standard Maxwell equations the vector fields should cancle each other at least over a full cycle of 2Pi.
Nothing (whether anisotropic, inhomogeneous, etc.) that one can do solely with internal fields, internal forces, or internal particles can result in acceleration of the center of mass by itself without the involvement of external fields, as this would be a violation of Noether's theorem.  Acceleration of the center of mass can only take place either by ejection of mass/energy or by involvement of an external field.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.LeBel on 10/02/2017 08:15 pm
Hi guys.
Just a idea!!!

Pressure/tensions on the walls of cavity are diferent for TE and TM modes.
http://www.m-hikari.com/astp/astp2008/astp13-16-2008/xiangASTP13-16-2008.pdf

High Q and localized TE and TM modes can arises as "imperfections" on electromagnetic structures.
http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/ghost.modes.pdf

A unusual Tx3xx fulstrum mode appears with TE and TM modes toghether, one at each side of cavity.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=39214.0;attach=1091650;sess=48891

Then,
Hi Ricvil, the idea that degenerated field pattern (mode mixing) may cause the thrust signal, was already discussed in previous threads and is still not fully rejected. The idea is great. However, regarding standard Maxwell equations the vector fields should cancle each other at least over a full cycle of 2Pi.
Nothing (whether anisotropic, inhomogeneous, etc.) that one can do solely with internal fields, internal forces, or internal particles can result in acceleration of the center of mass by itself without the involvement of external fields, as this would be a violation of Noether's theorem.  Acceleration of the center of mass can only take place either by ejection of mass/energy or by involvement of an external field.

Wow! Is it me or you just stated your belief in the impossibility of all these various propellentless attempts, EM-drive included? –

 IMO- Many laws and theorem describe what happens naturally and spontaneously in the universe. But we have seen many cases where we have done, by twisting nature’s arm, things that do not happen by themselves in the universe. If we intend, once more, to twist nature’s arm into doing something that is not spontaneously happening out there, we should be cautious about the apparent limitations imposed by these laws and theorems. Because by leaving the realm of spontaneous processes, “intervention” may bring about new rules and new possibilities.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 10/02/2017 08:24 pm
Hi guys.
Just a idea!!!

Pressure/tensions on the walls of cavity are diferent for TE and TM modes.
http://www.m-hikari.com/astp/astp2008/astp13-16-2008/xiangASTP13-16-2008.pdf

High Q and localized TE and TM modes can arises as "imperfections" on electromagnetic structures.
http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/ghost.modes.pdf

A unusual Tx3xx fulstrum mode appears with TE and TM modes toghether, one at each side of cavity.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=39214.0;attach=1091650;sess=48891

Then,
Hi Ricvil, the idea that degenerated field pattern (mode mixing) may cause the thrust signal, was already discussed in previous threads and is still not fully rejected. The idea is great. However, regarding standard Maxwell equations the vector fields should cancle each other at least over a full cycle of 2Pi.
Nothing (whether anisotropic, inhomogeneous, etc.) that one can do solely with internal fields, internal forces, or internal particles can result in acceleration of the center of mass by itself without the involvement of external fields, as this would be a violation of Noether's theorem.  Acceleration of the center of mass can only take place either by ejection of mass/energy or by involvement of an external field.

Wow! Is it me or you just stated your belief in the impossibility of all these various propellentless attempts, EM-drive included? –

 IMO- Many laws and theorem describe what happens naturally and spontaneously in the universe. But we have seen many cases where we have done, by twisting nature’s arm, things that do not happen by themselves in the universe. If we intend, once more, to twist nature’s arm into doing something that is not spontaneously happening out there, we should be cautious about the apparent limitations imposed by these laws and theorems. Because by leaving the realm of spontaneous processes, “intervention” may bring about new rules and new possibilities.
Try reading his post again, paying extra attention to the parts I bolded. You have completely misunderstood his statements.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 10/02/2017 09:48 pm
Pay no mind to the question, but the first answer is useful for understanding.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/229115/why-does-conservation-of-momentum-fails-because-of-friction

And section 4.8.3 of the attachment.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.LeBel on 10/02/2017 09:54 pm
Hi guys.
Just a idea!!!

Pressure/tensions on the walls of cavity are diferent for TE and TM modes.
http://www.m-hikari.com/astp/astp2008/astp13-16-2008/xiangASTP13-16-2008.pdf

High Q and localized TE and TM modes can arises as "imperfections" on electromagnetic structures.
http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/ghost.modes.pdf

A unusual Tx3xx fulstrum mode appears with TE and TM modes toghether, one at each side of cavity.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=39214.0;attach=1091650;sess=48891

Then,
Hi Ricvil, the idea that degenerated field pattern (mode mixing) may cause the thrust signal, was already discussed in previous threads and is still not fully rejected. The idea is great. However, regarding standard Maxwell equations the vector fields should cancle each other at least over a full cycle of 2Pi.
Nothing (whether anisotropic, inhomogeneous, etc.) that one can do solely with internal fields, internal forces, or internal particles can result in acceleration of the center of mass by itself without the involvement of external fields, as this would be a violation of Noether's theorem.  Acceleration of the center of mass can only take place either by ejection of mass/energy or by involvement of an external field.

Wow! Is it me or you just stated your belief in the impossibility of all these various propellentless attempts, EM-drive included? –

 IMO- Many laws and theorem describe what happens naturally and spontaneously in the universe. But we have seen many cases where we have done, by twisting nature’s arm, things that do not happen by themselves in the universe. If we intend, once more, to twist nature’s arm into doing something that is not spontaneously happening out there, we should be cautious about the apparent limitations imposed by these laws and theorems. Because by leaving the realm of spontaneous processes, “intervention” may bring about new rules and new possibilities.
Try reading his post again, paying extra attention to the parts I bolded. You have completely misunderstood his statements.

Sorry Meberbs but it looks the same to me even bolded. Care to give me precision for the "without the involvement of external fields" part. Maybe where I itch.

Thanks,
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 10/02/2017 10:04 pm
....

Sorry Meberbs but it looks the same to me even bolded. Care to give me precision for the "without the involvement of external fields" part. Maybe where I itch.

Thanks,
http://users.physik.fu-berlin.de/~kleinert/b6/psfiles/Chapter-7-conslaw.pdf

Also see Chapter 17 of the classic Feynman Lectures for a nice application to quantum mechanics:

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_17.html
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.LeBel on 10/02/2017 10:56 pm
....

Sorry Meberbs but it looks the same to me even bolded. Care to give me precision for the "without the involvement of external fields" part. Maybe where I itch.

Thanks,
http://users.physik.fu-berlin.de/~kleinert/b6/psfiles/Chapter-7-conslaw.pdf

Also see Chapter 17 of the classic Feynman Lectures for a nice application to quantum mechanics:

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_17.html

That's funny. First ref. "chapter" is 41 pages long with equations. The second ref. is no better. If/If you understand Noether's theorem, you should be able to explain it in simple words. Different words, since your first attempt did not apparently convey the message. (Not a proof of ... just as it applies to propellentless attempts, and don't give me Feynman's magnet explanation either)

Thanks,

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 10/02/2017 11:09 pm
....

Sorry Meberbs but it looks the same to me even bolded. Care to give me precision for the "without the involvement of external fields" part. Maybe where I itch.

Thanks,
http://users.physik.fu-berlin.de/~kleinert/b6/psfiles/Chapter-7-conslaw.pdf

Also see Chapter 17 of the classic Feynman Lectures for a nice application to quantum mechanics:

http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_17.html

That's funny. First ref. "chapter" is 41 pages long with equations. The second ref. is no better. If/If you understand Noether's theorem, you should be able to explain it in simple words. Different words, since your first attempt did not apparently convey the message. (Not a proof of ... just as it applies to propellentless attempts, and don't give me Feynman's magnet explanation either)

Thanks,
You asked for a precise definition. This unsurprisingly involves lots of somewhat complicated math. Now you ask again for the (already provided) simple explanation, ignoring that by nature a simple explanation won't be precise.

I am having trouble coming to any conclusion other than that you simply are not interested in understanding. You want all the knowledge without having to do any of the thinking. Understanding will take effort on your part and you apparently aren't willing to put that in.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 10/02/2017 11:11 pm
M.Lebel I don't understand how you can ask for precision and then ask for an explanation in words too.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.LeBel on 10/02/2017 11:36 pm
It is possible to explain this in simple words since Dr Rodal did venture in such:

"Nothing (whether anisotropic, inhomogeneous, etc.) that one can do solely with internal fields, internal forces, or internal particles can result in acceleration of the center of mass by itself without the involvement of external fields, as this would be a violation of Noether's theorem.  Acceleration of the center of mass can only take place either by ejection of mass/energy or by involvement of an external field."

From which my interpretation was said to be wrong. So, a simple reformulation or use of other words could correct my mis-interpretation as pertains to propellantless attempts. 

Your patience is appreciated,

Thanks,
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 10/02/2017 11:49 pm
When there is no net external force acting on a system of particles the total momentum of the system is conserved.

Total momentum of a system remains constant, when the net external force acting on the system is zero.

If the net external force acting on a system of particles is zero, the linear momentum of the system is conserved.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 10/03/2017 12:55 am
Okay I'm starting to get the hang of it. I think there has to be two dissipation functions (or three in case of an EMdrive with a dielectric disc....and I know it's wrong to neglect the side walls) . I'm sure guys like Rodal are already experts at this; I'm teaching myself. It seems pretty straightforward.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5rwsmwNtYA
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 10/03/2017 12:56 am
Hi guys.
Just a idea!!!

Pressure/tensions on the walls of cavity are diferent for TE and TM modes.
http://www.m-hikari.com/astp/astp2008/astp13-16-2008/xiangASTP13-16-2008.pdf

High Q and localized TE and TM modes can arises as "imperfections" on electromagnetic structures.
http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/ghost.modes.pdf

A unusual Tx3xx fulstrum mode appears with TE and TM modes toghether, one at each side of cavity.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=39214.0;attach=1091650;sess=48891

Then,
Hi Ricvil, the idea that degenerated field pattern (mode mixing) may cause the thrust signal, was already discussed in previous threads and is still not fully rejected. The idea is great. However, regarding standard Maxwell equations the vector fields should cancle each other at least over a full cycle of 2Pi.
Nothing (whether anisotropic, inhomogeneous, etc.) that one can do solely with internal fields, internal forces, or internal particles can result in acceleration of the center of mass by itself without the involvement of external fields, as this would be a violation of Noether's theorem.  Acceleration of the center of mass can only take place either by ejection of mass/energy or by involvement of an external field.

I have an almost knee jerk negative reaction to statements made in the form of absolutes.., as in beginning with words like "Nothing...". Probably because I have been caught so many times in the past, by the same... The above and much of the following discussion, reads to me as an assertion that we already know all there is to know. An arrogant position for all but the very young. I for one truly hope, there are things we have yet to learn. Things that may even surprise us and require that we re-examine, at least some of what we believe to be fundamentally true.., today.

I would agree that if an EmDrive produces thrust, it will require a bit of new physics or at least a reinterpretation of what we think we know, about physics at present. I might even agree with some personal certainty that particles inside a frustum, including bouncing and red shifting photons are not going to make the frustum move. That said, without a far better understanding of the fundamental mechanisms underlying what we refer to as inertia and gravitation, I don't believe we can actually rule out the possibility.., that we don't, yet know everything.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 10/03/2017 01:12 am
Hi guys.
Just a idea!!!

Pressure/tensions on the walls of cavity are diferent for TE and TM modes.
http://www.m-hikari.com/astp/astp2008/astp13-16-2008/xiangASTP13-16-2008.pdf

High Q and localized TE and TM modes can arises as "imperfections" on electromagnetic structures.
http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/ghost.modes.pdf

A unusual Tx3xx fulstrum mode appears with TE and TM modes toghether, one at each side of cavity.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=39214.0;attach=1091650;sess=48891

Then,
Hi Ricvil, the idea that degenerated field pattern (mode mixing) may cause the thrust signal, was already discussed in previous threads and is still not fully rejected. The idea is great. However, regarding standard Maxwell equations the vector fields should cancle each other at least over a full cycle of 2Pi.
Nothing (whether anisotropic, inhomogeneous, etc.) that one can do solely with internal fields, internal forces, or internal particles can result in acceleration of the center of mass by itself without the involvement of external fields, as this would be a violation of Noether's theorem.  Acceleration of the center of mass can only take place either by ejection of mass/energy or by involvement of an external field.

Thank you for the simplicity. I agree, which is why I think we must continue to investigate the possibility that gravity is an electromagnetic effect. Everything that happens inside the frustum is electromagnetic but only gravity can act through its walls.

If gravity is an imbalance of em forces due to the displacement of the electron from the nucleus, then there may be a difference between em fields and the action of photons. Maybe it is only photons which can be shielded, if all charges acted on all other charges, all of the time, how would the universe be any different to what we now see?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 10/03/2017 01:26 am
CORRECTION:

Wednesday Dr. Fearn will be giving her presentation on the Mach Effect MEGA thruster at 11:10 Mountain Time.  It's available live at https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017 (https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017)

NIAC video:

https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017/videos/163432557 starts at approx 48:00

Dr. Fearn's NIAC presentation is now up on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLs9NEt9LRQ

Believe Prof Tajmar has presented his paper at IAC 2017 on his MEGA drive replication.

Trust it will surface some time soon.

https://iafastro.directory/iac/paper/id/38595/summary/

Simplified theory as attached:

Apologies for non-physicist questions but:

I was wondering why she said the spaceship gets up to about .4c as that is about the limit it could survive. Is that because of space dust or something?

Also I read somewhere that as a spacecraft approaches c, the power needed to go faster tends to infinity. Does that apply here to?

Definitely some head in the clouds thinking, and I can understand that, especially when you're presenting to a NASA crowd. It's not ultimately useful to expend so much time and resources planning lofty space missions, when the basics haven't been covered yet. The ugly reality is that we're dealing with devices here that barely produce any thrust whatsoever, and you need a carefully calibrated balance combined with statistical analysis in order to even see the signal. At 20:43 to 20:54, Dr. Fearn acknowledges the importance of the damper, and begins talking about converting from kinetic and potential energy (and back and forth), which is describing conservative force fields. The issue I want to raise is that the damper represents a nonconservative element, meaning that if you integrate the work done around a closed loop you don't end up back at zero.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/lectures/node59.html

I would recommend completely dropping all the Mach effects talk, which in my opinion is an even worse tar baby being used to explain the first tar baby....how is momentum and energy conserved? In physics, we want to be able to explain things and to understand things as simply and as accurately as possible. When you say that the device is coupling with the distant matter of the universe, and sprinkle some Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory (which is not proven to be real) in for good measure, what is this saying? Does it have any meaning? Saying that it works because of Mach effects doesn't have any meaning. Where's the proof of these Mach effects? They seem like an ad-hoc means to explain away a very important problem, but now instead of there just being one problem (the conservation laws), now there's two.

Mulletron,
"Where's the proof of these Mach effects?" Where indeed, I promise you it keeps me awake nights. But to accept paradox and deny the new millenium's most interesting experimental results is not the answer either :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.LeBel on 10/03/2017 01:36 am
Got it! I got distracted by the bolding offered.

"Nothing (whether anisotropic, inhomogeneous, etc.) that one can do solely with internal fields, internal forces, or internal particles can result in acceleration of the center of mass by itself without the involvement of external fields, as this would be a violation of Noether's theorem.  Acceleration of the center of mass can only take place either by ejection of mass/energy or by involvement of an external field."

Dr Rodal's last line says it all. As I understood it;

" Acceleration of the center of mass can only take place either by ejection of mass/energy or by involvement of an external field"  = no bootstrap principle, no propellantless principle.

Thanks,
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 10/03/2017 02:50 am
CORRECTION:

Wednesday Dr. Fearn will be giving her presentation on the Mach Effect MEGA thruster at 11:10 Mountain Time.  It's available live at https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017 (https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017)

NIAC video:

https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017/videos/163432557 starts at approx 48:00

Dr. Fearn's NIAC presentation is now up on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLs9NEt9LRQ

Believe Prof Tajmar has presented his paper at IAC 2017 on his MEGA drive replication.

Trust it will surface some time soon.

https://iafastro.directory/iac/paper/id/38595/summary/

Simplified theory as attached:

Apologies for non-physicist questions but:

I was wondering why she said the spaceship gets up to about .4c as that is about the limit it could survive. Is that because of space dust or something?

Also I read somewhere that as a spacecraft approaches c, the power needed to go faster tends to infinity. Does that apply here to?

Definitely some head in the clouds thinking, and I can understand that, especially when you're presenting to a NASA crowd. It's not ultimately useful to expend so much time and resources planning lofty space missions, when the basics haven't been covered yet. The ugly reality is that we're dealing with devices here that barely produce any thrust whatsoever, and you need a carefully calibrated balance combined with statistical analysis in order to even see the signal. At 20:43 to 20:54, Dr. Fearn acknowledges the importance of the damper, and begins talking about converting from kinetic and potential energy (and back and forth), which is describing conservative force fields. The issue I want to raise is that the damper represents a nonconservative element, meaning that if you integrate the work done around a closed loop you don't end up back at zero.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/lectures/node59.html

I would recommend completely dropping all the Mach effects talk, which in my opinion is an even worse tar baby being used to explain the first tar baby....how is momentum and energy conserved? In physics, we want to be able to explain things and to understand things as simply and as accurately as possible. When you say that the device is coupling with the distant matter of the universe, and sprinkle some Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory (which is not proven to be real) in for good measure, what is this saying? Does it have any meaning? Saying that it works because of Mach effects doesn't have any meaning. Where's the proof of these Mach effects? They seem like an ad-hoc means to explain away a very important problem, but now instead of there just being one problem (the conservation laws), now there's two.

Mulletron,
"Where's the proof of these Mach effects?" Where indeed, I promise you it keeps me awake nights. But to accept paradox and deny the new millenium's most interesting experimental results is not the answer either :)

If I had an experiment, and my hypothesis was that x would happen, and x actually did happen, and I supposed that x was explained by y, it does not prove that y is true.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequent
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sanman on 10/03/2017 06:23 am
Nothing (whether anisotropic, inhomogeneous, etc.) that one can do solely with internal fields, internal forces, or internal particles can result in acceleration of the center of mass by itself without the involvement of external fields, as this would be a violation of Noether's theorem.  Acceleration of the center of mass can only take place either by ejection of mass/energy or by involvement of an external field.

So if there's an external field involved here, what is it? (And please don't tell me it's a "field of dreams"  ;) )

Is it the Quantum Foam (aka. Dynamic Vacuum) ?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThinkerX on 10/03/2017 07:36 am
Nothing (whether anisotropic, inhomogeneous, etc.) that one can do solely with internal fields, internal forces, or internal particles can result in acceleration of the center of mass by itself without the involvement of external fields, as this would be a violation of Noether's theorem.  Acceleration of the center of mass can only take place either by ejection of mass/energy or by involvement of an external field.

So if there's an external field involved here, what is it? (And please don't tell me it's a "field of dreams"  ;) )

Is it the Quantum Foam (aka. Dynamic Vacuum) ?

That or gravity.  Its a short list.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: qraal on 10/03/2017 10:24 am
Hi

You mean like this?

qraal

CORRECTION:

Wednesday Dr. Fearn will be giving her presentation on the Mach Effect MEGA thruster at 11:10 Mountain Time.  It's available live at https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017 (https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017)

NIAC video:

https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017/videos/163432557 starts at approx 48:00

Dr. Fearn's NIAC presentation is now up on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLs9NEt9LRQ

Believe Prof Tajmar has presented his paper at IAC 2017 on his MEGA drive replication.

Trust it will surface some time soon.

https://iafastro.directory/iac/paper/id/38595/summary/

Simplified theory as attached:
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 10/03/2017 12:06 pm
Hi

You mean like this?

qraal

Interesting, page 4:

Quote from: Martin Tajmar
We plan to build an EMDrive model similar to White et al. on our upgraded thrust balance as shown in Fig. 3. Our vacuum chamber is much larger allowing for better electromagnetic shielding. We plan to optimize the thermal design to limit any centre of gravity shifts due to thermal expansion. In addition, other geometries will be extensively tested as well.

Figure 3 attached. It is designed to work with a light and compact solid-state microwave source mounted on the cavity. A much better design IMHO than their previous cavity with the giant hole on its side to fit a WR340 waveguide and a microwave oven magnetron, that was operating below optimal resonance.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 10/03/2017 12:26 pm
This is the laser displacement sensor Tajmar is going to use. 3 sensor axis with 1pm sensor resolution and 2nm repeatability. Much better than the Philtec sensor used by Woordward and Fearn. I would love to get my hands on one of these!  I bet it costs $5,000 - $10,000.

http://www.attocube.com/attosensorics/ids-sensors/ids3010/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 10/03/2017 12:31 pm
This is the laser displacement sensor Tajmar is going to use. 3 sensor axis with 1pm sensor resolution and 2nm repeatability. Much better than the Philtec sensor used by Woordward and Fearn. I would love to get my hands on one of these!  I bet it costs $5,000 - $10,000.

http://www.attocube.com/attosensorics/ids-sensors/ids3010/

Good to know that. But $5,000 - $10,000: Tajmar received a boost in funding, or what? Previously he said his lab couldn't afford a tunable microwave source and had to resort to a commercial microwave oven magnetron ???

Indeed this time, the cavity in figure 3 in my previous post:

(http://ayuba.fr/images/emdrive/tajmar_cavity_2017.jpg)

is clearly designed to work with a light and compact solid-state microwave source mounted on the cavity. A much better design IMHO than their previous cavity with the giant hole on its side to fit a WR340 waveguide and a microwave oven magnetron, that was operating below optimal resonance:

(http://ayuba.fr/images/emdrive/tajmar_cavity.jpg)

Tajmar doesn't provide the dimensions of the future cavity yet. I wonder if it will have the exact same lengths as the Eagleworks cavity, or if it will be a similar frustum but with a different aspect ratio. In particular, I wonder:

- if this EmDrive will have flat end plates like the Eagleworks cavity, or spherically shaped ends like the previous TU Dresden cavity. Doesn't the CGI picture suggest flats end plates–?!

- if the small end will respect or not Shawyer's Df and more importantly his so-called "cutoff rule". Since flat ends would be a straight departure from Shawyer's guidelines (after all, the very poor design of the previous cavity after the collaboration with Shawyer may have turned off Tajmar from repeating what he now thinks was a mistake) he may completely drop Shawyer's advice and go for an IV&V of the Eagleworks cavity.

I would understand why Tajmar would do that, but at the same time the very small force produced by the Eagleworks design may be a concern. I'm sure TT will holler if it's the case :P
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 10/03/2017 01:39 pm
Hi

You mean like this?

qraal

Interesting, page 4:

Quote from: Martin Tajmar
We plan to build an EMDrive model similar to White et al. on our upgraded thrust balance as shown in Fig. 3. Our vacuum chamber is much larger allowing for better electromagnetic shielding. We plan to optimize the thermal design to limit any centre of gravity shifts due to thermal expansion. In addition, other geometries will be extensively tested as well.

Figure 3 attached. It is designed to work with a light and compact solid-state microwave source mounted on the cavity. A much better design IMHO than their previous cavity with the giant hole on its side to fit a WR340 waveguide and a microwave oven magnetron, that was operating below optimal resonance.
In their previous report for  << their previous cavity with the giant hole on its side to fit a WR340 waveguide and a microwave oven magnetron, that was operating below optimal resonance>> they repeatedly thanked Shawyer for Shawyer's advice on building that previous cavity  (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280576708_Direct_Thrust_Measurements_of_an_EM_Drive_and_Evaluation_of_Possible_Side-Effects). 

In this new report for the design of << a light and compact solid-state microwave source mounted on the cavity. A much better design IMHO>> they do not mention any advice from Shawyer, is that correct?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 10/03/2017 01:47 pm
Hi

You mean like this?

qraal

Interesting, page 4:

Quote from: Martin Tajmar
We plan to build an EMDrive model similar to White et al. on our upgraded thrust balance as shown in Fig. 3. Our vacuum chamber is much larger allowing for better electromagnetic shielding. We plan to optimize the thermal design to limit any centre of gravity shifts due to thermal expansion. In addition, other geometries will be extensively tested as well.

Figure 3 attached. It is designed to work with a light and compact solid-state microwave source mounted on the cavity. A much better design IMHO than their previous cavity with the giant hole on its side to fit a WR340 waveguide and a microwave oven magnetron, that was operating below optimal resonance.
In their previous report for  << their previous cavity with the giant hole on its side to fit a WR340 waveguide and a microwave oven magnetron, that was operating below optimal resonance>> they repeatedly thanked Shawyer for the advice on building that previous cavity.  In this new report for the design of << a light and compact solid-state microwave source mounted on the cavity. A much better design IMHO>> they do not mention any advice from Shawyer, is that correct?

Correct.

Although in this very recent document, Tajmar credits Shawyer for being the inventor of the EmDrive, and cites his papers in the references, as well as critiques of Shawyer's theory as being a closed system incompatible with known physical laws, and possible alternatives as an open system (with McCulloch's quantised inertia and Montillet's Mach effect).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 10/03/2017 01:52 pm
...
Correct.

Although in this very recent document, Tajmar credits Shawyer for being the inventor of the EmDrive, and cites his papers in the references, as well as critiques of Shawyer's theory as being a closed system incompatible with known physical laws, and possible alternatives as an open system (with McCulloch's quantised inertia and Montillet's Mach effect).
So, it looks like they are now proceeding independently of Shawyer in designing the EM Drive test with << a light and compact solid-state microwave source mounted on the cavity. A much better design>>.

Concerning your comment that <<Shawyer's theory as being a closed system incompatible with known physical laws>> they actually wrote in their paper:

Quote
He [Shawyer] believes that the radiation pressure is different at the small and large ends which results in a net thrust force [21]. This was highly criticized as not being compatible with electromagnetism and conservation laws [22]. Alternative theories have appeared [23],[24] including a variable mass approach as outlined above [25], however, the community remains highly sceptical on the theoretical grounds of this concept

It is interesting that among the references they cite to support the above statement is this article with a striking title, that I did not recall:

[22] Costella, J. P., “Why Shawyer’s ‘electromagnetic Relativity Drive’ Is a Fraud” Available: http://johncostella.webs.com/shawyerfraud.pdf

[this link presently triggers "The requested resource () is not available."  I could not find a trace of such an article by the author still being maintained, but I found an old copy in NSF threads:  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=37642.0;attach=1025555.  I also found https://johncostella.wordpress.com/  "The EmDrive: the cold fusion of the 21st century?" apparently by the same author?]

which follows this one:

[21] Shawyer, R., “A Theory of Microwave Propulsion for Spacecraft” Available: https://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/av/shawyertheory.pdf


and for alternative theories they cite:

[23] Grahn, P., Annila, A., and Kolehmainen, E., “On the Exhaust of Electromagnetic Drive,” AIP Advances, vol. 6, Jun. 2016, p. 65205. doi:10.1063/1.4953807
[24] McCulloch, M. E., “Testing Quantised Inertia on Emdrives with Dielectrics,” EPL (Europhysics Letters), vol. 118, May 2017, p. 34003. doi:10.1209/0295-5075/118/34003
[25] Montillet, J.-P., “Theory of the EM-Drive Based on Mach-Lorentz Theory,” Proceedings of the Estes Park Advanced Propulsion Workshop, H. Fearn and L. Williams, eds., Mojave: Space Studies Institute Press, 2017, pp. 111–126.

concluded with "however, the community remains highly sceptical on the theoretical grounds of this concept"
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 10/03/2017 03:59 pm
Nothing (whether anisotropic, inhomogeneous, etc.) that one can do solely with internal fields, internal forces, or internal particles can result in acceleration of the center of mass by itself without the involvement of external fields, as this would be a violation of Noether's theorem.  Acceleration of the center of mass can only take place either by ejection of mass/energy or by involvement of an external field.

So if there's an external field involved here, what is it? (And please don't tell me it's a "field of dreams"  ;) )

Is it the Quantum Foam (aka. Dynamic Vacuum) ?

That or gravity.  Its a short list.

External force. Dissipative forces.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 10/03/2017 07:34 pm
Frustum TE013 @ ~3.6 GHz

I have made my first frustum cavity. It is all handwork. Still have to make the coupling loop(s), so it may take a few weeks before I can measure the exact resonance frequencies. It is designed to have the TE013 at 3.55 GHz. Only the small end has a flange. Side wall and big endplate (flat) are from 0.5 mm copper, small endplate 1.0 mm, flange 2 mm. Dims: small diam 123 mm, big diam 204 mm, height 164 mm.
I'll keep you informed about my progress (but probably not so much time in the coming month).

Peter
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.LeBel on 10/04/2017 12:16 am
CORRECTION:

Wednesday Dr. Fearn will be giving her presentation on the Mach Effect MEGA thruster at 11:10 Mountain Time.  It's available live at https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017 (https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017)

NIAC video:

https://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2017/videos/163432557 starts at approx 48:00

Dr. Fearn's NIAC presentation is now up on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLs9NEt9LRQ

Believe Prof Tajmar has presented his paper at IAC 2017 on his MEGA drive replication.

Trust it will surface some time soon.

https://iafastro.directory/iac/paper/id/38595/summary/

Simplified theory as attached:

Apologies for non-physicist questions but:

I was wondering why she said the spaceship gets up to about .4c as that is about the limit it could survive. Is that because of space dust or something?

Also I read somewhere that as a spacecraft approaches c, the power needed to go faster tends to infinity. Does that apply here to?

Definitely some head in the clouds thinking, and I can understand that, especially when you're presenting to a NASA crowd. It's not ultimately useful to expend so much time and resources planning lofty space missions, when the basics haven't been covered yet. The ugly reality is that we're dealing with devices here that barely produce any thrust whatsoever, and you need a carefully calibrated balance combined with statistical analysis in order to even see the signal. At 20:43 to 20:54, Dr. Fearn acknowledges the importance of the damper, and begins talking about converting from kinetic and potential energy (and back and forth), which is describing conservative force fields. The issue I want to raise is that the damper represents a nonconservative element, meaning that if you integrate the work done around a closed loop you don't end up back at zero.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/lectures/node59.html

I would recommend completely dropping all the Mach effects talk, which in my opinion is an even worse tar baby being used to explain the first tar baby....how is momentum and energy conserved? In physics, we want to be able to explain things and to understand things as simply and as accurately as possible. When you say that the device is coupling with the distant matter of the universe, and sprinkle some Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory (which is not proven to be real) in for good measure, what is this saying? Does it have any meaning? Saying that it works because of Mach effects doesn't have any meaning. Where's the proof of these Mach effects? They seem like an ad-hoc means to explain away a very important problem, but now instead of there just being one problem (the conservation laws), now there's two.

Mulletron,
"Where's the proof of these Mach effects?" Where indeed, I promise you it keeps me awake nights. But to accept paradox and deny the new millenium's most interesting experimental results is not the answer either :)

Mach effect
Imho - A particle exists in the vacuum by occupying a place that nothing else can. As such, it constitutes a single boundary for all vacuum wave functions around it. As a boundary, it receives continual momentum from all directions making the particle jiggle around, a sort of vacuum Brownian motion. This is why its position and momentum are not intrinsically definite, since its existence is inseparable from the vacuum and its fluctuations. When we accelerate the particle, the boundary function becomes asymmetric creating the force exposed by Casimir.

It seems to indicate that inertia, or the resistance to acceleration, is the Casimir force resulting from an asymmetric contact with the effect of the vacuum.  This means that we accelerate with respect to the vacuum.

The Mach effect says that we accelerate with respect to the rest of the universe. It is true in a large sense, but in practice, it is more local. The local condition of the vacuum is in effect part of “the rest of the universe”, as not being at the same place, as already taken by the particle.

Now go and have a good night sleep
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Stormbringer on 10/04/2017 01:54 am
just curious- has anyone read the article yesterday or the day before about the collapse of the wave function being a real thing?

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Quantum_twisted_Loong_confirms_the_physical_reality_of_wavefunctions_999.html

it might be of interest since some theories involve the quantum angle.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.LeBel on 10/04/2017 02:38 am
just curious- has anyone read the article yesterday or the day before about the collapse of the wave function being a real thing?

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Quantum_twisted_Loong_confirms_the_physical_reality_of_wavefunctions_999.html

it might be of interest since some theories involve the quantum angle.

.... Einstein's famous question states: Do you really believe the moon exists only when you look at it?

Spacetime means no two points are at the same moment. As such, all the points making the Moon are away in time from each other. This means that there is an aggregate of matter across time orbiting the Earth that WE make up as an object being whole in one moment of perception. Although all the points of the Moon are away in time from each other, we perceive or conceive it as being whole in one moment.

So, the answer is YES! We make up the Moon object/package by perceptual integration, like photography.

(Caveat: the aggregate does exist, but not the whole object "Moon". A normally non-receivable question since it addresses "existence" and "perception", two different truth systems)

Next!

The wave collapse happens only as full double constraints are removed and infinities in the probability distribution are re-established.  It does not apply to single boundary removal i.e. photon absorption. In that case, it takes the full period T to transfer the quantum of action.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/04/2017 02:48 am
Frustum TE013 @ ~3.6 GHz

I have made my first frustum cavity. It is all handwork. Still have to make the coupling loop(s), so it may take a few weeks before I can measure the exact resonance frequencies. It is designed to have the TE013 at 3.55 GHz. Only the small end has a flange. Side wall and big endplate (flat) are from 0.5 mm copper, small endplate 1.0 mm, flange 2 mm. Dims: small diam 123 mm, big diam 204 mm, height 164 mm.
I'll keep you informed about my progress (but probably not so much time in the coming month).

Peter

Hi Peter,

I get 3.579 GHz with a Df of 0.6. Small end is 608 MHz above cutoff.

With your soldered on big end, how will you achieve mirror like & scratch free surface finishing?

Might also considering adding a compression O ring at the small end, so by varying bolt torque around the circumference you can adjust end plate parallelism to achieve lowest rtn loss and highest Q.

The coupler design needs to avoid exciting the degenerate TM113 mode which resonances at the same if not very close to the TE013 resonant freq.

With a good build, well matched TE mode coupler and polish, Ql should be around 18k, based on 75% of Qu at 49k. Specific Force should be around 70mN/kWrf.

Best of luck.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 10/04/2017 10:04 am
Frustum TE013 @ ~3.6 GHz

I have made my first frustum cavity. It is all handwork. Still have to make the coupling loop(s), so it may take a few weeks before I can measure the exact resonance frequencies. It is designed to have the TE013 at 3.55 GHz. Only the small end has a flange. Side wall and big endplate (flat) are from 0.5 mm copper, small endplate 1.0 mm, flange 2 mm. Dims: small diam 123 mm, big diam 204 mm, height 164 mm.
I'll keep you informed about my progress (but probably not so much time in the coming month).

Peter

Hi Peter,

I get 3.579 GHz with a Df of 0.6. Small end is 608 MHz above cutoff.

With your soldered on big end, how will you achieve mirror like & scratch free surface finishing?

Might also considering adding a compression O ring at the small end, so by varying bolt torque around the circumference you can adjust end plate parallelism to achieve lowest rtn loss and highest Q.

The coupler design needs to avoid exciting the degenerate TM113 mode which resonances at the same if not very close to the TE013 resonant freq.

With a good build, well matched TE mode coupler and polish, Ql should be around 18k, based on 75% of Qu at 49k. Specific Force should be around 70mN/kWrf.

Best of luck.

Hi Phil,

Thanks.
Actually, I don't intend to achieve mirror like & scratch free surface finishing. With the test cavities I described earlier, I have reached Q's of some 10k, with unpolished surfaces. I don't mind if the Q is a factor of 2 lower than maximum reachable.
(and there has been already some discussion on this forum whether scratches, much smaller than the wavelength, will have a measurable influence on the Q. I think the Q is influenced by average surface condition (resistance), which, of course, depends on oxide layer, surface roughness, etc. But we should not exaggerate the influence of small scratches. It will be interesting, though, to measure the Q of a test cavity with polished surface and then degrade it with sandpaper and remeasure the Q. Maybe, sometime...).

A compression O-ring might be a good idea. I will think about it.

Cheers,
Peter
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 10/04/2017 10:10 am
Hi

You mean like this?

qraal

Interesting, page 4:

Quote from: Martin Tajmar
We plan to build an EMDrive model similar to White et al. on our upgraded thrust balance as shown in Fig. 3. Our vacuum chamber is much larger allowing for better electromagnetic shielding. We plan to optimize the thermal design to limit any centre of gravity shifts due to thermal expansion. In addition, other geometries will be extensively tested as well.

Figure 3 attached. It is designed to work with a light and compact solid-state microwave source mounted on the cavity. A much better design IMHO than their previous cavity with the giant hole on its side to fit a WR340 waveguide and a microwave oven magnetron, that was operating below optimal resonance.
I think it is not a good idea to integrate heat producing parts (the amplifier) with the cavity. It means that rotating the frustum by 180 degrees (and vertical), an important and easy test, will be rather meaningless.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 10/04/2017 10:26 am
Hi

You mean like this?

qraal

Interesting, page 4:

Quote from: Martin Tajmar
We plan to build an EMDrive model similar to White et al. on our upgraded thrust balance as shown in Fig. 3. Our vacuum chamber is much larger allowing for better electromagnetic shielding. We plan to optimize the thermal design to limit any centre of gravity shifts due to thermal expansion. In addition, other geometries will be extensively tested as well.

Figure 3 attached. It is designed to work with a light and compact solid-state microwave source mounted on the cavity. A much better design IMHO than their previous cavity with the giant hole on its side to fit a WR340 waveguide and a microwave oven magnetron, that was operating below optimal resonance.
I think it is not a good idea to integrate heat producing parts (the amplifier) with the cavity. It means that rotating the frustum by 180 degrees (and vertical), an important and easy test, will be rather meaningless.

I understand your point. But on the other hand if the power source is not part of the test article + torsion pendulum system, any force detected could originate from momentum exchanged with the power supply, which in this case is outside of the test bed. If I remember correctly, that was a major error source pointed out by Juan Yang in her latest published paper, when she reviewed her previous "high power" tests (where the magnetron was outside of the balance system).

So if we follow the two arguments, the amplifier would have to be mounted directly on the balance arms, but detached from the cavity. Then this heat producing part would not move on the apparatus when the cavity is turned 180° vertically of horizontally.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 10/04/2017 10:42 am
Hi

You mean like this?

qraal

Interesting, page 4:

Quote from: Martin Tajmar
We plan to build an EMDrive model similar to White et al. on our upgraded thrust balance as shown in Fig. 3. Our vacuum chamber is much larger allowing for better electromagnetic shielding. We plan to optimize the thermal design to limit any centre of gravity shifts due to thermal expansion. In addition, other geometries will be extensively tested as well.

Figure 3 attached. It is designed to work with a light and compact solid-state microwave source mounted on the cavity. A much better design IMHO than their previous cavity with the giant hole on its side to fit a WR340 waveguide and a microwave oven magnetron, that was operating below optimal resonance.
I think it is not a good idea to integrate heat producing parts (the amplifier) with the cavity. It means that rotating the frustum by 180 degrees (and vertical), an important and easy test, will be rather meaningless.

Good concerns. Please note that with separated amplifier and frustum, you still can't ground the frustum to the beam because doing so also makes the important and easy test meaningless due to altered 3-D structure of ground loops.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/04/2017 10:43 am
Hi

You mean like this?

qraal

Interesting, page 4:

Quote from: Martin Tajmar
We plan to build an EMDrive model similar to White et al. on our upgraded thrust balance as shown in Fig. 3. Our vacuum chamber is much larger allowing for better electromagnetic shielding. We plan to optimize the thermal design to limit any centre of gravity shifts due to thermal expansion. In addition, other geometries will be extensively tested as well.

Figure 3 attached. It is designed to work with a light and compact solid-state microwave source mounted on the cavity. A much better design IMHO than their previous cavity with the giant hole on its side to fit a WR340 waveguide and a microwave oven magnetron, that was operating below optimal resonance.
I think it is not a good idea to integrate heat producing parts (the amplifier) with the cavity. It means that rotating the frustum by 180 degrees (and vertical), an important and easy test, will be rather meaningless.

Hi Peter,

1x skin depth at 3.55GHz is 1.09 um. 5x = 5.45 um.

Which means a 5.45 um deep scratch will act like a cut all the way through the copper and disrupt normal eddy current flow.

If scratches and polish don't matter, please tell that to the guys that build accelerator cavities.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 10/04/2017 10:46 am
Hi

You mean like this?

qraal

Interesting, page 4:

Quote from: Martin Tajmar
We plan to build an EMDrive model similar to White et al. on our upgraded thrust balance as shown in Fig. 3. Our vacuum chamber is much larger allowing for better electromagnetic shielding. We plan to optimize the thermal design to limit any centre of gravity shifts due to thermal expansion. In addition, other geometries will be extensively tested as well.

Figure 3 attached. It is designed to work with a light and compact solid-state microwave source mounted on the cavity. A much better design IMHO than their previous cavity with the giant hole on its side to fit a WR340 waveguide and a microwave oven magnetron, that was operating below optimal resonance.
I think it is not a good idea to integrate heat producing parts (the amplifier) with the cavity. It means that rotating the frustum by 180 degrees (and vertical), an important and easy test, will be rather meaningless.

Hi Peter,

1x skin depth at 3.55GHz is 1.09 um. 5x = 5.45 um.

Which means a 5.45 um deep scratch will act like a cut all the way through the copper and disrupt normal eddy current flow.

If scratches and polish don't matter, please tell that to the guys that build accelerator cavities.

TT, does your concern about surface variation of only a few nanometers deep also apply to Monomorphic's build based on adjoining copper tape ?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/04/2017 10:46 am
I think it is not a good idea to integrate heat producing parts (the amplifier) with the cavity. It means that rotating the frustum by 180 degrees (and vertical), an important and easy test, will be rather meaningless.

Agree.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/04/2017 10:49 am
Hi

You mean like this?

qraal

Interesting, page 4:

Quote from: Martin Tajmar
We plan to build an EMDrive model similar to White et al. on our upgraded thrust balance as shown in Fig. 3. Our vacuum chamber is much larger allowing for better electromagnetic shielding. We plan to optimize the thermal design to limit any centre of gravity shifts due to thermal expansion. In addition, other geometries will be extensively tested as well.

Figure 3 attached. It is designed to work with a light and compact solid-state microwave source mounted on the cavity. A much better design IMHO than their previous cavity with the giant hole on its side to fit a WR340 waveguide and a microwave oven magnetron, that was operating below optimal resonance.
I think it is not a good idea to integrate heat producing parts (the amplifier) with the cavity. It means that rotating the frustum by 180 degrees (and vertical), an important and easy test, will be rather meaningless.

Hi Peter,

1x skin depth at 3.55GHz is 1.09 um. 5x = 5.45 um.

Which means a 5.45 um deep scratch will act like a cut all the way through the copper and disrupt normal eddy current flow.

If scratches and polish don't matter, please tell that to the guys that build accelerator cavities.

TT, does your concern about surface variation of only a few nanometers deep also apply to Monomorphic's build based on adjoining copper tape ?

Hi FC,

Micro meters, not nano meters.

Big time concern about the foil.

Do hope Jamie moves on to applying an electro polished copper finish to his cavity.

At 2.45 GHz, Roger has set +-10 um as the max cavity build error. That is not an academic value but a real world engineering tolerance to be achieved.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 10/04/2017 10:55 am

I think it is not a good idea to integrate heat producing parts (the amplifier) with the cavity. It means that rotating the frustum by 180 degrees (and vertical), an important and easy test, will be rather meaningless.

I understand your point. But on the other hand if the power source is not part of the test article + torsion pendulum system, any force detected could originate from momentum exchanged with the power supply, which in this case is outside of the test bed. If I remember correctly, that was a major error source pointed out by Juan Yang in her latest published paper, when she reviewed her previous "high power" tests (where the magnetron was outside of the balance system).

So if we follow the two arguments, the amplifier would have to be mounted directly on the balance arms, but detached from the cavity. Then this heat producing part would not move on the apparatus when the cavity is turned 180° vertically of horizontally.

I completely agree with this if you have an amplifier on the setup (cavity + torsion balance). (I intend to not use an amplifier on the torsion balance at all, but to couple the microwave signal contactless in with a special coupling cavity, as described earlier by me [https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.04999]. And yes, then you have to show that this method does not impose forces or moments itself. Btw, White et al., 2016 have not done this for the suppy of DC current with liquid metal contacts, if I remember well.)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 10/04/2017 10:58 am

1x skin depth at 3.55GHz is 1.09 um. 5x = 5.45 um.

Which means a 5.45 um deep scratch will act like a cut all the way through the copper and disrupt normal eddy current flow.

If scratches and polish don't matter, please tell that to the guys that build accelerator cavities.

You might have a point. But I still reach reasonable Q values with unpolished walls (up to 30k @ 2.5 - 3.5 GHz).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 10/04/2017 11:00 am
TT, does your concern about surface variation of only a few nanometers deep also apply to Monomorphic's build based on adjoining copper tape ?

Hi FC,

Micro meters, not nano meters.

Big time concern about the foil.

Do hope Jamie moves on to applying an electro polished copper finish to his cavity.

At 2.45 GHz, Roger has set +-10 um as the max cavity build error. That is not an academic value but a real world engineering tolerance to be achieved.

My bad, ok: micrometers.

But still, if you and Shawyer are right for this very tight resolution at those frequencies, then not only copper tape is a big concern; making the structure with a 3D printer would also prove to be difficult: Jamie's FDM 3D printer (Prusa Mk2) offers a Z-resolution of 0.05 mm, i.e. 50 µm. I don't see how one could hand-polish accurately such surface below that after printing.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/04/2017 11:39 am

1x skin depth at 3.55GHz is 1.09 um. 5x = 5.45 um.

Which means a 5.45 um deep scratch will act like a cut all the way through the copper and disrupt normal eddy current flow.

If scratches and polish don't matter, please tell that to the guys that build accelerator cavities.

You might have a point. But I still reach reasonable Q values with unpolished walls (up to 30k @ 2.5 - 3.5 GHz).

Hi Peter,

How are you measuring Q and is it unloaded or loaded Q?
30k seems very high for unpolished copper.

If you are using 2 ports, make the sample port measure power, via at least 20dB isolation and then vary freq to find max power and the high/low freq where power drops 50%.

Do that at say 10mW, 100mW, 1W, 10W, 100W, etc or every 10dBm to properly map the loaded Q vs power curve.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/04/2017 11:45 am
TT, does your concern about surface variation of only a few nanometers deep also apply to Monomorphic's build based on adjoining copper tape ?

Hi FC,

Micro meters, not nano meters.

Big time concern about the foil.

Do hope Jamie moves on to applying an electro polished copper finish to his cavity.

At 2.45 GHz, Roger has set +-10 um as the max cavity build error. That is not an academic value but a real world engineering tolerance to be achieved.

My bad, ok: micrometers.

But still, if you and Shawyer are right for this very tight resolution at those frequencies, then not only copper tape is a big concern; making the structure with a 3D printer would also prove to be difficult: Jamie's FDM 3D printer (Prusa Mk2) offers a Z-resolution of 0.05 mm, i.e. 50 µm. I don't see how one could hand-polish accurately such surface below that after printing.

Hi FC,

It is not a binary system. Of course the results improve, the more cavity build defects are reduced.

Electropolishing is a good and proven way to eliminate mechanical polishing scratches. However not all Electropolishing achieves the desired results. There seems to be a bit of Black Magic or trade secrets involved.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 10/04/2017 12:12 pm
But still, if you and Shawyer are right for this very tight resolution at those frequencies, then not only copper tape is a big concern; making the structure with a 3D printer would also prove to be difficult: Jamie's FDM 3D printer (Prusa Mk2) offers a Z-resolution of 0.05 mm, i.e. 50 µm. I don't see how one could hand-polish accurately such surface below that after printing.

I'm not sure anyone (besides Shawyer) claims to have built a cavity with tolerances below 1.0mm, much less 0.01mm.  It is the most difficult and expensive item to accomplish on the "General Principles of EmDrive design" list. But in my opinion, the best way to do it is to 3D print the parts in wax and use the lost wax process to create copper parts, which are then machined to the necessary tolerances and polished.

Based on VNA it seems as if the copper foil is working at these power levels. There is return loss precisely where simulations predicted, with the smith chart confirming it is a resonator. I would be worried about the copper separating at higher powers, but at 25W max I don't think that will be an issue.

I did design the cavity so I can switch between foil-covered end-plates and solid copper end-plates. I will run a VNA sweep on each configuration to see if there is a big difference in Q.


 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 10/04/2017 02:01 pm
Temperature sensor inside the draft enclosure is working. I ended up going with a 4-20mA signal with pt100 resistance temperature sensor.    Here is a screen cap of all 5 channels of data I will be collecting off the torsional pendulum. I can still add up to three more channels. Every once in a while I notice a fairly strong repetitive RF signal in this band. I'm not sure what it is except perhaps my neighbor's microwave oven. Does anyone recognize the signal in channel 4?

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: bunjatec on 10/04/2017 03:25 pm
Monomorphic
There's loads of things in the 2.4Ghz band, here's a list of common uses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_2.4_GHz_radio_use
Anything on the list look familiar?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 10/04/2017 07:18 pm
Hi

You mean like this?

qraal

Interesting, page 4:

Quote from: Martin Tajmar
We plan to build an EMDrive model similar to White et al. on our upgraded thrust balance as shown in Fig. 3. Our vacuum chamber is much larger allowing for better electromagnetic shielding. We plan to optimize the thermal design to limit any centre of gravity shifts due to thermal expansion. In addition, other geometries will be extensively tested as well.

Figure 3 attached. It is designed to work with a light and compact solid-state microwave source mounted on the cavity. A much better design IMHO than their previous cavity with the giant hole on its side to fit a WR340 waveguide and a microwave oven magnetron, that was operating below optimal resonance.
I think it is not a good idea to integrate heat producing parts (the amplifier) with the cavity. It means that rotating the frustum by 180 degrees (and vertical), an important and easy test, will be rather meaningless.

Hi Peter,

1x skin depth at 3.55GHz is 1.09 um. 5x = 5.45 um.

Which means a 5.45 um deep scratch will act like a cut all the way through the copper and disrupt normal eddy current flow.

If scratches and polish don't matter, please tell that to the guys that build accelerator cavities.
Can you imagine how small the difference is regarding the volume to surface ratio due to a few µm deep scratch for such a cavity resonator, at 2...4 GHz? Sure the wall currents are slightly bent at the scratch but in contrast to the local wavelength this is so damn tiny that it almost don't matter because the conductivity in the region dont change.

What impacts the Q factor is the conductivity of the walls and maybe inhomogeneities of the order of lets say 1/10 of the wavelength or something like that. Monomorphic has shown some calculations to this subject a few threads ago. Dr. Rodal showed an analytic calculation of the Q factor as well as others.

I would be happy if you show us a Q comparison (i.e. calculations or even measurements!) of a cavity with the high surface quality you state, with the same one after a few scratches were made.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1474347#msg1474347
http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1503747#msg1503747
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1503825#msg1503825
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1504635#msg1504635

I bet even with the best VNA you can get (within its uncertainty range) you will see no difference even using high average values. If you think you can reject this please deliver real results!

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=39772.0;attach=1105077;image)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 10/04/2017 08:02 pm
Hence the comments about such stringent geometry and polishing requirements being an example of 'raising the goalpost' for experimentalists.

Followed by "If you don't have it, you won't see it. Told you so".

Not very auspicious.

I really hope the ongoing experiments prove otherwise.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/04/2017 10:32 pm
Hence the comments about such stringent geometry and polishing requirements being an example of 'raising the goalpost' for experimentalists.

Followed by "If you don't have it, you won't see it. Told you so".

Not very auspicious.

I really hope the ongoing experiments prove otherwise.

As I suggested before, please share with the real world accelerator cavity and waveguide makers they can stop polishing their interior surfaces and using electro polishing to eliminate scratches, plus they can throw away all their very tight manufacturing tolerances.

Maybe look into a space rated waveguide and explore the manufacturing tolerances, then talk to people that make accelerator cavities?

See attached image showing the inside of an accelerator cavity. Maybe tell him his cavity will still work well without the precision machining and scratch free optical quality polishing.

Also attached a paper on using electropolishing for accelerator cavities. If polise was not important, why go to all the bother?

Answer: Tight build tolerance and optical scratch free surface are critical to achieving the best Q possible.  Will lower standards still work? Probably but I suspect with a steep drop off in results.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 10/04/2017 10:45 pm
Monomorphic
There's loads of things in the 2.4Ghz band, here's a list of common uses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_2.4_GHz_radio_use
Anything on the list look familiar?

Solved. I checked my spectrum analyser and didn't see anything in the frequency band so I knew it was something else.   It was the cheap variable voltage transformer I was using to power the calibration coil. I guess I taxed it too much and it was going wonky. I switched to a higher quality 8.5A 12V power source and it's gone now.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 10/04/2017 10:48 pm
Hence the comments about such stringent geometry and polishing requirements being an example of 'raising the goalpost' for experimentalists.

Followed by "If you don't have it, you won't see it. Told you so".

Not very auspicious.

I really hope the ongoing experiments prove otherwise.

As I suggested before, please share with the real world accelerator cavity and waveguide makers they can stop polishing their interior surfaces and using electro polishing to eliminate scratches, plus they can throw away all their very tight manufacturing tolerances.

Maybe look into a space rated waveguide and explore the manufacturing tolerances, then talk to people that make accelerator cavities?

I agree I'm no expert.

Personally, I'm more interested in the experiments trying to conclusively prove that 1) these things actually exist and 2) work in a vacuum as thrusters with greater efficiency than a perfectly collimated photon rocket.

Due to lack of proof on the matter, super-strong Emdrives that can levitate cars for me simply don't exist. If some clear evidence emerges tomorrow, I'd change my mind, but there is none so far.

With those interests in mind, I think a passably good cavity that could be made by a DIY builder or an engineer with regular materials and machinery, and without impossible space-industry quality requirements, could be used to prove those points.

Roger Shawyer himself started there, as far as I know. His first Emdrives weren't that much different from what several DIY engineers are doing now. And none of his designs have been tested in a vacuum chamber, also as far as I know. Thus NASA EW's and now Prof. Tajmar's experiments will have a clear advantage towards those 2 goals I mentioned.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: moreno7798 on 10/04/2017 10:59 pm
Hi guys.
Just a idea!!!

Pressure/tensions on the walls of cavity are diferent for TE and TM modes.
http://www.m-hikari.com/astp/astp2008/astp13-16-2008/xiangASTP13-16-2008.pdf

High Q and localized TE and TM modes can arises as "imperfections" on electromagnetic structures.
http://bayes.wustl.edu/etj/articles/ghost.modes.pdf

A unusual Tx3xx fulstrum mode appears with TE and TM modes toghether, one at each side of cavity.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=39214.0;attach=1091650;sess=48891

Then,
Hi Ricvil, the idea that degenerated field pattern (mode mixing) may cause the thrust signal, was already discussed in previous threads and is still not fully rejected. The idea is great. However, regarding standard Maxwell equations the vector fields should cancle each other at least over a full cycle of 2Pi.
Nothing (whether anisotropic, inhomogeneous, etc.) that one can do solely with internal fields, internal forces, or internal particles can result in acceleration of the center of mass by itself without the involvement of external fields, as this would be a violation of Noether's theorem.  Acceleration of the center of mass can only take place either by ejection of mass/energy or by involvement of an external field.

I have an almost knee jerk negative reaction to statements made in the form of absolutes.., as in beginning with words like "Nothing...". Probably because I have been caught so many times in the past, by the same... The above and much of the following discussion, reads to me as an assertion that we already know all there is to know. An arrogant position for all but the very young. I for one truly hope, there are things we have yet to learn. Things that may even surprise us and require that we re-examine, at least some of what we believe to be fundamentally true.., today.

I would agree that if an EmDrive produces thrust, it will require a bit of new physics or at least a reinterpretation of what we think we know, about physics at present. I might even agree with some personal certainty that particles inside a frustum, including bouncing and red shifting photons are not going to make the frustum move. That said, without a far better understanding of the fundamental mechanisms underlying what we refer to as inertia and gravitation, I don't believe we can actually rule out the possibility.., that we don't, yet know everything.

Agreed.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/04/2017 11:10 pm
Hence the comments about such stringent geometry and polishing requirements being an example of 'raising the goalpost' for experimentalists.

Followed by "If you don't have it, you won't see it. Told you so".

Not very auspicious.

I really hope the ongoing experiments prove otherwise.

As I suggested before, please share with the real world accelerator cavity and waveguide makers they can stop polishing their interior surfaces and using electro polishing to eliminate scratches, plus they can throw away all their very tight manufacturing tolerances.

Maybe look into a space rated waveguide and explore the manufacturing tolerances, then talk to people that make accelerator cavities?

I agree I'm no expert.

Personally, I'm more interested in the experiments trying to conclusively prove that 1) these things actually exist and 2) work in a vacuum as thrusters with greater efficiency than a perfectly collimated photon rocket.

Due to lack of proof on the matter, super-strong Emdrives that can levitate cars for me simply don't exist. If some clear evidence emerges tomorrow, I'd change my mind, but there is none so far.

With those interests in mind, I think a passably good cavity that could be made by a DIY builder or an engineer with regular materials and machinery, and without impossible space-industry quality requirements, could be used to prove those points.

Roger Shawyer himself started there, as far as I know. His first Emdrives weren't that much different from what several DIY engineers are doing now. And none of his designs have been tested in a vacuum chamber, also as far as I know. Thus NASA EW's and now Prof. Tajmar's experiments will have a clear advantage towards those 2 goals I mentioned.

Roger has been involved with high quality military & space microwave systems all his life. The interiors of all his cavities were highly polished and his machined cavities built to space/mil specs.  They even had an Invar sketal structure to control heating deformation.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 10/04/2017 11:49 pm
...
Can you imagine how small the difference is regarding the volume to surface ratio due to a few µm deep scratch for such a cavity resonator, at 2...4 GHz? Sure the wall currents are slightly bent at the scratch but in contrast to the local wavelength this is so damn tiny that it almost don't matter because the conductivity in the region dont change.

What impacts the Q factor is the conductivity of the walls and maybe inhomogeneities of the order of lets say 1/10 of the wavelength or something like that. Monomorphic has shown some calculations to this subject a few threads ago. Dr. Rodal showed an analytic calculation of the Q factor as well as others.

I would be happy if you show us a Q comparison (i.e. calculations or even measurements!) of a cavity with the high surface quality you state, with the same one after a few scratches were made.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1474347#msg1474347
http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1503747#msg1503747
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1503825#msg1503825
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1504635#msg1504635

I bet even with the best VNA you can get (within its uncertainty range) you will see no difference even using high average values. If you think you can reject this please deliver real results!


Hence the comments about such stringent geometry and polishing requirements being an example of 'raising the goalpost' for experimentalists.

Followed by "If you don't have it, you won't see it. Told you so".

Not very auspicious.

I really hope the ongoing experiments prove otherwise.

As I suggested before, please share with the real world accelerator cavity and waveguide makers they can stop polishing their interior surfaces and using electro polishing to eliminate scratches, plus they can throw away all their very tight manufacturing tolerances.

Maybe look into a space rated waveguide and explore the manufacturing tolerances, then talk to people that make accelerator cavities?

I agree I'm no expert.

...

Roger Shawyer himself started there, as far as I know. His first Emdrives weren't that much different from what several DIY engineers are doing now. And none of his designs have been tested in a vacuum chamber, also as far as I know. Thus NASA EW's and now Prof. Tajmar's experiments will have a clear advantage towards those 2 goals I mentioned.

* The argument being made for this is from a position of authority, quoting "this is what Roger specifies," (now? how about years ago when testing copper cavities instead of writing about superconducting cavities?) without providing independent specification from a resonant cavity for an accelerator, (instead he posts a picture of a guy posing next to a cavity) and challenges others here to prove him wrong (it would be better if he would post here the specifications from accelerators on copper resonant cavities -dating from the time when they used to be used instead of superconducting cavities)

* One should distinguish between the surface finish requirements for superconducting cavities in accelerators vs. the surface finish requirement for a copper resonant cavity

* See for example this expert report on the subject matter for a Nb Niobium superconducting cavity which has much more demanding surface finish requirements than copper cavities (in proportion to the much higher Q and much smaller skin depth for superconducting cavities)   
 http://slideplayer.com/slide/10321550/

http://casa.jlab.org/members/kneisel.shtml
Dr. Kneisel
Center for Advanced Studies of Accelerators
Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility


Of course, I understand that what matters to him is that "Roger specifies it" rather than what an expert at the Center for Advanced Studies of Accelerators states (surface roughness is of secondary importance) but users (Monomorphic for example) can try different levels of surface smoothness and compare for themselves and publish their results here to see what difference it makes...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 10/05/2017 01:55 am
Temperature sensor inside the draft enclosure is working. I ended up going with a 4-20mA signal with pt100 resistance temperature sensor.    Here is a screen cap of all 5 channels of data I will be collecting off the torsional pendulum. I can still add up to three more channels. Every once in a while I notice a fairly strong repetitive RF signal in this band. I'm not sure what it is except perhaps my neighbor's microwave oven. Does anyone recognize the signal in channel 4?
Monomorph,
could not make out your time stamp but the signal looks similar to a cell phone presence signal which would also be intermittant.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 10/05/2017 02:08 am
Nothing (whether anisotropic, inhomogeneous, etc.) that one can do solely with internal fields, internal forces, or internal particles can result in acceleration of the center of mass by itself without the involvement of external fields, as this would be a violation of Noether's theorem.  Acceleration of the center of mass can only take place either by ejection of mass/energy or by involvement of an external field.

So if there's an external field involved here, what is it? (And please don't tell me it's a "field of dreams"  ;) )

Is it the Quantum Foam (aka. Dynamic Vacuum) ?
sanman,
gravity and inertia are inextricably linked by the principle of equivalence and by their common dependence upon the depth of the gravitational field within which their mechanism acts. By this I mean that gravitational and inertial mass are phenomena whose weight varies with depth into the gravitational field.

This then is sure, that they both depend upon an external meter for their action. That being so they cannot be local phenomena because they depend upon external conditions. How then are they not Machian by nature?

We know that mass is composed of charges so it is beyond doubt that gravity and inertia act upon charges, which is to me at least, a strong argument that their mechanisms must be electrical. Why should they not be the external field we are looking for?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 10/05/2017 03:55 am
sanman,
gravity and inertia are inextricably linked by the principle of equivalence and by their common dependence upon the depth of the gravitational field within which their mechanism acts. By this I mean that gravitational and inertial mass are phenomena whose weight varies with depth into the gravitational field.
Is that correct? When you say weight I assume you mean mass. Mass captured in a gravitational field does not gain additional mass merely as a result of the gravitational field itself, does it? Isn't more an increase in the density of the material, rather than gaining of additional mass?


Isn't the accretion of mass more due to acceleration at relativistic speeds, or boson interactions enabling energy conversion to mass?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sanman on 10/05/2017 04:39 am
So if there's an external field involved here, what is it? (And please don't tell me it's a "field of dreams"  ;) )

Is it the Quantum Foam (aka. Dynamic Vacuum) ?
sanman,
gravity and inertia are inextricably linked by the principle of equivalence and by their common dependence upon the depth of the gravitational field within which their mechanism acts. By this I mean that gravitational and inertial mass are phenomena whose weight varies with depth into the gravitational field.

This then is sure, that they both depend upon an external meter for their action. That being so they cannot be local phenomena because they depend upon external conditions. How then are they not Machian by nature?

Well, I can follow that Woodward's Mach Effect ideas are posited in terms of gravitational effects of the rest of the universe. So from that, the structure of local space has been determined by the arrangement of all matter in the universe, whether local matter or non-local distant matter.

But since EM Drive's working dynamics are expressed in terms of electromagnetism, then the easiest way for me to imagine an external field for it to operate against, would be in terms of electromagnetism too - ie. the Dynamic Vacuum or Quantum Foam. In a way, this Dynamic Vacuum or Quantum Foam is the embodiment of incoherence - it's continually changing in x,y,z,t and is only discernible at the limits of our perception (the Planck scale). And yet it is discernible (just barely), which means that it can be interacted with (just barely).


Quote
We know that mass is composed of charges so it is beyond doubt that gravity and inertia act upon charges, which is to me at least, a strong argument that their mechanisms must be electrical. Why should they not be the external field we are looking for?

Well, technically neutrons have mass but don't have charge (unless you want to count color-charge of their constituent quarks)
Anti-matter has opposite charges relative to normal matter, yet has the same mass properties and gravitational properties as matter.

But since the mechanism of EMdrive is photons, which are carriers of electromagnetic force (including charge force), then I'll agree that whatever the EMdrive's traveling wave is acting on, would likewise have to be characterized by electrical charge forces. And that would be the various fleeting fluctuations of the Dynamic Vacuum / Quantum Foam.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 10/05/2017 11:03 am
Surface resistance as function of roughness

I have found an article in which the degradation of Q as function of the surface roughness is studied: Hernandez et al, 1986 (attached). They don't list the measured Q's, but the derived surface resistance (measured at ~11 GHz).
I quote:
"The variation in the normalised surface resistance against roughness has the same form in all the figures. The surface resistance increases quickly with roughness in the interval 0<r/∂<1, and reaches asymptotically a maximum value that depends on the metal for r/∂ >2." (r/∂ being the groove depth relative to the skin depth).
For copper, the surface resistance increases to a maximum of ~35% with grooves of several times the skin depth. If you don't mind a Q degradation of a factor of two, this is not something to worry about too much, it seems.

Even more interesting in this article: they treat suppression of TM modes:
"We have found empirically that the most effective way to reduce the TM112 effect is the combination of two different techniques: allowing a gap between the cylindrical wall and one of the end plates (Atia and Williams 1976) and the production of the cavity excitation by means of a rectangular iris, parallel to the axis of the cavity, in the side wall (Aron 1967)."

I don't have the article by Aron yet, my univ does not have a subscription.
[you can buy it on http://digital-library.theiet.org/content/journals/10.1049/piee.1967.0197 ]
The use of the gap is obvious, of course, if you measure at TE-modes (but I made my cavity with the desire to also measure at TM-modes. I can isolate the small endplate in case of TE-mode, though it will radiate then (enough shielding when wrapping in Al-foil?)).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/05/2017 12:31 pm
Surface resistance as function of roughness

I have found an article in which the degradation of Q as function of the surface roughness is studied: Hernandez et al, 1986 (attached). They don't list the measured Q's, but the derived surface resistance (measured at ~11 GHz).
I quote:
"The variation in the normalised surface resistance against roughness has the same form in all the figures. The surface resistance increases quickly with roughness in the interval 0<r/∂<1, and reaches asymptotically a maximum value that depends on the metal for r/∂ >2." (r/∂ being the groove depth relative to the skin depth).
For copper, the surface resistance increases to a maximum of ~35% with grooves of several times the skin depth. If you don't mind a Q degradation of a factor of two, this is not something to worry about too much, it seems.

Even more interesting in this article: they treat suppression of TM modes:
"We have found empirically that the most effective way to reduce the TM112 effect is the combination of two different techniques: allowing a gap between the cylindrical wall and one of the end plates (Atia and Williams 1976) and the production of the cavity excitation by means of a rectangular iris, parallel to the axis of the cavity, in the side wall (Aron 1967)."

I don't have the article by Aron yet, my univ does not have a subscription.
[you can buy it on http://digital-library.theiet.org/content/journals/10.1049/piee.1967.0197 ]
The use of the gap is obvious, of course, if you measure at TE-modes (but I made my cavity with the desire to also measure at TM-modes. I can isolate the small endplate in case of TE-mode, though it will radiate then (enough shielding when wrapping in Al-foil?)).

Hi Peter,

If the gap is tiny, like the size of the holes of the door mesh of a kitchen microwave,  nothing that matters will get out as the gap size is well below cutoff.

And yes electrically insulating your end plate from the side wall will very strongly discourage exciting ANY mode that needs eddy currents to flow from end plate to side wall.

Doing this also allows physically tuning your cavity to resonate at a desired freq, that is if you vary the spacing between the end plates.

Plus yes once the grove depth is several times the skin depth,  going deeper has no effect as the skin current does not go that deep. Max current depth is 5x skin depth.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 10/05/2017 12:49 pm
...
Plus yes once the grove depth is several times the skin depth,  going deeper has no effect as the skin current does not go that deep. Max current depth is 5x skin depth.

But the main conclusion from the Hernandez et al., 1986 study is that the increased surface roughness only increases the surface resistance by some tens of percent.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/05/2017 01:49 pm
...
Plus yes once the grove depth is several times the skin depth,  going deeper has no effect as the skin current does not go that deep. Max current depth is 5x skin depth.

But the main conclusion from the Hernandez et al., 1986 study is that the increased surface roughness only increases the surface resistance by some tens of percent.

Quote
For copper, the surface resistance increases to a maximum of ~35% with grooves of several times the skin depth.

If you don't mind a Q degradation of a factor of two, this is not something to worry about too much, it seems.

Q dropped 100x.

Depends where the groves or scratches are and their orientation to the eddy current flow. Those groves, cut as a circular grove where the blue nulls are, could be highly helpful stopping unwanted modes being excited. Placed at right angles across the green, yellow and red eddy current rings at the lobe macima, would not be a good idea.

Take it as read, every cavity of any worth is highly polished and then electro polished to cover up any polishing marks and scratches.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 10/05/2017 02:03 pm

Q dropped 100x.


I don't know where you read that in the article by Hernandez et al.  :o
Or is it your own calculation? Then, please show Rs -> 1.35x, then Q -> 100x.  ;)
As I wrote earlier, my test cavities of unpolished copper tube show Q's of the order of 30k.  8)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 10/05/2017 04:58 pm
Seems like a good idea to rough up the spot in TE012/TE013 where the magnetic field is the highest. That is if you believe that dissipation is important to engineer in.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 10/05/2017 05:08 pm
could not make out your time stamp but the signal looks similar to a cell phone presence signal which would also be intermittant.

Or perhaps a wifi router broadcasting its SSID?  Wifi operates near the frequencies being used for most DIY EmDrive experiments.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 10/05/2017 05:51 pm
....

But since the mechanism of EMdrive is photons, which are carriers of electromagnetic force (including charge force), then I'll agree that whatever the EMdrive's traveling wave is acting on, would likewise have to be characterized by electrical charge forces. And that would be the various fleeting fluctuations of the Dynamic Vacuum / Quantum Foam.

First, photons are not charged particles, even massless charged particles, thus while their interaction with charged particles (matter) often results in changes in electromagnetic (EM) potentials, the photon itself may not be a carrier of EM energy. Even while it is a carrier of energy that may upon interaction with matter be expressed as an EM potential.

Do EM waves actually have any independent force/charge or is what we observe to be variations in charge associated with the interaction between EM waves and charged particles (matter), just changes in the energy state of matter resulting from boundary condition interactions between EM waves and matter?

Does an electromagnetic wave in an of itself, generate an independent electric and/or electromagnetic field?.. Or does the existence of an EM wave or resonant EM wave/field(?) only establish a corresponding potential within the quantum vacuum (QV)? A potential expressed as electric and electromagnetic currents and fields, as the result of boundary condition interactions with matter?

Keeping these questions in mind consider the following.

If a resonant EM field does in and of itself, create an electromagnetic field in "empty space", that electromagnetic field potential might interact with the induced electric and electromagnetic currents and fields in any matter that it interacts with... This would seem to suggest that momentum could be transferred between an enclosed resonant EM field (within a frustum) and the induced electric and electromagnetic fields in the frustum walls.., resulting in some relatively small net thrust... Here the thrust would essentially be the result of a polarized interaction between the induced electric and electromagnetic currents and fields in the frustum walls, with an engineered asymetric bias in that portion of the QV within the frustum, originating with the enclosed resonant EM field. NOTE as long as the total energy is conserved (CoE is not an issue), that is as long as the sum of the heat, kinetic energy (acceleration) and any electrical energy lost to ground, etc., does not exceed, the electrical energy expended to generate the resonant EM field within the frustum, CoM should not be an issue, even while any kinetic energy.., thrust.., would not be the result of historically classical interpretations.

OR

If on the other hand an EM wave/field only creates a potential within the QV, expressed as real electric and electromagnetic currents and fields within matter through boundary condition interactions, there would seem to be NO associated transfer of momentum.., between the enclosed resonating EM field and the frustum. If resonating EM waves do not generate an independent electromagnetic field, apart from any interaction with matter, there could be no transfer of momentumi between the induced electric and electromagnetic currents and fields in the frustum walls and the QV or the enclosed resonating EM waves.., and any acceleration of the frustum would have to be the result of some external interaction.

On the other hand, is it possible that by engineering an asymmetry in the dynamics of the QV within a frustum, the resulting asymetric boundary condition interactions and the frustum walls, is in some small part expressed as a transfer of momentum? Though at present it does not appear useable, the Casimir effect seem to demonstrate that momentum can be transferred between the QV and matter.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 10/05/2017 06:16 pm


Mach effect
Imho - A particle exists in the vacuum by occupying a place that nothing else can. As such, it constitutes a single boundary for all vacuum wave functions around it. As a boundary, it receives continual momentum from all directions making the particle jiggle around, a sort of vacuum Brownian motion. This is why its position and momentum are not intrinsically definite, since its existence is inseparable from the vacuum and its fluctuations. When we accelerate the particle, the boundary function becomes asymmetric creating the force exposed by Casimir.

It seems to indicate that inertia, or the resistance to acceleration, is the Casimir force resulting from an asymmetric contact with the effect of the vacuum.  This means that we accelerate with respect to the vacuum.

The Mach effect says that we accelerate with respect to the rest of the universe. It is true in a large sense, but in practice, it is more local. The local condition of the vacuum is in effect part of “the rest of the universe”, as not being at the same place, as already taken by the particle.

Now go and have a good night sleep

There seems some similarity above to the early Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff Inertia model.

1998 Inertia as reaction of the vacuum to accelerated motion
Rueda & Haisch
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9802031v1

1998 Advances in the Proposed Electromagnetic Zero-Point Field Theory of Inertia
Haisch, Rueda, Puthoff
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9807023v2
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 10/05/2017 07:25 pm
...
Plus yes once the grove depth is several times the skin depth,  going deeper has no effect as the skin current does not go that deep. Max current depth is 5x skin depth.

But the main conclusion from the Hernandez et al., 1986 study is that the increased surface roughness only increases the surface resistance by some tens of percent.

Thanks for the paper! Very nice found.


With this numbers[1] i calculate[3] a drop of ~15% of the max possible Q value in the worsed case[4]. Of course this is an estimation, in this case i used the Brady cone dimensions and TE012.

I guess the result [2] was based on a surface strewn with scratched over and over by coarse sanding.
No DIY experimentalist will do this with his cavity baby   ;D



[1] 5.8e7 S/m *(1/1.35 [2]) = 4.3e7 S/m = effective surface conductivity = 1/R_s --> R_s= effective surface resistance

[2] 1.35 is the normalized result of the surface resistance measured at 11.4 GHz, asymptotic plateau for a high surface roughness of copper (Hernandez et. al)

[3] http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1476704#msg1476704

[4] while i used this lower value for the whole cavity not a single end plate as in the paper!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 10/05/2017 08:23 pm
....

But since the mechanism of EMdrive is photons, which are carriers of electromagnetic force (including charge force), then I'll agree that whatever the EMdrive's traveling wave is acting on, would likewise have to be characterized by electrical charge forces. And that would be the various fleeting fluctuations of the Dynamic Vacuum / Quantum Foam.

Though at present it does not appear useable, the Casimir effect seem to demonstrate that momentum can be transferred between the QV and matter.

Regarding Casimir, QV, Scratches, Wall potential, time and experimental design for QV related gain:

You are correct. The Casimir effect is irrelevant here unless you squeeze the vacuum significantly with an inhomogeneous anistropic medium. In such compressed states of spacetime you are essentially forcing more of the QV into less spacetime therefore increasing the Casimir force by a finite amount. It is curious to consider possible warping (yes stiffness is mitigated if the field is oscillatory and relatively low density) in the context of the cavity. This idea is far from novel however.

The inner fields will always repel off of the wall fields (otherwise you would be baked alive near an EM Drive) since these are misaligned and of different strengths. The current within the walls determines the wall field and you will notice that the wall field segments each retain eigen characteristics over the course of the resonance of the internal fields. So saying the EM Drive's primary mechanism is photons is laughable as it is elementary to prove that radiation pressure in any shaped or identical boundary condition cavity will not yield net thrust (pushing on a windscreen or jumping in a small box metaphor). It is my recent view that momentum is transferred most likely through the time delay of electrons and electrical charge in imperfect skin regions. Consider a cavity where a majority of current is confined in discrete rings (See TE modes XX2 and above). This radiates energy outwards kinetically, heating the metal. If more energy in the form of incident waves are absorbed on one end then the contraption should not move forward, unless the momentum is delayed from reaching the opposite end of the cavity before more input or escape from the system as heat.

How could you delay said electrical charge rebalancing and momentum transfer along the lattice? The only answer is in the question itself: time. If you have field lines and closed circuits in the wall these will eventually have to connect to the weaker nearby field. As the outer wall saturates, the weaker field is the next adjacent ring segment. The same can be said of any excited medium within the cavity.

What about a scratch or imperfection? An imperfection interrupts and captures incident waves. For lack of a better metaphor the wavelets along the skin would be like balls falling into a canyon. Their transmission and absorption on the other side is far from guaranteed if the incidence angles are scrambled, especially with a lag between in-coupling and out-coupling* or a chaotic transient system which can be expected due to oscillations of the original incident waves and splatter, but I digress. It is important to see the waves within the wall medium as multiple groups of coincident fast electrons forming chaotic bandwidths as the electron density increases, this explains why part of the current is lost upon reaching the canyon. The more canyons you have the longer it will take for electrical charge to balance along the lattice to where there is a relatively lower charge! Since local alignment is ruined by the imperfection, there will be a continuous traffic jam building at the scratch until the medium passes its boiling point and the entire lattice smoothes out. The really interesting part is that this is equally valid across all media exposed to similar asymmetric input! It is perfectly valid to consider all discrete internal fields as interacting sequentially just as it is valid to recognize asymmetric heating in any elongated asymmetric modal cavity. The only cost of ruining the skin conductivity with imperfections is that there is increased absorption due to randomized angles of incidence and an abundance of disrupted eddies causing holes and tangled field lines thus providing less directional reaction force to incident charged particles moving with EM fields.

It is extremely important to consider what the wall is made of and the properties thereof. If it were a Weyl Semi-Metal then you would have relativistic fermions to deal with. Similarly, meta-materials could have interesting refraction indices providing anistropy to trapped energy. Instead of those we have Copper: a soup of latticed protons and very fast delocalized electrons. Make sure you do not forget that the QV is the "salt" to the "soup" of the cosmos. If you want to find significant effect sizes for a cause you can't just taste the "soup" and ignore the tasteless water in the form of the electron particle family. Without the current there would be no medium to observe the QV by. Without the QV there would still be "soup". However, if you take away enough "soup" or add enough "salt" then you will see sudden "salt crystals" forming. If you are on the hunt for QV as an explanation, then the current EM Drive is an exceedingly bad experimental design. It would be far more efficient to use perfect mirrors around a superconductive anisotropic (or inhomogeneous) metallic solenoid or tube with neutralized central field to run interferometry with a wavelet through the middle. It would be far easier to calculate and verify QV induced gain using emission spectra or asymmetric optical pressure in such a controlled system rather than the chaos and transience of the tapered cone resonant microwave cavity. It would not be a typical gun if you have a strong guide field providing varying compression and a control using a regular solenoid or tube. It does not matter what shape the medium or the walls are, but where and what orientation the fields are which are accelerating or reacting with it. Basic stuff but important to consider when seeking the balance between modal peak density and EM potential.

Back to the shadows and work for now...

*(note here broken lorentz reciprocity probably allows full bandwidth to resonate)

Yours Sincerely,
L.A.                   
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 10/05/2017 09:44 pm
....

But since the mechanism of EMdrive is photons, which are carriers of electromagnetic force (including charge force), then I'll agree that whatever the EMdrive's traveling wave is acting on, would likewise have to be characterized by electrical charge forces. And that would be the various fleeting fluctuations of the Dynamic Vacuum / Quantum Foam.

Though at present it does not appear useable, the Casimir effect seem to demonstrate that momentum can be transferred between the QV and matter.

Regarding Casimir, QV, Scratches, Wall potential, time and experimental design for QV related gain:

You are correct. The Casimir effect is irrelevant here unless you squeeze the vacuum significantly with an inhomogeneous anistropic medium. In such compressed states of spacetime you are essentially forcing more of the QV into less spacetime therefore increasing the Casimir force by a finite amount. It is curious to consider possible warping (yes stiffness is mitigated if the field is oscillatory and relatively low density) in the context of the cavity. This idea is far from novel however.

...

When I mentioned the Casimir effect earlier, it was only meant to support the idea that momentum might be transfered to matter through its interaction with the QV.

Truth be told I have a tendency to over talk a thing to the extreme and what should have been a post of a few sentences about photons and whether they actually carry any charge or EM energy, or just that through their interaction with matter the charge and/or EM energy state of the matter may be changed.., wandered far afield of the initial intent.

Still if things like the Casimir effect, which involves a direct transfer of momentum and Unruh radiation most commonly discussed as a heat gain associated with the acceleration of matter relative to the QV (which could be argued might also be described as a resistance to acceleration realized as heat.., or even once again transfer of momentum), how can we exclude the possibility that there might be and probably are other interactions where momentum is transferred between the QV and matter (whatever our final descriptive definition of the QV might be).

At present the interaction between matter and the QV seems to be governed by the boundary conditions of the involved matter or object. Since it is almost certain that the boundary conditions of the interior surfaces of a frustum are asymmetric and not unreasonable to expect that the local field potential of that portion of the QV within a frustum is also asymmetric, it would seem that any interaction between the frustum and the enclosed portion of the QV would also be asymmetric. ... And if in any case it is reasonable to conclude that momentum can be transferred between the QV and matter, as appears to be the case with the Casimir effect, it seem unreasonable to exclude the possibility, that where boundary conditions can be engineered to be asymmetric, any potential transfer of momentum might also be net asymmetrical.

I do not claim this is what is happening or even that it could happen, I just wonder about things like this.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sanman on 10/05/2017 10:40 pm
....

But since the mechanism of EMdrive is photons, which are carriers of electromagnetic force (including charge force), then I'll agree that whatever the EMdrive's traveling wave is acting on, would likewise have to be characterized by electrical charge forces. And that would be the various fleeting fluctuations of the Dynamic Vacuum / Quantum Foam.

First, photons are not charged particles, even massless charged particles, thus while their interaction with charged particles (matter) often results in changes in electromagnetic (EM) potentials, the photon itself may not be a carrier of EM energy. Even while it is a carrier of energy that may upon interaction with matter be expressed as an EM potential.

Hi, I know that - I only meant that photons are said to be mediators between charge interactions.




Mach effect
Imho - A particle exists in the vacuum by occupying a place that nothing else can. As such, it constitutes a single boundary for all vacuum wave functions around it. As a boundary, it receives continual momentum from all directions making the particle jiggle around, a sort of vacuum Brownian motion. This is why its position and momentum are not intrinsically definite, since its existence is inseparable from the vacuum and its fluctuations. When we accelerate the particle, the boundary function becomes asymmetric creating the force exposed by Casimir.

It seems to indicate that inertia, or the resistance to acceleration, is the Casimir force resulting from an asymmetric contact with the effect of the vacuum.  This means that we accelerate with respect to the vacuum.

The Mach effect says that we accelerate with respect to the rest of the universe. It is true in a large sense, but in practice, it is more local. The local condition of the vacuum is in effect part of “the rest of the universe”, as not being at the same place, as already taken by the particle.

Now go and have a good night sleep

There seems some similarity above to the early Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff Inertia model.

1998 Inertia as reaction of the vacuum to accelerated motion
Rueda & Haisch
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9802031v1

1998 Advances in the Proposed Electromagnetic Zero-Point Field Theory of Inertia
Haisch, Rueda, Puthoff
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9807023v2

I remember reading that stuff when it first came out, and I recall it was heavily attacked - particularly over ideas like "Rindler frames". They were claiming an electromagnetic origin for gravity and inertia.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 10/06/2017 12:07 am
....

But since the mechanism of EMdrive is photons, which are carriers of electromagnetic force (including charge force), then I'll agree that whatever the EMdrive's traveling wave is acting on, would likewise have to be characterized by electrical charge forces. And that would be the various fleeting fluctuations of the Dynamic Vacuum / Quantum Foam.

First, photons are not charged particles, even massless charged particles, thus while their interaction with charged particles (matter) often results in changes in electromagnetic (EM) potentials, the photon itself may not be a carrier of EM energy. Even while it is a carrier of energy that may upon interaction with matter be expressed as an EM potential.

Hi, I know that - I only meant that photons are said to be mediators between charge interactions.




Mach effect
Imho - A particle exists in the vacuum by occupying a place that nothing else can. As such, it constitutes a single boundary for all vacuum wave functions around it. As a boundary, it receives continual momentum from all directions making the particle jiggle around, a sort of vacuum Brownian motion. This is why its position and momentum are not intrinsically definite, since its existence is inseparable from the vacuum and its fluctuations. When we accelerate the particle, the boundary function becomes asymmetric creating the force exposed by Casimir.

It seems to indicate that inertia, or the resistance to acceleration, is the Casimir force resulting from an asymmetric contact with the effect of the vacuum.  This means that we accelerate with respect to the vacuum.

The Mach effect says that we accelerate with respect to the rest of the universe. It is true in a large sense, but in practice, it is more local. The local condition of the vacuum is in effect part of “the rest of the universe”, as not being at the same place, as already taken by the particle.

Now go and have a good night sleep

There seems some similarity above to the early Haisch, Rueda and Puthoff Inertia model.

1998 Inertia as reaction of the vacuum to accelerated motion
Rueda & Haisch
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9802031v1

1998 Advances in the Proposed Electromagnetic Zero-Point Field Theory of Inertia
Haisch, Rueda, Puthoff
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9807023v2

I remember reading that stuff when it first came out, and I recall it was heavily attacked - particularly over ideas like "Rindler frames". They were claiming an electromagnetic origin for gravity and inertia.

They were claiming an electromagnetic origin for gravity and inertia.

(Or maybe just that both inertia and electromagnetism are secondary effects of a more fundamental process?)

That could be a matter of interpretation. If photons are inherently electromagnetic then yes. But they have no charge, no inherent magnetic field and for practical purposes no mass.  It is just as reasonable to argue that it is their interaction with matter that results in electromagnetic effects... and electromagnetism is itself a secondary affect rather than fundamental. At least as it relates to EM waves and photons.

Photons and EM radiation in general carry/or transfer momentum and heat, as well as the potential to alter the EM potential of an atom or particle. Not all photons interact with all matter in the same way.

The HRP model was phrased essentially in terms of an EM portion of the ZPF at Zitterbewegung frequencies.., interacting with charged particles exclusively through an exchange of momentum etc.. That's speed of light frequencies and perhaps as small as Planck lengths. Matter would be essentially transparent to photons, of even orders of magnitude lower frequencies.

Think about it, even protons have a Zitterbewegung like motion and perhaps a corresponding analog in the ZPF. Even a neutral neutron trembles and we have no reason to believe that goes unnoticed by the universe.

Sometimes critiques are more a defense of what we have come to believe, than a reasoned unbiased evaluation. Think back a few years to when the first Eagleworks conference paper was leaked. Almost as it hit the net it was bashed, even by otherwise credible sources like Steve Carlip, few if any of whom took enough time to stop and see that it was meant as a handout for a conference, not a peer reviewed paper.

The point is it is not always good to dismiss an idea just because it doesn't fit with what we have come to believe. At least not until we know what we know is more than just what we think we know.

That said, even IF the HRP model touched on something worth defending, the world is far more complex than a single fundamental particle in a flat spacetime ZPF and far beyond any possibility of experimental verification.

Still the following would fit well with that early HRP model of inertia,

"A particle exists in the vacuum ... . As such, it constitutes a single boundary for all vacuum wave functions around it. As a boundary, it receives continual momentum from all directions making the particle jiggle around, a sort of vacuum Brownian motion. ... its existence is inseparable from the vacuum and its fluctuations. When we accelerate the particle, the boundary function becomes asymmetric"

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 10/06/2017 03:59 am

(...)

photons are said to be mediators between charge interactions.

Thankyou All, good discussion.

The speed of light is well established, you can measure it like Foucault did if you want to, but it is essential to your comprehension that this velocity is relative. From the photons perspective its velocity is infinite.

Master physicist Richard Feynman is said to have been of the opinion that quantum mechanics could not really be understood. To me that is a nonsense, especially from someone who once proposed that photons are a direct interparticle action.

The solution I propose is that for the traverse of a photon between emission and absorption,

       t + ict = 0

there being then, no contradiction between our measurement of a lapse of clock time between emission and absorption, and the lack of any such lapse from the photons perspective. The clock time t for the traverse, is relative to the observer, as described by Special Relativity. The term ict is the speed of light, times t, as a complex conjugate of t. Complex conjugates have been around for hundreds of years but we have resisted incorporating them into our definitions of reality due to a lack of confidence.

We cannot have it both ways, however, if time be complex then the clock is only relevant to one aspect of it. The clock may be correct for us but it is just a component of what we must measure in order to chart the development of circumstance. This is why photon behaviour appeared to have paradox, because in linear time alone energy cannot be in two places at the same time whereas, in complex time an instant is a moment where that does occur, without paradox.

That this leaves much else to be redefined, is understood. For example, charges everywhere must constantly interact, their inertia and gravity being the consequence of the sum over time of accelerations due of their attractions and repulsions. Photons are a special case of interaction between charges involving the exchange of a quantum of energy some of which is momentum. Photons make shadows, they will interact with the closest thing they can interact with, which is distinctly different from the constant interaction of all charges. The mechanism is the same though, immediate proximity within complex time.

The huge difference between electrical force and gravity is then due to the opposition of attractive and repulsive forces between masses with an approximate balance of positive and negative charges. Gravity being the residual force between masses in an environment where everything everywhere interacts, inertia being the sum over time of the same, and electrical force being that due to an imbalance of charge between masses.

Why then do photon interactions occur when they do. The frequency of the emitted energy being relative to the frequency of the absorbed energy and proportionate to the relative rate of passage of clock time at their respective locations. The polarity of the exchange being due to the alignment of the charges within the atoms which are interacting, maybe due to the co-linearity of the motions of the emitting and absorbing electrons. Photons may occur whenever there is energy to be radiated and the circumstances are amenable.

How do I know this is true, I do not, but I do know that time cannot be linear for several reasons, first; because it has a different rate in different depths of gravitational fields, and second; because it has a different rate for charges which have a different level of acceleration even when they reside in the same depth of a gravitational field.

What does this mean for electromagnetic theory. It allows a mechanism for electrical attraction and repulsion which requires no fields at all. These electrical interactions, not composed of photons but simply consequent upon the distribution of charges, fully account for the behaviours we currently attribute to magnetic fields. This does nothing to undermine Maxwell's brilliant work on the nature of light but only provides a resolution for it in terms of Special Relativity.

Why is complex time necessary, because quantum mechanics as it stands is a mass of self-contradictions and misunderstandings. If we want to comprehend how the emdrive works so that we can develop it, then we must begin by admitting that physics in its present form is incapable of forming the self-consistent set of equations which demystify the mechanisms fundamental to the universe around us. Physics could not incorporate Machian inertia into linear time, even when Einstein had the pen.

To progress the subject we must improve upon Wikipedia’s description of complex time as being something which flows on a plane somehow normal to the flow of clock time. Clock time cannot be a flow because it is a development of circumstances everywhere, and complex time cannot be a flow for the same reason. Complex time must be that structure, within the development of circumstance, where a single moment encompasses all that occurs at displacements ict from an event, in all directions and at all distances.

Complex time is not then a stable structure from a remote perspective but a structure which is only ever specific to a single event in spacetime. Its advantage is that the moment belonging to that event is then a stable structure from the covariant perspective, which may be considered by the brave to be a hard reality from all perspectives. This constitutes a frame in which there is no quantum uncertainty and no paradox inherent in its description between differing mathematical systems.

No-one has a right to mystic knowledge of the physical realm. Such things belong to the Druids. In my opinion, paradox is no longer acceptable. I am yet to hear a well developed argument as to why complex time cannot be its resolution.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 10/06/2017 04:14 am
sanman,
gravity and inertia are inextricably linked by the principle of equivalence and by their common dependence upon the depth of the gravitational field within which their mechanism acts. By this I mean that gravitational and inertial mass are phenomena whose weight varies with depth into the gravitational field.
Is that correct? When you say weight I assume you mean mass. Mass captured in a gravitational field does not gain additional mass merely as a result of the gravitational field itself, does it? Isn't more an increase in the density of the material, rather than gaining of additional mass?


Isn't the accretion of mass more due to acceleration at relativistic speeds, or boson interactions enabling energy conversion to mass?
Bob,
mass is conserved. Weight is dependent upon the local acceleration due to gravity, non?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 10/06/2017 05:24 pm
So we know that a box of photons is massive even though each individual photon is massless.

I was reading this today and it dawned on me that there must also be a mass defect in an EMdrive, as there is in any bound system.

https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-have-detected-a-friction-like-force-in-a-perfect-vacuum

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.053601
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 10/06/2017 07:01 pm
So we know that a box of photons is massive even though each individual photon is massless.

I was reading this today and it dawned on me that there must also be a mass defect in an EMdrive, as there is in any bound system.

https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-have-detected-a-friction-like-force-in-a-perfect-vacuum

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.053601

Again I wind up with knee jerk reactions to statements made as absolutes, like beginning with things like So we know....

The paper referenced above is also available at, https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.02264 . I read the linked article, but have only skimmed the paper at present. While I tend to agree with what I have seen, it is a theoretical work, not the result of direct observation, experience and/or experimental results. It represents something we can believe to be, rather than something we know.

Again from what I have read I agree with the general conclusions and intent. I just caution against the idea that it represents a certainty of some fundamental knowledge.

The concept of trapped photons and mass falls into a similar theoretical box. One I am less certain of than the general idea that the QV or empty space, a vacuum.., imparts some friction force to the motion of objects. Photons can carry/transfer momentum, but that is expressed as a change in mass only when the photon interacts with matter.

Photons theirselves have no mass. Even if they did that mass could not be "weighed" or contribute to the weight/mass of the box until they interact with the atoms in the walls of the box.


Title: Straw poll final
Post by: Mark7777777 on 10/06/2017 08:08 pm
FWIW, the unscientific straw poll has come to an end, being responded to by 59 people.

The majority (~66%) believe the Emdrive produces thrust with Mach Effect being the favourite single reason.

Title: Re: Straw poll final
Post by: R.W. Keyes on 10/06/2017 09:44 pm
FWIW, the unscientific straw poll has come to an end, being responded to by 59 people.

The majority (~66%) believe the Emdrive produces thrust with Mach Effect being the favourite single reason.

I should log in more often. I would have put one more in the Quantized Inertia column.

Sometimes I am completely overcome by the volume of posts here, and have to take some time off to get my head straight. This isn't to say I don't appreciate all of your comments, and this place is far more civilized than the Reddit on the same topic. If I could, somehow, make a living on emdrive research, you can bet I'd be here all day, every day, and I'd try to keep the S/N high.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 10/07/2017 04:45 am
Must be an accident or an error in some way.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 10/07/2017 01:39 pm
I had an issue with the linear actuator leaking RF. So I redesigned the small end to be better sealed, while maintaining the ability to move the antenna up and down inside the cavity for impedance matching. I was able to design, print, assemble, and tune a new small end within a single 24 hour period.   
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 10/07/2017 02:42 pm
Wow. Suggest take some measurements before you become distracted by offers of employment.
Title: Re: Straw poll final
Post by: sanman on 10/07/2017 06:27 pm
FWIW, the unscientific straw poll has come to an end, being responded to by 59 people.

The majority (~66%) believe the Emdrive produces thrust with Mach Effect being the favourite single reason.

Gee, just my opinion, but I can't see any connection to the principles behind the Mach Effect at all. EMdrive seems best described as what the Eagleworks people have called a "Q-thruster", by exploiting a geometry that creates an asymmetric Casimir Effect.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 10/07/2017 09:53 pm
I had an issue with the linear actuator leaking RF. So I redesigned the small end to be better sealed, while maintaining the ability to move the antenna up and down inside the cavity for impedance matching. I was able to design, print, assemble, and tune a new small end within a single 24 hour period.

Just a side note (maybe OT, not sure); I was reading this

https://www.rtl-sdr.com/tuning-an-hf-antenna-with-an-airspy-swr-bridge-and-noise-source/

and, while the frequencies used for the EMdrive are higher than the ones used (at the above link) I wonder if, something similar may be used to help tuning the cavity RF injector to achieve better resonance

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 10/08/2017 12:48 am
All,
on 10/6/2017 I posted, that for the photon in its traverse,

       t + ict = 0

t   being clock time,
c   being light speed &
i   being the square root of minus one.

This assumes units of, c = 1, where c is included for the purpose of expressing clock time as a distance,

       t x s/t = s

where s is distance and for light,   time = distance.

Comments welcome  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 10/08/2017 03:56 am
sanman,
gravity and inertia are inextricably linked by the principle of equivalence and by their common dependence upon the depth of the gravitational field within which their mechanism acts. By this I mean that gravitational and inertial mass are phenomena whose weight varies with depth into the gravitational field.
Is that correct? When you say weight I assume you mean mass. Mass captured in a gravitational field does not gain additional mass merely as a result of the gravitational field itself, does it? Isn't more an increase in the density of the material, rather than gaining of additional mass?


Isn't the accretion of mass more due to acceleration at relativistic speeds, or boson interactions enabling energy conversion to mass?
Bob,
mass is conserved. Weight is dependent upon the local acceleration due to gravity, non?
Then your comments on "weight" were what you intended. Unfortunately they are a meaningless portion of your comment, not adding anything of import.


Back 47 years ago as a college freshman, my physics professor was adamant: "Don't talk about weight. It's meaningless except when you step on a scale. Physics is all about mass, not weight."
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: giulioprisco on 10/08/2017 06:55 am
I'm sure this must have been discussed to death here and perhaps in detailed papers, I would appreciate pointers.

The EmDrive setup doesn't seem very quantum to me so, assuming EmDrive thrust is real, I have the impression there should be a classical (non-quantum) explanation.

Classical (4+1)-dimensional Kaluza-Klein jumps immediately to mind. Einstein's and Maxwell's equations are derived from very restrictive approximations to the full 5-dimensional equations, which essentially amount to neglecting most gravitational-electromagnetic feedback. I believe this is the best pre-war maths could do, and then classical Kaluza-Klein was abandoned by most theorists in favor of sexier quantum string theories.

I learn from the Estes Park proceedings that now full 5-dimensional Kaluza-Klein can be treated mathematically (Lance Williams talk). Has the EmDrive configuration been analyzed? Perhaps standing electromagnetic waves are converted to traveling gravitational waves that push the EmDrive? Or something like that?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Left Field on 10/08/2017 07:37 am
New article on the EMDrive about modelling using pilot-wave theory and it claims the results are compatible with thrust generation:

https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-have-a-weird-new-idea-about-how-the-impossible-em-drive-could-produce-thrust (https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-have-a-weird-new-idea-about-how-the-impossible-em-drive-could-produce-thrust)

The paper referenced in the article is behind a paywall.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sanman on 10/08/2017 08:07 am
From the article:

Quote
If a pilot wave does explain the thrust behind the device, then it could also lead to a way to make the propulsion system even more powerful in future, and it's as simple as tweaking the shape.

"We have seen that the effect could be enhanced using a different shape for the frustum," said Castro. "In fact a trumpet exponential form is expected to increase the thrust."

What the heck is a trumpet exponential form? What does it look like?
Would it be where the frustum walls curve inward, like near the mouth of a trumpet?

(http://www.amromusic.com/assets/1942/6_trumpet-bell.jpg)

Technically, the mouth of a trumpet is called the "bell" - an ironically appropriate name - and one with a better ring to it than "frustum".
Heh - so even a propellantless rocket still needs a bell, huh? Especially when it uses non-local hidden variables to satisfy Bell's theorem?  ;)

Hey Monomorphic, TheTraveler, or whoever - is it possible to run this shape through your analytical software and produce a graphical render from it?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 10/08/2017 09:44 am
New article on the EMDrive about modelling using pilot-wave theory and it claims the results are compatible with thrust generation:

https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-have-a-weird-new-idea-about-how-the-impossible-em-drive-could-produce-thrust (https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-have-a-weird-new-idea-about-how-the-impossible-em-drive-could-produce-thrust)

The paper referenced in the article is behind a paywall.

Thank you for the link. I always love to see new groups and people do the research on the EmDrive. The more people work on it the sooner we will get more answers.

So far article is behind paywall


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mark7777777 on 10/08/2017 10:03 am
From the article:

Quote
If a pilot wave does explain the thrust behind the device, then it could also lead to a way to make the propulsion system even more powerful in future, and it's as simple as tweaking the shape.

"We have seen that the effect could be enhanced using a different shape for the frustum," said Castro. "In fact a trumpet exponential form is expected to increase the thrust."

What the heck is a trumpet exponential form? What does it look like?
Would it be where the frustum walls curve inward, like near the mouth of a trumpet?

(http://www.amromusic.com/assets/1942/6_trumpet-bell.jpg)

Technically, the mouth of a trumpet is called the "bell" - an ironically appropriate name - and one with a better ring to it than "frustum".
Heh - so even a propellantless rocket still needs a bell, huh? Especially when it uses non-local hidden variables to satisfy Bell's theorem?  ;)

Hey Monomorphic, TheTraveler, or whoever - is it possible to run this shape through your analytical software and produce a graphical render from it?

From http://www.krynaglobal.com/product/eprop.html :

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 10/08/2017 12:01 pm
Hey Monomorphic, TheTraveler, or whoever - is it possible to run this shape through your analytical software and produce a graphical render from it?

I know a trumpet shape has been looked at before due to the geometry being highly asymmetric. Most recently user "Kenjee" posted some images of COMSOL runs using this geometry. I couldn't locate them but perhaps he will be kind enough to repost.

Here is one I did a long time ago that used stacks of dialectrics with different relative permittivity.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Dagger on 10/08/2017 12:49 pm
Hey Monomorphic, TheTraveler, or whoever - is it possible to run this shape through your analytical software and produce a graphical render from it?

I know a trumpet shape has been looked at before due to the geometry being highly asymmetric. Most recently user "Kenjee" posted some images of COMSOL runs using this geometry. I couldn't locate them but perhaps he will be kind enough to repost.

Maybe this?
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1655575#msg1655575
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Kenjee on 10/08/2017 02:44 pm
Here are all the sims on bell curve.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: giulioprisco on 10/08/2017 02:53 pm
New article on the EMDrive about modelling using pilot-wave theory and it claims the results are compatible with thrust generation:

https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-have-a-weird-new-idea-about-how-the-impossible-em-drive-could-produce-thrust (https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-have-a-weird-new-idea-about-how-the-impossible-em-drive-could-produce-thrust)

The paper referenced in the article is behind a paywall.

This Vixra preprint seems a preliminary version of the paper:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1706.0283v1.pdf
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 10/08/2017 03:33 pm
From the article:

Quote
If a pilot wave does explain the thrust behind the device, then it could also lead to a way to make the propulsion system even more powerful in future, and it's as simple as tweaking the shape.

"We have seen that the effect could be enhanced using a different shape for the frustum," said Castro. "In fact a trumpet exponential form is expected to increase the thrust."

What the heck is a trumpet exponential form? What does it look like?
Would it be where the frustum walls curve inward, like near the mouth of a trumpet?

(http://www.amromusic.com/assets/1942/6_trumpet-bell.jpg)

Technically, the mouth of a trumpet is called the "bell" - an ironically appropriate name - and one with a better ring to it than "frustum".
Heh - so even a propellantless rocket still needs a bell, huh? Especially when it uses non-local hidden variables to satisfy Bell's theorem?  ;)

Hey Monomorphic, TheTraveler, or whoever - is it possible to run this shape through your analytical software and produce a graphical render from it?

From http://www.krynaglobal.com/product/eprop.html :

That trumpet shape looks like an Euler spiral in 3D. Parts of the curve are used to control jerk. It would be interesting to see how this relates from another perspective about how these shapes effect group velocity, acceleration, and jerk. I've been trying figure out how these two shapes (current EMdrive vs this shape) effect the jerking motion of a partial standing wave. I was thinking that an infinite jerk might be better to have than a linear change. I'm still undecided.

http://dynref.engr.illinois.edu/avt.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler_spiral

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0143-0807/37/6/065008

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sghill on 10/08/2017 04:00 pm
Here are all the sims on bell curve.

Can you run it with an inverted curved top and bottom bottom instead of a flat bottom? Not a neutral curved bottom, a parabola or catenary curve...

ThatOtherGuy had asked for this back in March, but the discussion moved on when Paul March commented on another topic of discussion.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1655717#msg1655717
Quote
"I wonder if and how the fields would change replacing the two (top/bottom) flat panels with curved (parabolic or catenary ?) ones, also, it may be interesting to have the bottom side curved up (out to in) and the top side (smaller one) curved up too (in to out)"
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Kenjee on 10/08/2017 04:16 pm
If you could draw a sketch I`ll try to sim. I don`t understand what`s inverted from what.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 10/08/2017 04:29 pm
If you could draw a sketch I`ll try to sim. I don`t understand what`s inverted from what.

Well, imagine the frustum sitting on the larger end; the larger end will be concave (curve going "inside" the frustum) while the small end is convex (curve going "outside" the frustum); clear enough now :) ?

[edit]

in such a config, the antenna used to inject the signal should possibly be placed near/at the focus of the small plate
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 10/08/2017 05:49 pm
There has been something confusing me about the whole convex/concave end plate issue... and even to some extent the waveguide/antenna placement.

Early on it seems that guidance attributed to Shawyer:

Recommended the large end being concave and the small end convex, perhaps intending to minimized bouncing photons off the walls and keep them bouncing back and forth between the end plates???

Later it seems, there was a design that incorporated a super conducting large end plate that remained flat (to difficult to construct a convex superconducting plate?), while the small end turned around into a convex shape with an antenna centered, in the small end. Maybe I missed an explanation for the change in shape of the small end or other than theoretical reasoning for moving microwave insertion from a sidewall to the center of the small end.

Then again attributed to Shawyer, a (superconducting) wedge shaped design reverting to large end convex and small end concave.., and returning to a waveguide in a side wall.

Most of this jumping around on unverified design recommendations, sometimes seeming to be contradictory, tends toward questionable credibility.

So far where has anyone seen or even claimed credible results involving any curved endplates? Monomorphic is working on that now. Has there been any other real example of a build with curved end plates? It does seem reasonable to explore the curved endplates, given the resources and assets Monomorphic has and has been willing to commit to the project. Still...

Right now, unless a builder is working with unpublished credible experimental results, should not the goal be to just produce a basic design that returns some real, even if small level of thrust? And since most if not all of the designs that initiated this search involved flat end plates and either a magnetron mounted directly on the large end plate or (it seems preferable) sidewall microwave insertion, by waveguide or antenna, shouldn't the basic design remain within those general limits until some credible experimental data suggests otherwise.

There is no credible theory of operation at present and cannot be one until there is at least a basic functional device to work from. And yet it seem that much of the design is being driven by one or another unconfirmed theory...

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 10/08/2017 05:54 pm
First S11 measurements on the new frustum cavity.

I performed some first measurements on a frustum-shaped cavity I recently made (picture), with the Windfreak Technology SynthNV signal source/scalar network analyzer + a directional coupler.
As coupling loop I have made one according to Zhang et al., 2013 [1], see the attached picture (it is not easy, soldering a small wire to a 1-mm thick copper sheet. I needed my 300 W soldering iron to do that and it is rather clumsy). The remaining plastic cover has been removed from the copper plate, of course.
The results are not bad, I would say. Please see the attached example, two adjacent peaks at ~3036 MHz and ~3073 MHz.
The frustum (inner) dimensions are: BD = 202.0(5) mm, SD = 122.0(5) mm, h = 165(1) mm. Copper plate thickness: Big endplate and side wall = 0.5 mm, small endplate = 1 mm.
Coupling loop parameters: 1-mm wire, r = 11.0(5) mm, w = 14.0(5) mm, theta = ~45° (see the artcle by Zhang et al.).
More later.
Peter

[1] H. Zhang et al., Research on Novel Loop Antenna in Microwave Cavity Measurement of Permittivity, Int. J. of Information and Electronics Eng., Vol. 3, No. 4, July 2013, pp. 396-398.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 10/08/2017 05:56 pm
You are right, by the way, at this stage, asking (say) monomorphic to change his design would be detrimental to the experimenting progress, yet, using such a design to feed a simulation program may be interesting imVVHo
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Kenjee on 10/08/2017 06:40 pm
Here are all the sims on bell curve.

Can you run it with an inverted curved top and bottom bottom instead of a flat bottom? Not a neutral curved bottom, a parabola or catenary curve...

ThatOtherGuy had asked for this back in March, but the discussion moved on when Paul March commented on another topic of discussion.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1655717#msg1655717
Quote
"I wonder if and how the fields would change replacing the two (top/bottom) flat panels with curved (parabolic or catenary ?) ones, also, it may be interesting to have the bottom side curved up (out to in) and the top side (smaller one) curved up too (in to out)"

Mono`s new inverted.



Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 10/08/2017 06:46 pm
Thank you :) !

Would you mind trying different curves? e.g. top different from bottom or both the same but deeper... and the like ?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 10/08/2017 07:07 pm
Frustum resonance measurements

In my previous posting [https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1733603#msg1733603] I described the frustum and coupling loop.
During the measurements I discovered that using 0.5 mm copper sheet for the big diameter endplate was not such a good idea (though in doing so, I managed to keep the total weight below 1 kg). I first measured with the cavity in vertical position and discovered that it is very sensitive to putting some pressure on it, the endplate deforms easily and resonance peaks shift by the order of 1 MHz.
I then put the frustum in horizontal position (picture) and remeasured some resonances. Some of them I tabulate below, with estimated Q-values (determined from the -3 dB width):

3036.5 MHz    Q = ~14k
3037.7 MHz    Q = ~15k
3679.7 MHz    Q = ~16k

The TE013 mode should be at ~3600 MHz for these dimensions.

I found that one very pronounced peak around 3490 MHz was not visible now (see picture Frustum1_3490MHz peak_no pressure.jpg). But, by putting some pressure on the big endplate, it appears again (see Frustum1_3490MHz peak_WITH pressure.jpg). This mode seems to be very sensitive to the right dimensions:

3489.15 MHz   Q = ~10k   Who can identify these modes?

I think about soldering a nut in the center of the big endplate and with a bridge etc. I can then use it to tune. Maybe pulling is better, as the big endplate gets a bit spherical then.

In the coming weeks, I hope to check these results with a professional network analyzer (VNA).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 10/08/2017 07:28 pm
You may just add a bar (or two crossed bars) to the larger end, using them to support a screw with a spherical (or ball) tip which may then be used to apply a pressure to the (center of the) larger plate and deformate it, that should be easier to build/apply to the frustum
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 10/08/2017 07:32 pm
Frustum resonance measurements
...some resonances. Some of them I tabulate below, with estimated Q-values (determined from the -3 dB width):

3036.5 MHz    Q = ~14k
3037.7 MHz    Q = ~15k
3679.7 MHz    Q = ~16k


So, coming back to some earlier discussions, it seems that with copper walls that are not specially polished, one can still achieve good Q-values. The Q's I've measured now are in the range 10k-20k. Not the best one can reach, but I think the influence of the seam in the side wall and imperfectness of the coupling loop are more important. The inner walls of my cavities are from untouched (I handle them with gloves), commercially available sheets. Shining brightly, but not extra polished.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 10/08/2017 07:46 pm
Frustum resonance measurements

In my previous posting [https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1733603#msg1733603] I described the frustum and coupling loop.
During the measurements I discovered that using 0.5 mm copper sheet for the big diameter endplate was not such a good idea (though in doing so, I managed to keep the total weight below 1 kg). I first measured with the cavity in vertical position and discovered that it is very sensitive to putting some pressure on it, the endplate deforms easily and resonance peaks shift by the order of 1 MHz.
I then put the frustum in horizontal position (picture) and remeasured some resonances. Some of them I tabulate below, with estimated Q-values (determined from the -3 dB width):

3036.5 MHz    Q = ~14k
3037.7 MHz    Q = ~15k
3679.7 MHz    Q = ~16k

The TE013 mode should be at ~3600 MHz for these dimensions.

I found that one very pronounced peak around 3490 MHz was not visible now (see picture Frustum1_3490MHz peak_no pressure.jpg). But, by putting some pressure on the big endplate, it appears again (see Frustum1_3490MHz peak_WITH pressure.jpg). This mode seems to be very sensitive to the right dimensions:

3489.15 MHz   Q = ~10k   Who can identify these modes?

I think about soldering a nut in the center of the big endplate and with a bridge etc. I can then use it to tune. Maybe pulling is better, as the big endplate gets a bit spherical then.

In the coming weeks, I hope to check these results with a professional network analyzer (VNA).
Hi Peter,

here is a fast 2D spreadsheet result. Altrough it is less precise than a simulation this may help to identify some of the modes.

I am busy making sims for someone else, therefore my sim PC is not available yet.

INPUT:
SD=122mm; BD=202mm;   LN=165mm (Theta=13,6270°)
                     
DATA:
Mode            f in GHz
TE010   2,3071296094
TE011   2,4827188408
TE012   2,9442770717
TE013   3,5802976604
TE110   1,1086047692
TE111   1,437059387
TE112   2,1330277241
TE113   2,9461103615
TE210   1,8390081526
TE211   2,0547141204
TE212   2,5922559871
TE213   3,2955359988
TE310   2,5296056173
TE311   2,6907846997
TE312   3,1221661595
TE410   3,2017843398
TE411   3,3307029934
TE120   3,2101477373
TE121   3,3387444774
TM010   1,4479816863
TM011   1,713173527
TM012   2,3293690825
TM013   3,0919367053
TM110   2,3071356306
TM111   2,4827244383
TM112   2,5590355956
TM113   3,192965652
TM210   3,0922412936
TM211   3,2255268039
TM212   3,3466429397
TM020   2,0073982454
TM021   1,5188121105
TM022   2,7148953009
TE122   2,6643401366
TM122   3,1397732738
TM014   3,9167132186
TM123   3,7433479825
TE123   3,1695131874


Your frustum looks quite good :)

Best Regards

ADD:
At least one can exclude some modes far away in frequency.

Quote from: Peter Lauwer
... But, by putting some pressure on the big endplate, it appears again ...
The phenomenon you describe by pressing on the plate sounds like contact issues which implies a TM mode.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 10/08/2017 08:04 pm
Hi Peter,

here is a fast 2D spreadsheet result. Altrough it is less precise than a simulation this may help to identify some of the modes.
At least one can exclude some modes far away in frequency. The phenomenon you describe by pressing on the plate sounds like contact issues which implies an TM mode.

I am busy making sims for someone else, therefore my sim PC is not available yet.

INPUT:
SD=122mm; BD=202mm;   LN=165mm (Theta=13,6270°)
                     
DATA:
Mode            f in GHz
TE010   2,3071296094
TE011   2,4827188408
TE012   2,9442770717
TE013   3,5802976604
TE110   1,1086047692
...

Thanks! I will compare them to my measured values.
Peter
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: R.W. Keyes on 10/08/2017 08:16 pm
I've seen the use of dielectrics in various emdrive models. However, any dielectric material is going to have loss, which increases greatly with frequency. This loss would lower Q, undermining all of the other efforts which have been made to increase Q. Yes, the use of a dielectric will allow more freedom in the physical structure of the frustum, but at what cost? Is high Q necessary for high performance in an emdrive, or not? Perhaps I am looking at design from a different viewpoint than those who use dielectrics: some want to build a simple structure which proves an emdrive possible, and such experimenters have equipment to accurately measure very small amounts of force, whereas my priorities would be to gain as much emdrive effect as possible through precise and somewhat difficult construction, and be able to utilize far less sensitive equipment in the detection of force.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 10/08/2017 08:36 pm

Quote from: Peter Lauwer
... But, by putting some pressure on the big endplate, it appears again ...
The phenomenon you describe by pressing on the plate sounds like contact issues which implies a TM mode.

The plate seems to be soldered well. And that resonance has a good Q (10k).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 10/08/2017 08:49 pm

Quote from: Peter Lauwer
... But, by putting some pressure on the big endplate, it appears again ...
The phenomenon you describe by pressing on the plate sounds like contact issues which implies a TM mode.

The plate seems to be soldered well. And that resonance has a good Q (10k).

OK this was just a guess. If it is soldered the big plate should not be the reason (maybe its the small side where the contact is less what increases in this position when preasure is applied, whatever) the other possibility is there is a mode very sensitive to the impedance between antenna and cavity (again a TM mode to first order). Since you take measurements with a scalar network analyzer rather than a VNA it is hard to tell what happens exactly. I general higher order modes (higher integer) lead to greater change in frequency when alter the frustum dimension such as shorter the z dimension (pressing on the plate).

I will do some sims when i have time and resources.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Kenjee on 10/08/2017 09:12 pm
Thank you :) !

Would you mind trying different curves? e.g. top different from bottom or both the same but deeper... and the like ?

And with the bell shape please.
Thank you :) !

Would you mind trying different curves? e.g. top different from bottom or both the same but deeper... and the like ?

The Division Bell :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 10/08/2017 09:48 pm
Thank you :) !

Would you mind trying different curves? e.g. top different from bottom or both the same but deeper... and the like ?

And with the bell shape please.
Thank you :) !

Would you mind trying different curves? e.g. top different from bottom or both the same but deeper... and the like ?

The Division Bell :)
The hypothesis put forward by the paper in question  (which I don't support ... but for discussion's sake) proposes that the energy density location is critical for what they propose, not the electric field.

So, it would be more clarifying for modelers to show contour plots of the total energy density, rather than showing contour plots of the electric field.  (There are also magnetic fields involved)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 10/08/2017 10:52 pm
First S11 measurements on the new frustum cavity.

I performed some first measurements on a frustum-shaped cavity I recently made (picture), with the Windfreak Technology SynthNV signal source/scalar network analyzer + a directional coupler.
As coupling loop I have made one according to Zhang et al., 2013 [1], see the attached picture (it is not easy, soldering a small wire to a 1-mm thick copper sheet. I needed my 300 W soldering iron to do that and it is rather clumsy). The remaining plastic cover has been removed from the copper plate, of course.
The results are not bad, I would say. Please see the attached example, two adjacent peaks at ~3036 MHz and ~3073 MHz.
The frustum (inner) dimensions are: BD = 202.0(5) mm, SD = 122.0(5) mm, h = 165(1) mm. Copper plate thickness: Big endplate and side wall = 0.5 mm, small endplate = 1 mm.
Coupling loop parameters: 1-mm wire, r = 11.0(5) mm, w = 14.0(5) mm, theta = ~45° (see the artcle by Zhang et al.).
More later.
Peter

[1] H. Zhang et al., Research on Novel Loop Antenna in Microwave Cavity Measurement of Permittivity, Int. J. of Information and Electronics Eng., Vol. 3, No. 4, July 2013, pp. 396-398.

A cheap torch lighter should cleanup that solder blob nicely.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/08/2017 11:21 pm
First S11 measurements on the new frustum cavity.

I performed some first measurements on a frustum-shaped cavity I recently made (picture), with the Windfreak Technology SynthNV signal source/scalar network analyzer + a directional coupler.
As coupling loop I have made one according to Zhang et al., 2013 [1], see the attached picture (it is not easy, soldering a small wire to a 1-mm thick copper sheet. I needed my 300 W soldering iron to do that and it is rather clumsy). The remaining plastic cover has been removed from the copper plate, of course.
The results are not bad, I would say. Please see the attached example, two adjacent peaks at ~3036 MHz and ~3073 MHz.
The frustum (inner) dimensions are: BD = 202.0(5) mm, SD = 122.0(5) mm, h = 165(1) mm. Copper plate thickness: Big endplate and side wall = 0.5 mm, small endplate = 1 mm.
Coupling loop parameters: 1-mm wire, r = 11.0(5) mm, w = 14.0(5) mm, theta = ~45° (see the artcle by Zhang et al.).
More later.
Peter

[1] H. Zhang et al., Research on Novel Loop Antenna in Microwave Cavity Measurement of Permittivity, Int. J. of Information and Electronics Eng., Vol. 3, No. 4, July 2013, pp. 396-398.

A cheap torch lighter should cleanup that solder blob nicely.

Better still, drill holes through the end plate and solder them on the outer surface.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 10/08/2017 11:23 pm
Better still, drill holes through the end plate and solder them on the outer surface.

Uhh, yes, that is a lot better. Also fixes the location a lot better. Thanks!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/08/2017 11:28 pm
Frustum resonance measurements

In my previous posting [https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1733603#msg1733603] I described the frustum and coupling loop.
During the measurements I discovered that using 0.5 mm copper sheet for the big diameter endplate was not such a good idea (though in doing so, I managed to keep the total weight below 1 kg). I first measured with the cavity in vertical position and discovered that it is very sensitive to putting some pressure on it, the endplate deforms easily and resonance peaks shift by the order of 1 MHz.
I then put the frustum in horizontal position (picture) and remeasured some resonances. Some of them I tabulate below, with estimated Q-values (determined from the -3 dB width):

3036.5 MHz    Q = ~14k
3037.7 MHz    Q = ~15k
3679.7 MHz    Q = ~16k

The TE013 mode should be at ~3600 MHz for these dimensions.

I found that one very pronounced peak around 3490 MHz was not visible now (see picture Frustum1_3490MHz peak_no pressure.jpg). But, by putting some pressure on the big endplate, it appears again (see Frustum1_3490MHz peak_WITH pressure.jpg). This mode seems to be very sensitive to the right dimensions:

3489.15 MHz   Q = ~10k   Who can identify these modes?

I think about soldering a nut in the center of the big endplate and with a bridge etc. I can then use it to tune. Maybe pulling is better, as the big endplate gets a bit spherical then.

In the coming weeks, I hope to check these results with a professional network analyzer (VNA).

Hi Peter,

Those Qls look better. I get a max Qu of approx 45k, then derated by 25% to 34k and then assuming good coupler match, Ql = 17k.

BTW judging from the pictures, your side wall sheet is very shiny & smooth. Good sheet choice. BTW 1mm is the thinnest I would use for the flat end plates. Prefer 2mm.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sanman on 10/08/2017 11:46 pm
From http://www.krynaglobal.com/product/eprop.html :

(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1451560;image)

Hi - why is it important that reflection not occur? On the page you linked to, reflection results in delayed sound, and less pure musical notes. But in an EMdrive, reflection causes what? A less precise EM waveform?

Based on the Pilot Wave theory, is the goal to have as sharply defined an EM waveform as possible, biased in the direction of travel?

(Or as Dr Rodal said, "energy density". So what is an idealized energy density supposed to look like?)


That trumpet shape looks like an Euler spiral in 3D. Parts of the curve are used to control jerk. It would be interesting to see how this relates from another perspective about how these shapes effect group velocity, acceleration, and jerk. I've been trying figure out how these two shapes (current EMdrive vs this shape) effect the jerking motion of a partial standing wave. I was thinking that an infinite jerk might be better to have than a linear change. I'm still undecided.

http://dynref.engr.illinois.edu/avt.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler_spiral

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0143-0807/37/6/065008



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler_spiral#Integrated_optics

Quote
Integrated optics[edit]
Bends with continuously varying radius of curvature following the Euler spiral are also used to reduce losses in photonic integrated circuits, either in singlemode waveguides, to smoothen the abrupt change of curvature and coupling to radiation modes, or in multimode waveguides, in order to suppress coupling to higher order modes and ensure effective singlemode operation. A pioneering and very elegant application of the Euler spiral to waveguides had been made as early as 1957, with a hollow metal waveguide for microwaves. There the idea was to exploit the fact that a straight metal waveguide can be physically bent to naturally take a gradual bend shape resembling an Euler spiral.

So the curvature diffracts rather than reflects EM? And this diffraction... minimizes momentum transfer? So the idea is to maximize reflection at the big end, to maximize momentum transfer in the direction of travel - and meanwhile to minimize reflection and momentum transfer in the opposing direction.

Never knew that diffraction changes the nature of momentum transfer - didn't think that was possible.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 10/09/2017 01:36 am
sanman,
gravity and inertia are inextricably linked by the principle of equivalence and by their common dependence upon the depth of the gravitational field within which their mechanism acts. By this I mean that gravitational and inertial mass are phenomena whose weight varies with depth into the gravitational field.
Is that correct? When you say weight I assume you mean mass. Mass captured in a gravitational field does not gain additional mass merely as a result of the gravitational field itself, does it? Isn't more an increase in the density of the material, rather than gaining of additional mass?


Isn't the accretion of mass more due to acceleration at relativistic speeds, or boson interactions enabling energy conversion to mass?
Bob,
mass is conserved. Weight is dependent upon the local acceleration due to gravity, non?
Then your comments on "weight" were what you intended. Unfortunately they are a meaningless portion of your comment, not adding anything of import.


Back 47 years ago as a college freshman, my physics professor was adamant: "Don't talk about weight. It's meaningless except when you step on a scale. Physics is all about mass, not weight."
Bob,
with a known mass and that set of scales you can measure your local gravitational field. The point is that for both gravity and inertia, their F = ma reaction to an applied force varies with the strength of the local gravitational field from an external perspective. Your college prof. was free to limit his conceptual set but he would have advised you better to think on how the mechanism inertia occurs.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mark7777777 on 10/09/2017 02:56 am
From http://www.krynaglobal.com/product/eprop.html :

(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1451560;image)

Hi - why is it important that reflection not occur? On the page you linked to, reflection results in delayed sound, and less pure musical notes. But in an EMdrive, reflection causes what? A less precise EM waveform?

Based on the Pilot Wave theory, is the goal to have as sharply defined an EM waveform as possible, biased in the direction of travel?

(Or as Dr Rodal said, "energy density". So what is an idealized energy density supposed to look like?)


That trumpet shape looks like an Euler spiral in 3D. Parts of the curve are used to control jerk. It would be interesting to see how this relates from another perspective about how these shapes effect group velocity, acceleration, and jerk. I've been trying figure out how these two shapes (current EMdrive vs this shape) effect the jerking motion of a partial standing wave. I was thinking that an infinite jerk might be better to have than a linear change. I'm still undecided.

http://dynref.engr.illinois.edu/avt.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler_spiral

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0143-0807/37/6/065008



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler_spiral#Integrated_optics

Quote
Integrated optics[edit]
Bends with continuously varying radius of curvature following the Euler spiral are also used to reduce losses in photonic integrated circuits, either in singlemode waveguides, to smoothen the abrupt change of curvature and coupling to radiation modes, or in multimode waveguides, in order to suppress coupling to higher order modes and ensure effective singlemode operation. A pioneering and very elegant application of the Euler spiral to waveguides had been made as early as 1957, with a hollow metal waveguide for microwaves. There the idea was to exploit the fact that a straight metal waveguide can be physically bent to naturally take a gradual bend shape resembling an Euler spiral.

So the curvature diffracts rather than reflects EM? And this diffraction... minimizes momentum transfer? So the idea is to maximize reflection at the big end, to maximize momentum transfer in the direction of travel - and meanwhile to minimize reflection and momentum transfer in the opposing direction.

Never knew that diffraction changes the nature of momentum transfer - didn't think that was possible.

Hi - apologies but you might need a physicist to answer that question. I am an accountant who knows how to cut and paste :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sanman on 10/09/2017 06:08 am
Hi - apologies but you might need a physicist to answer that question. I am an accountant who knows how to cut and paste :)

That's okay, I'm just a programmer who only knows how to wonder aloud  :P

Since this Euler curve does diffraction instead of reflection, I'm just wondering why diffraction is better than reflection in this context.
The Wikipedia article says that it avoids "coupling with higher modes" - is this akin to reducing turbulence and promoting uniform laminar flow?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 10/09/2017 07:02 am
Thank you :) !

Would you mind trying different curves? e.g. top different from bottom or both the same but deeper... and the like ?

And with the bell shape please.
Thank you :) !

Would you mind trying different curves? e.g. top different from bottom or both the same but deeper... and the like ?

The Division Bell :)

Thank you again, just a last request (if and when you'll have time), referring to this

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1451657;image

could you try keeping the bottom (large plate) curve as is and changing the small plate one (e.g. start flat and increase the curvature in some steps) ?

[edit]

As for the sides shape, check out this http://vixra.org/pdf/1706.0283v1.pdf (fig. 3.2, page 11)

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sanman on 10/09/2017 08:34 am
Sorry to be asking dumb questions again - but how are these plots indicative of any propulsive capability?

When I see the shaded zones inside the frustrum area, they seem to show concentrations of electric field strength - the reddish areas seem to be stronger than the bluish-greenish areas - but why is electric field strength indicative of propulsive capability?

And why do these resonant cavities have to be pumped with microwaves in particular? What's so special about microwaves? Why not UV-light instead, for example? Is it because the wavelength of microwaves makes them more convenient to work with?

Does the actual size of the frustrum matter, or just its ratios?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 10/09/2017 09:58 am
...
3036.5 MHz    Q = ~14k
3037.7 MHz    Q = ~15k
3679.7 MHz    Q = ~16k


Hi Peter,

Those Qls look better. I get a max Qu of approx 45k, then derated by 25% to 34k and then assuming good coupler match, Ql = 17k.

BTW judging from the pictures, your side wall sheet is very shiny & smooth. Good sheet choice. BTW 1mm is the thinnest I would use for the flat end plates. Prefer 2mm.

Hi Phil,
Indeed, the 0.5 mm endplate easily deforms. I will probably use 1 mm for the endplates of the next cavities. For the sidewall 0.5 is OK.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RonM on 10/09/2017 01:18 pm
Sorry to be asking dumb questions again - but how are these plots indicative of any propulsive capability?

When I see the shaded zones inside the frustrum area, they seem to show concentrations of electric field strength - the reddish areas seem to be stronger than the bluish-greenish areas - but why is electric field strength indicative of propulsive capability?

Not a dumb question. If the EM drive produces thrust, it's a reasonable assumption it has a correlation to field strength. Without an accepted working theory, individuals are checking many possibilities.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 10/09/2017 01:44 pm
...
BTW judging from the pictures, your side wall sheet is very shiny & smooth. Good sheet choice.

If I have to make thermograms in order to be sure what mode is excited, I have to paint the outside of the cavity.  :(  Bt it is probably also possible to use watercolour paint, so I can wash it off later.   :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tleach on 10/09/2017 01:47 pm
From the article:

Quote
If a pilot wave does explain the thrust behind the device, then it could also lead to a way to make the propulsion system even more powerful in future, and it's as simple as tweaking the shape.

"We have seen that the effect could be enhanced using a different shape for the frustum," said Castro. "In fact a trumpet exponential form is expected to increase the thrust."

What the heck is a trumpet exponential form? What does it look like?
Would it be where the frustum walls curve inward, like near the mouth of a trumpet?

(http://www.amromusic.com/assets/1942/6_trumpet-bell.jpg)

Technically, the mouth of a trumpet is called the "bell" - an ironically appropriate name - and one with a better ring to it than "frustum".
Heh - so even a propellantless rocket still needs a bell, huh? Especially when it uses non-local hidden variables to satisfy Bell's theorem?  ;)

Hey Monomorphic, TheTraveler, or whoever - is it possible to run this shape through your analytical software and produce a graphical render from it?

Ha! Looks like my never completed "Riker Drive" may not have been as daft an idea as I thought!

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38577.msg1438638#msg1438638
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: kamill85 on 10/09/2017 02:19 pm
On the subject of bells, "The Nazi-Bell" (https://www.google.com/search?q=The+Nazi-Bell) anyone? ;D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 10/09/2017 03:19 pm
Anybody have some hypotheses regarding hybrid modes or any new research regarding different waveforms to share? TM modes degenerating asymptotically into a TE mode might be worthwhile to investigate. It would be possible to achieve this either through modulating the input or using meta-materials with scattering. https://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/v12/n7/full/nnano.2017.50.html

Both could be at adjacent nearby resonant frequencies meaning the entire bandwidth between the two could be pumped in since we now know that intermediary waveforms will be attenuated or stored at the boundaries. Testing the transition and oscillation between poloidal E and toroidal E orientations would be interesting. It could be the interaction between modes which causes the effect after all... I was reading this paper randomly https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0307035.pdf when it struck me that perhaps we are oversimplifying by treating the wall as a uniform transmission medium, when it could be that it quasi-ionizes and forms discrete layers. If so there could be more mode mixing and further misalignment of toroidal vs poloidal E fields. Not only that, but it could even be possible that this charge separated layered ionization requires a threshold energy only reached in a certain part of the cavity, therefore creating a gradient with variable reflection coefficient along the wall! It could even be ionized by oxidation! 
 
------------------------------
Here's some quick answers Sanman:


Sorry to be asking dumb questions again - but how are these plots indicative of any propulsive capability?

Rhetorical hopefully?

Quote
When I see the shaded zones inside the frustrum area, they seem to show concentrations of electric field strength - the reddish areas seem to be stronger than the bluish-greenish areas - but why is electric field strength indicative of propulsive capability?


It's related to Q and is critical for surpassing threshold levels in gravitational gradient/time lag based theories. The B component has been neglected slightly during the research, mainly because (opinion) TM has been less promising than TE. A popular explanation for this has to do with the direction in which you would want electron and ion pressure to equalize (small to big end), though there is an unresolved question as to whether TM is truly worse than TE. If new TM results equal those of TE then we know that the interaction of the B component with the endplates is the same as that of the E component. 

Quote
And why do these resonant cavities have to be pumped with microwaves in particular? What's so special about microwaves? Why not UV-light instead, for example? Is it because the wavelength of microwaves makes them more convenient to work with?

Microwaves have multiple unique and useful resonant freqs which are located nearby on the bandwidth. Microwave cavities are a useful size and magnetrons are common. Also, they have tolerable wall skin depths allowing for feasible DIY builds.

Quote
Does the actual size of the frustrum matter, or just its ratios?

Put roughly: everything is dependent on ratios of 1/2 waves. Of course the size matters.

FYI: here are two cutoff related papers surrounding the EM Drive and two educational sources regarding more general questions about resonating waveguides. 

http://whites.sdsmt.edu/classes/ee481/notes/481Lecture10.pdf

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 10/09/2017 04:56 pm
Thank you :) !

Would you mind trying different curves? e.g. top different from bottom or both the same but deeper... and the like ?

And with the bell shape please.
Thank you :) !

Would you mind trying different curves? e.g. top different from bottom or both the same but deeper... and the like ?

The Division Bell :)
The hypothesis put forward by the paper in question  (which I don't support ... but for discussion's sake) proposes that the energy density location is critical for what they propose, not the electric field.

So, it would be more clarifying for modelers to show contour plots of the total energy density, rather than showing contour plots of the electric field.  (There are also magnetic fields involved)

Also, short comments as to the significance of the plots would be most helpful. Thanks.  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 10/09/2017 06:22 pm
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1451560;image)



This is just bogus. :o  Of course reflection take place, either at the endplate, or if the throat is much smaller than the cutoff condition of a cylindrical waveguide --> at the sidewall!   

Once again in the case of the EM-Drive we are talking about wavelengths of the order of the cavity structure itself.

The calculation example below clearly indicates standing waves. If there would be no reflection how can it be that a standing wave occurs?


Note the pdf file with an extended analysis done by Dr.Rodal in 2015.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 10/09/2017 07:57 pm
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1451560;image)



This is just bogus. :o  Of course reflection take place, either at the endplate, or if the throat is much smaller than the cutoff condition of a cylindrical waveguide --> at the sidewall!   

Once again in the case of the EM-Drive we are talking about wavelengths of the order of the cavity structure itself.

The calculation example below clearly indicates standing waves. If there would be no reflection how can it be that a standing wave occurs?


Note the pdf file with an extended analysis done by Dr.Rodal in 2015.

There's clearly reflections. That doesn't mean that the reflections are equal from both ends.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/09/2017 08:56 pm
...
BTW judging from the pictures, your side wall sheet is very shiny & smooth. Good sheet choice.

If I have to make thermograms in order to be sure what mode is excited, I have to paint the outside of the cavity.  :(  Bt it is probably also possible to use watercolour paint, so I can wash it off later.   :)

Peter,

For your target TE013 mode, you should be able to thermally "see" the 3 eddy current rings that form around the side walls, plus the single eddy current ring that forms on the end plates.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/09/2017 09:03 pm
Thank you :) !

Would you mind trying different curves? e.g. top different from bottom or both the same but deeper... and the like ?

And with the bell shape please.
Thank you :) !

Would you mind trying different curves? e.g. top different from bottom or both the same but deeper... and the like ?

The Division Bell :)

Hi Kenjee,

The heavy eddy current ring at the small end says the bell is operating beyond cutoff (small end diameter is too small) and very few photons are making it to the small end plate.

Experience says that condition is not a good design for an EmDrive.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 10/09/2017 09:19 pm
TT, where do you see an eddy current ring in that picture?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 10/09/2017 09:21 pm
Thank you :) !

Would you mind trying different curves? e.g. top different from bottom or both the same but deeper... and the like ?

And with the bell shape please.
Thank you :) !

Would you mind trying different curves? e.g. top different from bottom or both the same but deeper... and the like ?

The Division Bell :)

Hi Kenjee,

The heavy eddy current ring at the small end says the bell is operating beyond cutoff (small end diameter is too small) and very few photons are making it to the small end plate.

Experience says that condition is not a good design for an EmDrive.

That was just an "experiment"; to say it all, I wonder what may happen by using a half ellipse for the "bell" while keeping a parabolic (curve oriented inside as for the bell design) shape for the end plate and placing the emitter at the ellipse focus; I think that such a design may be "interesting" as well, especially if considering the current "pilot wave" theory and the totally different shape suggested :D

 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 10/09/2017 09:26 pm
...
BTW judging from the pictures, your side wall sheet is very shiny & smooth. Good sheet choice.

If I have to make thermograms in order to be sure what mode is excited, I have to paint the outside of the cavity.  :(  Bt it is probably also possible to use watercolour paint, so I can wash it off later.   :)

Peter,

For your target TE013 mode, you should be able to thermally "see" the 3 eddy current rings that form around the side walls, plus the single eddy current ring that forms on the end plates.

I wonder if thermochromatic pigment paint would work?
https://www.amazon.com/GloMania-THRM-10G-BLU-BLUE-Thermochromic-Pigment/dp/B00SZ7X99Y
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 10/09/2017 09:43 pm
I ran S11 with the same signal generator/vna Peter has. Similar results for Delta, but since he is 1GHz higher, Q is higher using the -3dB method. Interesting thing is Q was ~9% lower with the spherical end-plates (~6,200) vs flat end-plates (~6,800). Whether that is a product of the foil remains to be seen. Return loss was also significantly better using the flat end-plates. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/09/2017 10:35 pm
I ran S11 with the same signal generator/vna Peter has. Similar results for Delta, but since he is 1GHz higher, Q is higher using the -3dB method. Interesting thing is Q was ~9% lower with the spherical end-plates (~6,200) vs flat end-plates (~6,800). Whether that is a product of the foil remains to be seen. Return loss was also significantly better using the flat end-plates.

Jamie,

For the same mode and cavity geometry, ie same Bd/Sd, Q decreases as freq increases.

Roger's suggestion to use spherical end plates was based on a conventional cavity build. Your foil introduces a new element which should cause the side wall eddy current ring to be broken into smaller isolated sections, even though the foil has a conductive adhesive. Remember that at 2.45 GHz, the eddy currents only penetrate 5x the skin depth or around 6 um into the foil and thus never reach the other surface of the foil nor reach the conductive adhesive.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/09/2017 10:42 pm
TT, where do you see an eddy current ring in that picture?

Hi Mulletron,

There are single eddy current rings on each end plate and 2 around the side walls.

Easier to see in the attached, where there are 3 eddy current rings around the side walls and 1 on each of the end plates.

BTW the 1st cavity image is also working beyond cutoff as the side wall eddy current ring nearest the small is much stronger than the eddy current ring on the small end plate. In a cavity that is not working beyond cutoff, the highest current density eddy current ring is on the small end plate.

The wavy rings are caused by the input coupler not being correctly positioned or the freq being a little off resonance.

This also shows how I use a side wall mounted loop, actually a 1/2 loop, in the highest H field density of the central lobe, to excite by cavities.  Needs to be position adjusted along the side wall and then rotated for best coupler match, so not the easiest of couplers to build and get working.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 10/09/2017 10:51 pm
New article on the EMDrive about modelling using pilot-wave theory and it claims the results are compatible with thrust generation:

https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-have-a-weird-new-idea-about-how-the-impossible-em-drive-could-produce-thrust (https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-have-a-weird-new-idea-about-how-the-impossible-em-drive-could-produce-thrust)

The paper referenced in the article is behind a paywall.

Has anyone just clicked on the paywall link? I tried. Maybe there is a bug in their system, maybe the paper is free: in any event it downloaded straightforward.

This is an absurdly benign traversable paywall.

http://www.ikpress.org/abstract/6485
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 10/09/2017 10:54 pm
I ran S11 with the same signal generator/vna Peter has. Similar results for Delta, but since he is 1GHz higher, Q is higher using the -3dB method. Interesting thing is Q was ~9% lower with the spherical end-plates (~6,200) vs flat end-plates (~6,800). Whether that is a product of the foil remains to be seen. Return loss was also significantly better using the flat end-plates.

And you are in a perfect position to compare the two, flat vs spherical. It will be interesting no matter the results.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/09/2017 11:07 pm
I`m going back in shadow and play with simulation of shapes and rainbow elastic balls. If someone find it interesting. Cool :)


Hi Kenjee,

You need to spend more time with your simulators to further understand how the small end of an asymmetric resonant cavity changes as the small end alters diameter above and below.

The TE012 image (2x side wall eddy current rings) you shared showed the small end was in cutoff. I suggest if you increased the freq to obtain TE013 resonance (3x side wall eddy current rings) you would see the highest eddy current density has shifted from the small end eddy current ring to the small end plate, meaning the small end is no longer operating beyond cutoff.

Basically what you will observe is when the small end plate is well above cutoff, the highest current density eddy current ring is formed on the small end plate. As the diameter of the small end plate decreases beyond a certain diameter, the eddy current density on the small end plate decreases to be less than the eddy current density on the side wall eddy current ring at the small end. When that happens, the small end plate is said to be operating beyond cutoff. This cutoff is not a black and white line but the small end plate eddy current does drop off very quickly as it's diameter is reduced.

Cutoff is a microwave waveguide effect where the waveguide diameter is smaller than required for efficient propagation of microwave energy. There are equations to define the cutoff diameter which involve the excited mode, freq and waveguide geometry.

Microwave engineers hate propagation loss and are not happy if there is more than a small fraction of a dB loss, so they use waveguides that are much larger than cutoff.

BTW the eddy currents are induced by the time varying H fields of the photons and the eddy current heating energy is sourced or taken from the photon's energy, which causes them to decrease their energy and increase their wavelength, until finally almost all their energy is thermalised and they have very long wavelengths. Of course the thermalised microwave photon energy heats the cavity and is radiated away by much higher frequency IR photons.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 10/09/2017 11:44 pm
TT, where do you see an eddy current ring in that picture?

Hi Mulletron,

There are single eddy current rings on each end plate and 2 around the side walls.

Easier to see in the attached, where there are 3 eddy current rings around the side walls and 1 on each of the end plates.

BTW the 1st cavity image is also working beyond cutoff as the side wall eddy current ring nearest the small is much stronger than the eddy current ring on the small end plate. In a cavity that is not working beyond cutoff, the highest current density eddy current ring is on the small end plate.

The wavy rings are caused by the input coupler not being correctly positioned or the freq being a little off resonance.

This also shows how I use a side wall mounted loop, actually a 1/2 loop, in the highest H field density of the central lobe, to excite by cavities.  Needs to be position adjusted along the side wall and then rotated for best coupler match, so not the easiest of couplers to build and get working.

This makes sense to me if I treat the eddy current losses as a type of friction doing negative work on the system, like an external force, so it's natural to want the force to be cosine(180 degrees) -1 instead of cosine (90 degrees) 0.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/10/2017 05:29 am
Not sure this makes sense, but trying to come up with something that would allow us to effectively drain the frequency from photons in the cavity.  There is a lot of momentum in light but normally very little of that momentum is ever transferred in a single reflection (heat death of the universe - most of the energy gets trapped in light) and in a cavity, normally all that momentum is regained by the photons on the next reflection from the opposite wall.

Dustin,

Consider that for say a Qu of 62,800, it will take 10,000 cycles of the exciting Rf to charge or discharge the cavity as Qu = 2 * Pi * (stored energy / energy loss to wall currents per cycle).

Resonance is not needed to generate force but it is needed to fill a cavity as without resonance the cavity coupler looks to the Rf amp to be a short circuit and will reject any Rf sent to the coupler.

However once the photons are injected into the cavity by the coupler, resonance is not involved in force generation. Which says if you pulse the cavity, the trapped photons existing post the pulse will continually increase their wavelength as they lose energy to eddy currents, the coupler and conversion into work to accelerate mass. All of which continually drain photon energy and increase the wavelength.

At some lower freq, the 5x skin depth is greater than wall and end plate thickness and photons start penetrating the cavity enclosure and escaping.

Fairly simple to calc the photon freq which will generate 5x skin depth = min side wall or end plate thickness. As photon freq continues to drop below that value, increasing numbers of long wavelength photons will penetrate the cavity and escape.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 10/10/2017 08:45 am
...
Your foil introduces a new element which should cause the side wall eddy current ring to be broken into smaller isolated sections, even though the foil has a conductive adhesive. Remember that at 2.45 GHz, the eddy currents only penetrate 5x the skin depth or around 6 um into the foil and thus never reach the other surface of the foil nor reach the conductive adhesive.

We're talking GHz's. It is not DC current. Isn't there some capacitive coupling etc.?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Eusa on 10/10/2017 09:49 am
I ran S11 with the same signal generator/vna Peter has. Similar results for Delta, but since he is 1GHz higher, Q is higher using the -3dB method. Interesting thing is Q was ~9% lower with the spherical end-plates (~6,200) vs flat end-plates (~6,800). Whether that is a product of the foil remains to be seen. Return loss was also significantly better using the flat end-plates.
Decoherence delay may be longer with spherical ends I guess. Meaning more optical energy content...?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sanman on 10/10/2017 10:23 am
Thank you for indulging me with your replies, gentlemen  :)

Not a dumb question. If the EM drive produces thrust, it's a reasonable assumption it has a correlation to field strength. Without an accepted working theory, individuals are checking many possibilities.

Is there an ideal, regarding what a plot should look like? Would that ideal be the interior of the cavity being filled with as many "red donuts" (strong toroidal electric fields) as possible? I keep imagining that the centerline that passes through all the donuts is the thrust centerline generated by these toroidal E-fields. So I keep visualizing these toroidal E-fields as "smoke-ring vortices" of Quantum Foam, which are then moving virtual particles along that centerline to produce thrust. Therefore the more "smoke-ring vortices" (toroidal E-fields) you have, and the stronger (more reddish) they are, then the better the propulsive effect. Am I way off?

In a way, that picture is consistent with the Pilot Wave theory, which holds that the virtual particles have a persistent trajectory, even if the virtual particles themselves are only transiently visible to us as quantum fluctuations.


Here's some quick answers Sanman:

Quote
When I see the shaded zones inside the frustrum area, they seem to show concentrations of electric field strength - the reddish areas seem to be stronger than the bluish-greenish areas - but why is electric field strength indicative of propulsive capability?


It's related to Q and is critical for surpassing threshold levels in gravitational gradient/time lag based theories. The B component has been neglected slightly during the research, mainly because (opinion) TM has been less promising than TE. A popular explanation for this has to do with the direction in which you would want electron and ion pressure to equalize (small to big end), though there is an unresolved question as to whether TM is truly worse than TE. If new TM results equal those of TE then we know that the interaction of the B component with the endplates is the same as that of the E component.

 
So at this point it's not confirmed that optimizing for full Lorentz effect (E+B) is better than optimizing for just E alone? I've seen various COMSOL plots of E-field posted at times, but has anyone produced any  of the B-field? (just curious as to what they look like, and how they compare)



Quote
Quote
And why do these resonant cavities have to be pumped with microwaves in particular? What's so special about microwaves? Why not UV-light instead, for example? Is it because the wavelength of microwaves makes them more convenient to work with?

Microwaves have multiple unique and useful resonant freqs which are located nearby on the bandwidth. Microwave cavities are a useful size and magnetrons are common. Also, they have tolerable wall skin depths allowing for feasible DIY builds.

But other than the convenience for human hands, there's no natural benefit from using one frequency of EM over another? (Well, I'd assume that higher frequencies are harder to reflect inside the cavity, while lower frequencies are more easily reflected without losses.)
Jim once told me that a single larger rocket engine with a larger thrust chamber is better than many small ones.  Likewise, we know that larger tokamaks operate more efficiently than smaller ones, because of cube-square.
I'm wondering if a larger frustrum/cavity would operate more efficiently than a smaller one, producing a better signal-to-noise ratio. On the other hand, I'd imagine that building an accurate measurement device becomes more difficult if your EMdrive gets too large.

Quote
Quote
Does the actual size of the frustrum matter, or just its ratios?

Put roughly: everything is dependent on ratios of 1/2 waves. Of course the size matters.

FYI: here are two cutoff related papers surrounding the EM Drive and two educational sources regarding more general questions about resonating waveguides. 

http://whites.sdsmt.edu/classes/ee481/notes/481Lecture10.pdf

Thank you for that! I recognize that the cavity dimensions have to correspond to the frequency of EM being used, but I was just mainly wondering if the EMdrive performance changes with size scaling.
(ie. would a bigger 10m-wide EMdrive be better than a 10cm-wide one?)


I'm reminded of the challenges of Very Long Baseline Interferometry, whereby telescopes positioned at very large distances from each other can more precisely image distant objects, with the caveat that these telescopes have to be aligned at wavelength-precision.
Likewise, I was imagining that a very large EMdrive could operate more efficiently than a smaller one, with the caveat that its dimensions would have to be at a precision equal to the resonant EM wavelength (or half-wavelength).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 10/10/2017 11:58 am
INPUT:
SD=122mm; BD=202mm;   LN=165mm (Theta=13,6270°)

Hi X_RaY,
I was not exact in giving the frustum dimensions. After carefully remeasuring:
SD=122.5(5) mm
BD=202.5(7) mm (it is a little oval)
LN=167.5(5) mm

Cheers,
Peter
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 10/10/2017 03:05 pm
I ran S11 with the same signal generator/vna Peter has. Similar results for Delta, but since he is 1GHz higher, Q is higher using the -3dB method. Interesting thing is Q was ~9% lower with the spherical end-plates (~6,200) vs flat end-plates (~6,800). Whether that is a product of the foil remains to be seen. Return loss was also significantly better using the flat end-plates.

Jamie,

For the same mode and cavity geometry, ie same Bd/Sd, Q decreases as freq increases.

Roger's suggestion to use spherical end plates was based on a conventional cavity build. Your foil introduces a new element which should cause the side wall eddy current ring to be broken into smaller isolated sections, even though the foil has a conductive adhesive. Remember that at 2.45 GHz, the eddy currents only penetrate 5x the skin depth or around 6 um into the foil and thus never reach the other surface of the foil nor reach the conductive adhesive.

TT,

The following, "Roger's suggestion to use spherical end plates was based on a conventional cavity build.", doesn't say Roger ever actually built a frustum with spherical end plates. I know there have been drawings, but no actual pictures claiming spherical end plates, that I remember. Does that suggestion come from actual experience or what he expects based on his theory of operation?

BTW It might cut down on some of the criticism if you mention in your posts whether your comments are calculated, based on design theory, or some practical experimental experience. Folks here have no issue discussing theory and what ifs, just problems with what appears to be theory presented as fact... And an extension of design theory to critical "suggestions".

To this, "Your foil introduces a new element which should cause the side wall eddy current ring to be broken into smaller isolated sections, even though the foil has a conductive adhesive."... The skin depth on Jamie's foil tape would not be broken by any over lapping edges, as long as the adhesive is also conductive, the skin depth would just run over the tape edge and through the adhesive, maybe acting like an imperfection in the dimensions, rather than a break in conductivity. The eddy currents don't have to penetrate the tape to reach the adhesive. They would just "flow" over the edge of the tape across the small adhesive gap and into the next section of tape. A tape overlap would not even act like a scratch as far as how the microwaves interact with the foil and the eddy currents would follow any contour. If the current were high enough there might be arching across the adhesive gap between two sections of tape, but so far Jamie is working with only 30 watts?

The foil may not be as effective as a plated surface, but your argument above would seem to require a non conductive adhesive to be of critical effect.

I could be mistaken but I believe Jamie has mentioned in the past that plating the component parts of his frustum would be possible if needed. And the fact that he is printing them (the frustum sections) makes design adjustments far easier than working with other materials, even if there might be some issues with heat at higher power levels.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Kenjee on 10/10/2017 03:15 pm
Someone asked for magnetic plots and for Dr. Rodal energy density.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Kenjee on 10/10/2017 03:19 pm
Same for Bell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 10/10/2017 07:20 pm
Let's leave the job of identifying personal attacks to the moderators. 

Instead, let's thank the person (Kenjee) who has made the most recent creative contributions to the forum, by posting independent calculations, generously done in his own time, of the electric fields, magnetic fields and energy density:

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1452910;image)

Let's post positive technical contributions, whether theoretical or experimental.  This is what people come to the forum for  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.LeBel on 10/10/2017 07:26 pm
Thank you for indulging me with your replies, gentlemen  :)

Not a dumb question. If the EM drive produces thrust, it's a reasonable assumption it has a correlation to field strength. Without an accepted working theory, individuals are checking many possibilities.

Is there an ideal, regarding what a plot should look like? Would that ideal be the interior of the cavity being filled with as many "red donuts" (strong toroidal electric fields) as possible? I keep imagining that the centerline that passes through all the donuts is the thrust centerline generated by these toroidal E-fields. So I keep visualizing these toroidal E-fields as "smoke-ring vortices" of Quantum Foam, which are then moving virtual particles along that centerline to produce thrust. Therefore the more "smoke-ring vortices" (toroidal E-fields) you have, and the stronger (more reddish) they are, then the better the propulsive effect. Am I way off?

In a way, that picture is consistent with the Pilot Wave theory, which holds that the virtual particles have a persistent trajectory, even if the virtual particles themselves are only transiently visible to us as quantum fluctuations.


Here's some quick answers Sanman:

Quote
When I see the shaded zones inside the frustrum area, they seem to show concentrations of electric field strength - the reddish areas seem to be stronger than the bluish-greenish areas - but why is electric field strength indicative of propulsive capability?


It's related to Q and is critical for surpassing threshold levels in gravitational gradient/time lag based theories. The B component has been neglected slightly during the research, mainly because (opinion) TM has been less promising than TE. A popular explanation for this has to do with the direction in which you would want electron and ion pressure to equalize (small to big end), though there is an unresolved question as to whether TM is truly worse than TE. If new TM results equal those of TE then we know that the interaction of the B component with the endplates is the same as that of the E component.

 
So at this point it's not confirmed that optimizing for full Lorentz effect (E+B) is better than optimizing for just E alone? I've seen various COMSOL plots of E-field posted at times, but has anyone produced any  of the B-field? (just curious as to what they look like, and how they compare)



Quote
Quote
And why do these resonant cavities have to be pumped with microwaves in particular? What's so special about microwaves? Why not UV-light instead, for example? Is it because the wavelength of microwaves makes them more convenient to work with?

Microwaves have multiple unique and useful resonant freqs which are located nearby on the bandwidth. Microwave cavities are a useful size and magnetrons are common. Also, they have tolerable wall skin depths allowing for feasible DIY builds.

But other than the convenience for human hands, there's no natural benefit from using one frequency of EM over another? (Well, I'd assume that higher frequencies are harder to reflect inside the cavity, while lower frequencies are more easily reflected without losses.)
Jim once told me that a single larger rocket engine with a larger thrust chamber is better than many small ones.  Likewise, we know that larger tokamaks operate more efficiently than smaller ones, because of cube-square.
I'm wondering if a larger frustrum/cavity would operate more efficiently than a smaller one, producing a better signal-to-noise ratio. On the other hand, I'd imagine that building an accurate measurement device becomes more difficult if your EMdrive gets too large.

Quote
Quote
Does the actual size of the frustrum matter, or just its ratios?

Put roughly: everything is dependent on ratios of 1/2 waves. Of course the size matters.

FYI: here are two cutoff related papers surrounding the EM Drive and two educational sources regarding more general questions about resonating waveguides. 

http://whites.sdsmt.edu/classes/ee481/notes/481Lecture10.pdf

Thank you for that! I recognize that the cavity dimensions have to correspond to the frequency of EM being used, but I was just mainly wondering if the EMdrive performance changes with size scaling.
(ie. would a bigger 10m-wide EMdrive be better than a 10cm-wide one?)


I'm reminded of the challenges of Very Long Baseline Interferometry, whereby telescopes positioned at very large distances from each other can more precisely image distant objects, with the caveat that these telescopes have to be aligned at wavelength-precision.
Likewise, I was imagining that a very large EMdrive could operate more efficiently than a smaller one, with the caveat that its dimensions would have to be at a precision equal to the resonant EM wavelength (or half-wavelength).

IMO – We should not have any standing waves regime; they are self cancellations. We need to develop a stable E field within a variable B field. This way, we should be able to squeeze out a resultant time rate gradient which can escape/envelop the device. In turn, the time rate gradient would impart a stochastic differential to all particles (Croca) of the device and motion. 

Here is the “squeezing” rational.  A variation of B in dt induces a specific E.  If we produce a variation B in a higher E than the specific one, we are then forcing or squeezing the dt into matching the B and E we control. A proper dt gradient would effectively produce a time vector for motion.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: D_Dom on 10/10/2017 08:13 pm

... thank the person (Kenjee) who has made the most recent creative contributions to the forum, by posting independent calculations, generously done in his own time, of the electric fields, magnetic fields and energy density:

Let's post positive technical contributions, whether theoretical or experimental.  This is what people come to the forum for  :)

Thanks for all your hard work.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 10/10/2017 08:51 pm
Spupeng7 (John) and myself have entertained a little side-project this past month, despite our business. Here are the first fruits of that endeavour for the professional and academically oriented among us. Enjoy 10 EM Drive threads worth of attachments, scraped by web macro and presented as raw download links and link text (use ctrl+f for now until we create clean lists with more metadata). The next phase involves downloading, collating and sorting through ALL linked papers and files. This is the first step towards the idealized endgoal of an automated library of all EM Drive related research and literature from the perspective of this illuminating forum. Thank you all for your sincere contributions and prolonged hard work. Please contact John or myself for feedback or requests, and we will work towards providing easily accessible standardized knowledge for all.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: gargoyle99 on 10/10/2017 09:13 pm
Quote from: TheTraveller
...the eddy current heating energy is sourced or taken from the photon's energy, which causes them to decrease their energy and increase their wavelength, until finally almost all their energy is thermalised and they have very long wavelengths.

...the trapped photons existing post the pulse will continually increase their wavelength as they lose energy to eddy currents, the coupler and conversion into work to accelerate mass. All of which continually drain photon energy and increase the wavelength.

I've seen this incorrect description show up a number of times on this forum. Both of these statements are false: that's just not how photons in quantum mechanics work. Eddy heating does not change the frequency of the microwave. Instead, it reduces the stored energy by reducing the number of microwave photons. This is true for all photon wavelengths. For example, a blue laser, when reflected thousands of times between mirrors does not change into a red laser; instead it just becomes a less strong blue laser (fewer photons). Microwave guides and cavity resonators work the same. The frequency does NOT change, but the field strengths decline (i.e. fewer photons), as the signal loses strength.

Photon frequency can change during reflections, such as when energy is added to or removed from the photon due to either the Doppler effect (such as in laser thermal broadening) or interaction with other quantum states in the reflective medium (look up Raman scattering), but those scenarios are not applicable to eddy current heating due to microwaves. Microwave frequency does NOT get lower along a microwave guide or in a resonator. The signal just loses strength.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/11/2017 12:56 am
Quote from: TheTraveller
...the eddy current heating energy is sourced or taken from the photon's energy, which causes them to decrease their energy and increase their wavelength, until finally almost all their energy is thermalised and they have very long wavelengths.

...the trapped photons existing post the pulse will continually increase their wavelength as they lose energy to eddy currents, the coupler and conversion into work to accelerate mass. All of which continually drain photon energy and increase the wavelength.

I've seen this incorrect description show up a number of times on this forum. Both of these statements are false: that's just not how photons in quantum mechanics work. Eddy heating does not change the frequency of the microwave. Instead, it reduces the stored energy by reducing the number of microwave photons. This is true for all photon wavelengths. For example, a blue laser, when reflected thousands of times between mirrors does not change into a red laser; instead it just becomes a less strong blue laser (fewer photons). Microwave guides and cavity resonators work the same. The frequency does NOT change, but the field strengths decline (i.e. fewer photons), as the signal loses strength.

Photon frequency can change during reflections, such as when energy is added to or removed from the photon due to either the Doppler effect (such as in laser thermal broadening) or interaction with other quantum states in the reflective medium (look up Raman scattering), but those scenarios are not applicable to eddy current heating due to microwaves. Microwave frequency does NOT get lower along a microwave guide or in a resonator. The signal just loses strength.

Gargoyle,

How are the number of photons reduced in a resonant cavity once the Rf input stops? What absorbes the photon and then does not emit it? Much be a really massive inelastic collision?

What causes the eddy currents if not the photon's time varying H field, which generates current flow in the cavity walls & end plates, and from that induced current flown an opposing H field to limit photon H field penetration, ie skin depth?

Where does the energy dissipated by the eddy currents come from if not from the photon's energy?

Is not radiation pressure generated by the Raman effect from orbital electrons impacted by photons that are 1st absorbed and then emitted by the electron with less energy, momentum and longer wavelength than inbound?

BTW photons are never reflected. They carry no charge and as such external E and H fields have no effect on their direction. They are absorbed and maybe emitted. If the collision is elastic, the outbound photon has the same energy as the inbound photon. If the collision is inelastic then the outbound photon will have a lower or higher energy vs the inbound photon.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/11/2017 01:03 am
...
Your foil introduces a new element which should cause the side wall eddy current ring to be broken into smaller isolated sections, even though the foil has a conductive adhesive. Remember that at 2.45 GHz, the eddy currents only penetrate 5x the skin depth or around 6 um into the foil and thus never reach the other surface of the foil nor reach the conductive adhesive.

We're talking GHz's. It is not DC current. Isn't there some capacitive coupling etc.?

Peter,

At 2.45GHz,  there is no significant current flow deeper than 6um. The eddy currents only flow on the inside surface of the foil.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 10/11/2017 01:05 am
Spupeng7 (John) and myself have entertained a little side-project this past month, despite our business. Here are the first fruits of that endeavour for the professional and academically oriented among us. Enjoy 10 EM Drive threads worth of attachments, scraped by web macro and presented as raw download links and link text (use ctrl+f for now until we create clean lists with more metadata). The next phase involves downloading, collating and sorting through ALL linked papers and files. This is the first step towards the idealized endgoal of an automated library of all EM Drive related research and literature from the perspective of this illuminating forum. Thank you all for your sincere contributions and prolonged hard work. Please contact John or myself for feedback or requests, and we will work towards providing easily accessible standardized knowledge for all.
LA,
thankyou for generously attaching my name to your good works. My contribution has mostly been encouragement so far  :)
Looking forward to the links from the threads (2 to 5) which I have not had time to read yet.
John..
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 10/11/2017 01:26 am
Sorry to be asking dumb questions again - but how are these plots indicative of any propulsive capability?

When I see the shaded zones inside the frustrum area, they seem to show concentrations of electric field strength - the reddish areas seem to be stronger than the bluish-greenish areas - but why is electric field strength indicative of propulsive capability?

And why do these resonant cavities have to be pumped with microwaves in particular? What's so special about microwaves? Why not UV-light instead, for example? Is it because the wavelength of microwaves makes them more convenient to work with?

Does the actual size of the frustrum matter, or just its ratios?
sanman,
there are no dumb questions, curiosity and education are the cure for all of our problems  ;)
With a nod of respect to those who answered your question about pilot waves, I would like to add that if an imbalance of charge distribution internally has consequences external to the frustum, then that imbalance could cause the frustum to accelerate. If that is the case then these E field plots could be very valuable.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 10/11/2017 01:51 am
I went ahead with fabricating an adjustable small end for the spherical end-plate frustum.  I'm hoping this will allow me to better align the two end-plates, thereby increasing Q.  Looking forward to running the VNA while adjusting all the knobs...

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 10/11/2017 02:44 am
I went ahead with fabricating an adjustable small end for the spherical end-plate frustum.  I'm hoping this will allow me to better align the two end-plates, thereby increasing Q.  Looking forward to running the VNA while adjusting all the knobs...
I'm sure the extra two arms you grew will make that easier.  ::)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sanman on 10/11/2017 03:28 am
IMO – We should not have any standing waves regime; they are self cancellations. We need to develop a stable E field within a variable B field. This way, we should be able to squeeze out a resultant time rate gradient which can escape/envelop the device. In turn, the time rate gradient would impart a stochastic differential to all particles (Croca) of the device and motion. 

Here is the “squeezing” rational.  A variation of B in dt induces a specific E.  If we produce a variation B in a higher E than the specific one, we are then forcing or squeezing the dt into matching the B and E we control. A proper dt gradient would effectively produce a time vector for motion.

Hi, thanks for your response - so when you mention varying the magnetic field, does this mean that there should be some kind of pulsing/cycling of magnetic fields, to accomplish this? Are there other analogs in physics to compare this idea against? The operation of a piston is idealized as a cycle of adiabatic expansion and isothermal compression. Is the work being done by an idealized EMdrive being done continuously, or is it happening in a cyclical/pulsed way? Or is there perhaps an analogy to a turbine, whose mode of operation is continuous?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 10/11/2017 03:49 am
Quote from: TheTraveller
...the eddy current heating energy is sourced or taken from the photon's energy, which causes them to decrease their energy and increase their wavelength, until finally almost all their energy is thermalised and they have very long wavelengths.

...the trapped photons existing post the pulse will continually increase their wavelength as they lose energy to eddy currents, the coupler and conversion into work to accelerate mass. All of which continually drain photon energy and increase the wavelength.

I've seen this incorrect description show up a number of times on this forum. Both of these statements are false: that's just not how photons in quantum mechanics work. Eddy heating does not change the frequency of the microwave. Instead, it reduces the stored energy by reducing the number of microwave photons. This is true for all photon wavelengths. For example, a blue laser, when reflected thousands of times between mirrors does not change into a red laser; instead it just becomes a less strong blue laser (fewer photons). Microwave guides and cavity resonators work the same. The frequency does NOT change, but the field strengths decline (i.e. fewer photons), as the signal loses strength.

Photon frequency can change during reflections, such as when energy is added to or removed from the photon due to either the Doppler effect (such as in laser thermal broadening) or interaction with other quantum states in the reflective medium (look up Raman scattering), but those scenarios are not applicable to eddy current heating due to microwaves. Microwave frequency does NOT get lower along a microwave guide or in a resonator. The signal just loses strength.

Gargoyle,

How are the number of photons reduced in a resonant cavity once the Rf input stops? What absorbes the photon and then does not emit it? Much be a really massive inelastic collision?

What causes the eddy currents if not the photon's time varying H field, which generates current flow in the cavity walls & end plates, and from that induced current flown an opposing H field to limit photon H field penetration, ie skin depth?

Where does the energy dissipated by the eddy currents come from if not from the photon's energy?

Is not radiation pressure generated by the Raman effect from orbital electrons impacted by photons that are 1st absorbed and then emitted by the electron with less energy, momentum and longer wavelength than inbound?

BTW photons are never reflected. They carry no charge and as such external E and H fields have no effect on their direction. They are absorbed and maybe emitted. If the collision is elastic, the outbound photon has the same energy as the inbound photon. If the collision is inelastic then the outbound photon will have a lower or higher energy vs the inbound photon.

TT, gargoyle is right on all counts. I usually don't jump in on posts where people are way off the mark on things (because I barely have the time to figure out my own problems) but here's a pretty good article about this. Make sure you're properly separating the properties of individual photons from the properties of electromagnetic waves.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-mirrors-reflect-ph/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SteveD on 10/11/2017 03:52 am
Hang on.  Doesn't thermal dynamics require universal entropy to increase if a system becomes more ordered?  That energy density looks ordered to me.  How can that happen in an isolated system?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sanman on 10/11/2017 03:56 am
Hang on.  Doesn't thermal dynamics require universal entropy to increase if a system becomes more ordered?  That energy density looks ordered to me.  How can that happen in an isolated system?

Maybe the system isn't really isolated, and is interacting with the transient fluctuations of the Dynamic Vacuum?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.LeBel on 10/11/2017 04:10 am
Natural Metaphysics for Dummies
(for entertainment purposes only)

IMO - You can’t have something from nothing. Everybody knows that. But “something” is always taken as something “being”. So yes, existence as “being” from nothingness is not possible; the rule of non-contradiction forbids it. But there are different “degrees” of existence between “being” and nothingness. This gap is the domain of “happening”. Something can exist as “happening” without failing the rule of non-contradiction. So, only a dynamic process “happening” can sprout out and exist out of nothingness.

This dynamic process that makes the whole universe, e.g. vacuum, fields, E and B, particles etc. is what we call, in its simplest form, Time. That is why maths is so good for its description. It is all one and the same stuff.  This process has only one variable and only one property. This is for simple logical operational reasons. The variable can have different values and this is what distinguishes everything in the universe. The property is a fixed value or constant related to the process. This property is constant everywhere in our universe and is what makes our universe all internally logically operational. This property is the Planck with its specific value.
If something had a different Planck value, it would not be logically operational in our universe i.e. it would not make any difference. In other words, it would be non-existent. This “something” with a different Planck value would/could only exist, or make a difference, in another universe where the Planck value is of the same value as its own. We most likely have a whole bunch of universes, all super imposed, and all ignoring each other in this way.  This would have been the natural solution, at the Big Bang, for stacking up all that stuff when there was nowhere else to put it.

My guess, hunch, from Garrett Lisi’s E-8 and from the number of known crystalline forms, is that we have about 240 universes piled up on each other.

Now, our (EM-Drive) experiences deal with the variable i.e. the rate of the process i.e. the rate of evolution of time. IF by accident the property or Planck value was locally changed, device and people would disappear from this universe and would re-appear in another one, with known consequences (e.g. Philadelphia experiment). Or worst, they would find themselves in the gap between universes. This “gap” is from the rule of the excluded middle required for allowing the rule of non-contradiction to operate a clean distinction between universes. This reason for the “quantization” of the property is the same dictating the quantization of the variable, actually, the quantization of everything logically distinguishable, i.e existing. Earlier, I suggested using this “gap” to travel without ever hitting anything and possibly going very very fast ... A sort of wormhole, out of the universe and into the gap, and back into the universe, elsewhere. Messing with the Planck is a dangerous business, for sure!

Nothingness  [------------ happening ------------------------]  Being    fig 1
                        [ High time rate ------------- low time rate]

The domain of existence by “happening” described above is a spectrum (fig 1). It goes from nothingness, with a high rate of the time process, and across toward the “being” end, with a lower rate of the time process. Things existing in such a spectrum, or field, would spontaneously move toward the “being” end of the spectrum, i.e. towards where the rate of time is slower (stochastic differential). Of course, reaching the actual “state of being” is forbidden. Because of that, we could see this spectrum/scale, not as linear, but as circular, between nothingness and ... nothingness. This could give us some indication on the nature/shape of the time process... 

At any rate, be careful out there! Start slow...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: wicoe on 10/11/2017 04:28 am
BTW photons are never reflected. They carry no charge and as such external E and H fields have no effect on their direction. They are absorbed and maybe emitted. If the collision is elastic, the outbound photon has the same energy as the inbound photon. If the collision is inelastic then the outbound photon will have a lower or higher energy vs the inbound photon.

You seem to be talking about photons as classical objects here (elastic vs inelastic collisions, etc), yet this is not how photons work.  This can be useful to watch:

https://youtu.be/xdZMXWmlp9g?t=40m41s
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mr. Peter on 10/11/2017 04:32 am
Optimization of Miniaturized Resonant Microwave Cavities for Use in Q-Thrusters by Joshua Steven Pennington, 70 page-long M.S. Thesis.

Abstract
A gedankenexperiment was considered to compare a hypothetical thruster that used no reaction mass to propulsion methods currently in use. A brief discussion of previous research work done on closed resonant cavity thrust devices was conducted. Using the previous work as a template, a simulation plan was devised. Computational models of resonant microwave cavities were constructed and investigated using COMSOL software. These COMSOL simulations were verified against known analytical solutions using Matlab software as a computational tool. Multiphysics simulations were created to study the microwave heating environment of the resonant cavities. From the COMSOL study outputs, the electromagnetic field magnitude, temperature, surface resistive losses, volume resistive losses, quality factor, and energy contained in the electric field were presented and discussed. The disagreements between the computational model and real-world resonant cavities were also presented and discussed..

http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/2473/


Inertial frames and breakthrough propulsion physics by Marc G. Millis

Abstract
The term “Breakthrough Propulsion Physics” comes from the NASA project by that name which examined non-rocket space drives, gravity control, and faster-than-light travel. The focus here is on space drives and the related unsolved physics of inertial frames. A “space drive” is a generic term encompassing any concept for using as-yet undiscovered physics to move a spacecraft instead of existing rockets, sails, or tethers. The collective state of the art spans mostly steps 1–3 of the scientific method: defining the problem, collecting data, and forming hypotheses. The key issues include (1) conservation of momentum, (2) absence of obvious reaction mass, and (3) the net-external thrusting requirement. Relevant open problems in physics include: (1) the sources and mechanisms of inertial frames, (2) coupling of gravitation to the other fundamental forces, and (3) the nature of the quantum vacuum. Rather than following the assumption that inertial frames are an immutable, intrinsic property of space, this paper revisits Mach's Principle, where it is posited that inertia is relative to the distant surrounding matter. This perspective allows conjectures that a space drive could impart reaction forces to that matter, via some as-yet undiscovered interaction with the inertial frame properties of space. Thought experiments are offered to begin a process to derive new hypotheses. It is unknown if this line of inquiry will be fruitful, but it is hoped that, by revisiting unsolved physics from a propulsion point of view, new insights will be gained.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576516314011
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 10/11/2017 08:22 am
Same for Bell

Thank you, thank you, thank you !

Sorry for begging you some more, but... if/when you'll have some time, could you redo the calculations/drawings for the bell but reversing the bottom curve (pointing inside) ? See, I was looking at the pic shown here http://vixra.org/pdf/1706.0283v1.pdf (fig 3.2, page 11) and I wonder how reversing the bottom curve affects the distribution of fields; maybe it's a crazy line of thought (again, as I already wrote, this isn't my "cup of coffee") but I'm curious to see what happens if we shape the cavity to attempt maximizing reflections from the bottom (larger) pane toward the side walls and, at the same time, maximize the reflections from the top (smaller) pane toward the larger pane (minimizing the ones going to side walls)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 10/11/2017 08:28 am
I went ahead with fabricating an adjustable small end for the spherical end-plate frustum.  I'm hoping this will allow me to better align the two end-plates, thereby increasing Q.  Looking forward to running the VNA while adjusting all the knobs...

GREAT job ! Given the speed at which you proceed I wonder if you found a way to clone yourself :D

Getting back on topic; is the larger end plate curved too (and if so, does the curve point inside or outside the frustum) ?


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Eusa on 10/11/2017 08:47 am
I went ahead with fabricating an adjustable small end for the spherical end-plate frustum.  I'm hoping this will allow me to better align the two end-plates, thereby increasing Q.  Looking forward to running the VNA while adjusting all the knobs...

GREAT job ! Given the speed at which you proceed I wonder if you found a way to clone yourself :D

Getting back on topic; is the larger end plate curved too (and if so, does the curve point inside or outside the frustum) ?
I think the spherical ends of his frustum has common curvature center point outside...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Eusa on 10/11/2017 08:52 am
Hang on.  Doesn't thermal dynamics require universal entropy to increase if a system becomes more ordered?  That energy density looks ordered to me.  How can that happen in an isolated system?
It's true you cannot increase or decrease entropy inside an isolated system if structure components preserved.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sanman on 10/11/2017 09:26 am
Natural Metaphysics for Dummies
(for entertainment purposes only)

But also, on a more serious level - those Vacuum Fluctuations are real - they're not some mere accounting error - they're as real as anything in our universe. Not only can they be interacted with, but interaction with them is the whole reason our universe even exists. They are responsible for all the quantum phenomena that characterize our universe.

Each individual Vacuum Fluctuation may seem tiny and insignificant - they're measured on the Planck scale after all - but together they add up to a lot. The frustrum resonant cavity doesn't interact with all the Vacuum Fluctuations spanning across the entire universe - the frustrum and its applied field are interacting only with just the fluctuations occurring inside the space of the cavity. But together, all those Vacuum Fluctuations inside the cavity are something to push off of.

So far we've been used to just pushing off of other matter. You push off the ground when you jump, you push off the water when you swim - and rocket is pushing off its own onboard mass expelled by it to move forward. But now pushing off all those tiny Vacuum Fluctuations is the name of the game.

The tiny subatomic particles - electrons, protons, neutrons, etc - are all small enough to manifestly interact with those Vacuum Fluctuations. They do it all the time, and that's what makes these particles behave the way they do - even photons. Interaction with the Vacuum Fluctuations is even what makes Tunneling possible.

But now the trick is to make macroscopic objects, like the frustrum, interact with a whole bunch of Vacuum Fluctuations and effectively push off them. The field produced inside the resonant cavity is the mediator or intermediary by which the frustrum can push off the Vacuum Fluctuations.

While the optimal geometry is still under investigation, is there a consensus on what the optimal material composition of the resonant cavity should be? People are working in copper as the material of convenience, but I've read that if a resonant cavity could be constructed from superconducting materials, it would have an idealized Q far higher than that of copper, which would maximize internal reflection while minimizing losses.

I was also imagining that the larger the resonant cavity, then the more Vacuum Fluctuations in the interior could be pushed off of. Likewise,  the bigger the fields inside the resonant cavity, then the bigger the push would be. An hypothetical interstellar spaceship using EMdrive propulsion would then benefit from having a huge frustrum/bell with intense fields inside, to push it through the cosmos. That huge frustrum/bell would have to be engineered to wavelength-precision.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Eusa on 10/11/2017 11:12 am
Natural Metaphysics for Dummies
(for entertainment purposes only)

But also, on a more serious level - those Vacuum Fluctuations are real - they're not some mere accounting error - they're as real as anything in our universe. Not only can they be interacted with, but interaction with them is the whole reason our universe even exists. They are responsible for all the quantum phenomena that characterize our universe.

Each individual Vacuum Fluctuation may seem tiny and insignificant - they're measured on the Planck scale after all - but together they add up to a lot. The frustrum resonant cavity doesn't interact with all the Vacuum Fluctuations spanning across the entire universe - the frustrum and its applied field are interacting only with just the fluctuations occurring inside the space of the cavity. But together, all those Vacuum Fluctuations inside the cavity are something to push off of.
As far as we know nowadays, vacuum fluctuations are only math. Physical meaning can be for example signal phase parity, how interactions can match in respect to distance between particles...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sanman on 10/11/2017 12:35 pm
As far as we know nowadays, vacuum fluctuations are only math. Physical meaning can be for example signal phase parity, how interactions can match in respect to distance between particles...

Vacuum fluctuations are the reason for Heisenberg's Uncertainty and DeBroglie Wavelength (incidentally, DeBroglie is the originator of Pilot Wave Theory)
Vacuum fluctuations are responsible for electronic orbitals (ie. chemistry), and nucleonic orbitals (ie. nuclear reactions). They're the reason for the smeared out probability clouds - think Brownian Motion.

The signal phase parity can be interpreted as emergence/anihilation of virtual particle-antiparticle pairs. That also applies to high-energy gamma-gamma photon interactions, which can also create virtual pairs.

I think Occam's Razor should be a guiding principle on how meaning is interpreted.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 10/11/2017 02:53 pm
Hang on.  Doesn't thermal dynamics require universal entropy to increase if a system becomes more ordered?  That energy density looks ordered to me.  How can that happen in an isolated system?

Maybe the system isn't really isolated, and is interacting with the transient fluctuations of the Dynamic Vacuum?
...
As far as we know nowadays, vacuum fluctuations are only math. Physical meaning can be for example signal phase parity, how interactions can match in respect to distance between particles...

Let's clarify for the audience looking at these conversations and also looking at these numerical solutions that the computer simulation showing the energy density just solves Maxwell's equations for that electromagnetically resonant cavity.  There is no "dynamic vacuum" in the simulation or any interaction with it. 

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1452910;image)

Concerning thermodynamics, the energy density must be concentrated towards one end in order to satisfy Maxwell's equations for this geometry, boundary conditions and for this eigenmode. The Maxwell equations being solved automatically satisfy conservation of momentum.  There is no quantum vacuum in the simulation, no general relativity, no quantum mechanics, etc.  Also, there is no heat transfer analysis being solved.  There is not even a transient solution, it is just an eigensolution.  All there is (in this numerical solution is) a solution to Maxwell's equations for the imposed geometry and boundary conditions. The solution shows the standing wave solution to Maxwell's equations (it solves the eigenvalue problem) for that particular eigenmode and associated eigenfrequency.  That's all the computer simulation is solving, and that's all being shown.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Augmentor on 10/11/2017 03:14 pm
As far as we know nowadays, vacuum fluctuations are only math. Physical meaning can be for example signal phase parity, how interactions can match in respect to distance between particles...

Vacuum fluctuations are the reason for Heisenberg's Uncertainty and DeBroglie Wavelength (incidentally, DeBroglie is the originator of Pilot Wave Theory)
Vacuum fluctuations are responsible for electronic orbitals (ie. chemistry), and nucleonic orbitals (ie. nuclear reactions). They're the reason for the smeared out probability clouds - think Brownian Motion.

The signal phase parity can be interpreted as emergence/anihilation of virtual particle-antiparticle pairs. That also applies to high-energy gamma-gamma photon interactions, which can also create virtual pairs.

I think Occam's Razor should be a guiding principle on how meaning is interpreted.

de Broglie-Bohm theory aka pilot wave theory, Bohmian theory.
Here is a 163 pp. paper on the topic.
"The de Broglie-Bohm pilot-wave interpretation of quantum theory"
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0506243

Before one goes spouting off about Occam's razor as a de facto rule of physics, one should understand what exactly one is cutting and others limits that cannot be ignored in favor of this playground rule.

http://filrabat.blogspot.com/2011/12/limits-of-occams-razor.html

http://scienceblogs.com/developingintelligence/2007/05/14/why-the-simplest-theory-is-alm/

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/books/the-clinical-limits-of-occams-razor/201610.article

http://mlg.eng.cam.ac.uk/zoubin/papers/occam.pdf

David M
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 10/11/2017 05:59 pm
Hang on.  Doesn't thermal dynamics require universal entropy to increase if a system becomes more ordered?  That energy density looks ordered to me.  How can that happen in an isolated system?

Maybe the system isn't really isolated, and is interacting with the transient fluctuations of the Dynamic Vacuum?
...
As far as we know nowadays, vacuum fluctuations are only math. Physical meaning can be for example signal phase parity, how interactions can match in respect to distance between particles...

Let's clarify for the audience looking at these conversations and also looking at these numerical solutions that the computer simulation showing the energy density just solves Maxwell's equations for that electromagnetically resonant cavity.  There is no "dynamic vacuum" in the simulation or any interaction with it. 

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1452910;image)

Concerning thermodynamics, the energy density must be concentrated towards one end in order to satisfy Maxwell's equations for this geometry, boundary conditions and for this eigenmode. The Maxwell equations being solved automatically satisfy conservation of momentum.  There is no quantum vacuum in the simulation, no general relativity, no quantum mechanics, etc.  Also, there is no heat transfer analysis being solved.  There is not even a transient solution, it is just an eigensolution.  All there is (in this numerical solution is) a solution to Maxwell's equations for the imposed geometry and boundary conditions. The solution shows the standing wave solution to Maxwell's equations (it solves the eigenvalue problem) for that particular eigenmode and associated eigenfrequency.  That's all the computer simulation is solving, and that's all being shown.

What is the significance of the standing wave as it relates to the EMDrive and it's possible thrust? Also, how would variations in the energy density relate to Mach effects if done in this structure? Thanks.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 10/11/2017 06:28 pm
As far as we know nowadays, vacuum fluctuations are only math. Physical meaning can be for example signal phase parity, how interactions can match in respect to distance between particles...

Vacuum fluctuations are the reason for Heisenberg's Uncertainty and DeBroglie Wavelength (incidentally, DeBroglie is the originator of Pilot Wave Theory)
Vacuum fluctuations are responsible for electronic orbitals (ie. chemistry), and nucleonic orbitals (ie. nuclear reactions). They're the reason for the smeared out probability clouds - think Brownian Motion.

The signal phase parity can be interpreted as emergence/anihilation of virtual particle-antiparticle pairs. That also applies to high-energy gamma-gamma photon interactions, which can also create virtual pairs.

I think Occam's Razor should be a guiding principle on how meaning is interpreted.

I don't think HUP or electronic orbitals are about vacuum fluctuations. There is a theory that says they are called SED or Stochastic Electrodynamics but it's not the dominant view.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 10/11/2017 06:34 pm
As far as we know nowadays, vacuum fluctuations are only math. Physical meaning can be for example signal phase parity, how interactions can match in respect to distance between particles...

Vacuum fluctuations are the reason for Heisenberg's Uncertainty and DeBroglie Wavelength (incidentally, DeBroglie is the originator of Pilot Wave Theory)
Vacuum fluctuations are responsible for electronic orbitals (ie. chemistry), and nucleonic orbitals (ie. nuclear reactions). They're the reason for the smeared out probability clouds - think Brownian Motion.

The signal phase parity can be interpreted as emergence/anihilation of virtual particle-antiparticle pairs. That also applies to high-energy gamma-gamma photon interactions, which can also create virtual pairs.

I think Occam's Razor should be a guiding principle on how meaning is interpreted.

I don't think HUP or electronic orbitals are about vacuum fluctuations. There is a theory that says they are called SED or Stochastic Electrodynamics but it's not the dominant view.

SED doesn't say anything different from QED in this regard. It's only how the results are derived and the interpretations that are different. The results agree with say, Milonni, The Quantum Vacuum, Chapter 4, for instance.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 10/11/2017 06:48 pm
As far as we know nowadays, vacuum fluctuations are only math. Physical meaning can be for example signal phase parity, how interactions can match in respect to distance between particles...

Vacuum fluctuations are the reason for Heisenberg's Uncertainty and DeBroglie Wavelength (incidentally, DeBroglie is the originator of Pilot Wave Theory)
Vacuum fluctuations are responsible for electronic orbitals (ie. chemistry), and nucleonic orbitals (ie. nuclear reactions). They're the reason for the smeared out probability clouds - think Brownian Motion.

The signal phase parity can be interpreted as emergence/anihilation of virtual particle-antiparticle pairs. That also applies to high-energy gamma-gamma photon interactions, which can also create virtual pairs.

I think Occam's Razor should be a guiding principle on how meaning is interpreted.

I don't think HUP or electronic orbitals are about vacuum fluctuations. There is a theory that says they are called SED or Stochastic Electrodynamics but it's not the dominant view.

SED doesn't say anything different from QED in this regard. It's only how the results are derived and the interpretations that are different. The results agree with say, Milonni, The Quantum Vacuum, Chapter 4, for instance.

I don't think you need the quantum vacuum to explain basic quantum mechanical phenomenon such as electronic states in atoms and the HUP. They come in later with subtle effects like the Lamb shift. SED proposes the vacuum is fundamental to everything. That's radically different.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 10/11/2017 07:06 pm
As far as we know nowadays, vacuum fluctuations are only math. Physical meaning can be for example signal phase parity, how interactions can match in respect to distance between particles...

Vacuum fluctuations are the reason for Heisenberg's Uncertainty and DeBroglie Wavelength (incidentally, DeBroglie is the originator of Pilot Wave Theory)
Vacuum fluctuations are responsible for electronic orbitals (ie. chemistry), and nucleonic orbitals (ie. nuclear reactions). They're the reason for the smeared out probability clouds - think Brownian Motion.

The signal phase parity can be interpreted as emergence/anihilation of virtual particle-antiparticle pairs. That also applies to high-energy gamma-gamma photon interactions, which can also create virtual pairs.

I think Occam's Razor should be a guiding principle on how meaning is interpreted.

I don't think HUP or electronic orbitals are about vacuum fluctuations. There is a theory that says they are called SED or Stochastic Electrodynamics but it's not the dominant view.

SED doesn't say anything different from QED in this regard. It's only how the results are derived and the interpretations that are different. The results agree with say, Milonni, The Quantum Vacuum, Chapter 4, for instance.

I don't think you need the quantum vacuum to explain basic quantum mechanical phenomenon such as electronic states in atoms and the HUP. They come in later with subtle effects like the Lamb shift. SED proposes the vacuum is fundamental to everything. That's radically different.

Obviously you haven't read Milonni's book. The section on "The Necessity of the Vacuum Field" is in Chapter 2. Atoms would be unstable and electrons would spiral into the nucleus if it were not for the vacuum field. That is what it says in QED. You are not up to date on your quantum mechanics.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 10/11/2017 07:21 pm
As far as we know nowadays, vacuum fluctuations are only math. Physical meaning can be for example signal phase parity, how interactions can match in respect to distance between particles...

Vacuum fluctuations are the reason for Heisenberg's Uncertainty and DeBroglie Wavelength (incidentally, DeBroglie is the originator of Pilot Wave Theory)
Vacuum fluctuations are responsible for electronic orbitals (ie. chemistry), and nucleonic orbitals (ie. nuclear reactions). They're the reason for the smeared out probability clouds - think Brownian Motion.

The signal phase parity can be interpreted as emergence/anihilation of virtual particle-antiparticle pairs. That also applies to high-energy gamma-gamma photon interactions, which can also create virtual pairs.

I think Occam's Razor should be a guiding principle on how meaning is interpreted.

I don't think HUP or electronic orbitals are about vacuum fluctuations. There is a theory that says they are called SED or Stochastic Electrodynamics but it's not the dominant view.

SED doesn't say anything different from QED in this regard. It's only how the results are derived and the interpretations that are different. The results agree with say, Milonni, The Quantum Vacuum, Chapter 4, for instance.

I don't think you need the quantum vacuum to explain basic quantum mechanical phenomenon such as electronic states in atoms and the HUP. They come in later with subtle effects like the Lamb shift. SED proposes the vacuum is fundamental to everything. That's radically different.



Obviously you haven't read Milonni's book. The section on "The Necessity of the Vacuum Field" is in Chapter 2. Atoms would be unstable and electrons would spiral into the nucleus if it were not for the vacuum field. That is what it says in QED. You are not up to date on your quantum mechanics.

 Thanks but I prefer to say that I don't agree with your statement and a more  fair statement is that I have looked at it and I don't buy that interpretation. But I'm not claiming to be the worlds expert on the subject. It's been a few years since grad school. I think that interpretation is funny because it directly suggests vacuum energy 'props up' all atoms continuously while the author and those who are of that view generally are adamant that vacuum energy cannot be exploited for energy.  I agree because I'm skeptical of vacuum energy and am less enthusiastic of EMDrive theories that resort to it. ;D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 10/11/2017 09:13 pm
Thanks but I prefer to say that I don't agree with your statement and a more  fair statement is that I have looked at it and I don't buy that interpretation. But I'm not claiming to be the worlds expert on the subject. It's been a few years since grad school. I think that interpretation is funny because it directly suggests vacuum energy 'props up' all atoms continuously while the author and those who are of that view generally are adamant that vacuum energy cannot be exploited for energy.  I agree because I'm skeptical of vacuum energy and am less enthusiastic of EMDrive theories that resort to it. ;D

See attached. This is virtually identical to the SED results by Puthoff.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 10/11/2017 10:05 pm
Hang on.  Doesn't thermal dynamics require universal entropy to increase if a system becomes more ordered?  That energy density looks ordered to me.  How can that happen in an isolated system?

Maybe the system isn't really isolated, and is interacting with the transient fluctuations of the Dynamic Vacuum?
...
As far as we know nowadays, vacuum fluctuations are only math. Physical meaning can be for example signal phase parity, how interactions can match in respect to distance between particles...

Let's clarify for the audience looking at these conversations and also looking at these numerical solutions that the computer simulation showing the energy density just solves Maxwell's equations for that electromagnetically resonant cavity.  There is no "dynamic vacuum" in the simulation or any interaction with it. 

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1452910;image)

Concerning thermodynamics, the energy density must be concentrated towards one end in order to satisfy Maxwell's equations for this geometry, boundary conditions and for this eigenmode. The Maxwell equations being solved automatically satisfy conservation of momentum.  There is no quantum vacuum in the simulation, no general relativity, no quantum mechanics, etc.  Also, there is no heat transfer analysis being solved.  There is not even a transient solution, it is just an eigensolution.  All there is (in this numerical solution is) a solution to Maxwell's equations for the imposed geometry and boundary conditions. The solution shows the standing wave solution to Maxwell's equations (it solves the eigenvalue problem) for that particular eigenmode and associated eigenfrequency.  That's all the computer simulation is solving, and that's all being shown.

What is the significance of the standing wave as it relates to the EMDrive and it's possible thrust? Also, how would variations in the energy density relate to Mach effects if done in this structure? Thanks.

I doubt any provable photonic propulsion is significant enough for the reported thrust above perfectly collimated rocket results.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sghill on 10/11/2017 10:11 pm
Thank you Kenjee for indulging a few of us on your latest simulation runs. Your work is wonderful.

My analogy here may not work, and those with better knowledge may politely wave me away without making me feel bad. But having played trumpet for over 20 years, I know a little about tuning and instrument design.  When you make an instrument, you want resonance, but you don't want harmonics.  When we look at simulations with multi modes, I say to myself: "That would sound horrible (like a Japanese car horn), you'd have multiple notes robbing each other of the purity and power of one note (like a brass instrument)."  To continue the analogy, I don't think it is a stretch to say that multiple points of high energy density are robbing energy from a potential clear single "note".  And because other points of discussion are making a connection between the energy density and quality within the resonant chamber with thrust potential, I believe I can say that a single clear note targeted properly in the chamber by the geometry of the chamber will result in a more powerful effect than many points of high energy density.

If these two images were a musical instrument, they would be nearly in tune, exhibiting just a bit of "splatter". The quality could be higher by changing the geometry a little more to achieve a nice single note by eliminating the remaining harmonics. I also notice the energy density is going way up compared to the multi mode simulations.

So my question for Kenjee is can you further play with the geometry to clean up the note and eliminate the remaining harmonics?

My question for others is should he (My analogy may be crap), and if so, where in the chamber should the high energy density be focused for Kenjee to tune the shape? I believe it should be near the top.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 10/12/2017 01:23 am
I went ahead with fabricating an adjustable small end for the spherical end-plate frustum.  I'm hoping this will allow me to better align the two end-plates, thereby increasing Q.  Looking forward to running the VNA while adjusting all the knobs...
Monomorph,
please be careful not to open a leak by playing with it while the frustum contains a nasty dose of RF energy.

We need you to be here to continue your good works...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sanman on 10/12/2017 02:29 am
Thank you Kenjee for indulging a few of us on your latest simulation runs. Your work is wonderful.

My analogy here may not work, and those with better knowledge may politely wave me away without making me feel bad. But having played trumpet for over 20 years, I know a little about tuning and instrument design.  When you make an instrument, you want resonance, but you don't want harmonics.  When we look at simulations with multi modes, I say to myself: "That would sound horrible (like a Japanese car horn), you'd have multiple notes robbing each other of the purity and power of one note (like a brass instrument)."  To continue the analogy, I don't think it is a stretch to say that multiple points of high energy density are robbing energy from a potential clear single "note".  And because other points of discussion are making a connection between the energy density and quality within the resonant chamber with thrust potential, I believe I can say that a single clear note targeted properly in the chamber by the geometry of the chamber will result in a more powerful effect than many points of high energy density.

If these two images were a musical instrument, they would be nearly in tune, exhibiting just a bit of "splatter". The quality could be higher by changing the geometry a little more to achieve a nice single note by eliminating the remaining harmonics. I also notice the energy density is going way up compared to the multi mode simulations.

So my question for Kenjee is can you further play with the geometry to clean up the note and eliminate the remaining harmonics?

My question for others is should he (My analogy may be crap), and if so, where in the chamber should the high energy density be focused? I believe it should be near the top.

Thanks for this - reminds me of some thoughts I expressed a few pages back (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1733755#msg1733755).

So there's the idea that the best situation to strive for, is where you have a single large intense color blob (ie. single large intense mode or concentration of electric field) rather than the multiple color blobs (ie. multiple modes or field concentrations).

I'm very curious - why does everyone want it to be near the top of the frustrum (near the small end)? Why is everyone LittleEndian here? Is it because the small end is naturally "calmer" (ie. the photons don't make as far down in that direction, hence the cutoff)?

I was always BigEndian before, thinking that some kind of force is being generated to push on the big end. But maybe LittleEndian makes more sense, for generating a negative potential that pulls the little end, along the lines of Alcubierre's drive

(https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/warp_drive_starship-640x353.jpeg)

Note that Alcubierre's drive concept has the field potential dip in front and the bump in back (along with that toroid made of the magical crucial "negative matter") - but that's because the field is being generated outside, around the spacecraft.

With EMdrive generating a field inside the frustrum instead of outside, then this inverse geometry requires that the dip be in the back and the bump in the front.
Pulling the back (small end of frustrum) seems to be more important than pushing the front. Is it because of Pilot Wave Theory saying that the movement of matter is guided by the energy density ahead of it? Is that energy density always all about pulling? Is generating a pull the main need to focus on here? Is it because it's easier to pull on the "calm" end of the frustrum (near where the cutoff is) as compared to pushing on the big end, where there's going to be more reflection and "turbulence/incoherence"?

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 10/12/2017 04:56 am
Quote from: TheTraveller
...the eddy current heating energy is sourced or taken from the photon's energy, which causes them to decrease their energy and increase their wavelength, until finally almost all their energy is thermalised and they have very long wavelengths.

...the trapped photons existing post the pulse will continually increase their wavelength as they lose energy to eddy currents, the coupler and conversion into work to accelerate mass. All of which continually drain photon energy and increase the wavelength.

I've seen this incorrect description show up a number of times on this forum. Both of these statements are false: that's just not how photons in quantum mechanics work. Eddy heating does not change the frequency of the microwave. Instead, it reduces the stored energy by reducing the number of microwave photons. This is true for all photon wavelengths. For example, a blue laser, when reflected thousands of times between mirrors does not change into a red laser; instead it just becomes a less strong blue laser (fewer photons). Microwave guides and cavity resonators work the same. The frequency does NOT change, but the field strengths decline (i.e. fewer photons), as the signal loses strength.

Photon frequency can change during reflections, such as when energy is added to or removed from the photon due to either the Doppler effect (such as in laser thermal broadening) or interaction with other quantum states in the reflective medium (look up Raman scattering), but those scenarios are not applicable to eddy current heating due to microwaves. Microwave frequency does NOT get lower along a microwave guide or in a resonator. The signal just loses strength.

Gargoyle,

How are the number of photons reduced in a resonant cavity once the Rf input stops? What absorbes the photon and then does not emit it? Much be a really massive inelastic collision?

What causes the eddy currents if not the photon's time varying H field, which generates current flow in the cavity walls & end plates, and from that induced current flown an opposing H field to limit photon H field penetration, ie skin depth?

Where does the energy dissipated by the eddy currents come from if not from the photon's energy?

Is not radiation pressure generated by the Raman effect from orbital electrons impacted by photons that are 1st absorbed and then emitted by the electron with less energy, momentum and longer wavelength than inbound?

BTW photons are never reflected. They carry no charge and as such external E and H fields have no effect on their direction. They are absorbed and maybe emitted. If the collision is elastic, the outbound photon has the same energy as the inbound photon. If the collision is inelastic then the outbound photon will have a lower or higher energy vs the inbound photon.

TT, gargoyle is right on all counts. I usually don't jump in on posts where people are way off the mark on things (because I barely have the time to figure out my own problems) but here's a pretty good article about this. Make sure you're properly separating the properties of individual photons from the properties of electromagnetic waves.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-mirrors-reflect-ph/

I went from "Raman Scattering" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raman_scattering to "surface enhanced raman scattering plasmon"

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-enhanced_Raman_spectroscopy
The Raman signal is then further magnified by the surface due to the same mechanism that excited the incident light, resulting in a greater increase in the total output. At each stage the electric field is enhanced as E2, for a total enhancement of E4.[14]

The enhancement is not equal for all frequencies. For those frequencies for which the Raman signal is only slightly shifted from the incident light, both the incident laser light and the Raman signal can be near resonance with the plasmon frequency, leading to the E4 enhancement.

...

The choice of surface metal is also dictated by the plasmon resonance frequency.

After searching for "microwave copper plasmon resonance" I found "http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/lpor.201400131/full "Broadband amplification of spoof surface plasmon polaritons at microwave frequencies" but was behind a paywall. 

would later find Plasmonic band-pass filter device using coupled asymmetric cross-shaped cavity


Read More: "Plasmonic band-pass filter device using coupled asymmetric cross-shaped cavity"
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217984917500014 behind a paywall also but states,

Quote
by using finite-different-time-domain (FDTD) method and we find that the peak-wavelength on different ports show redshift or blueshift behaviors which are linearly changed with the length of cavity or the coupling distance.

Some more searching resulted in this find https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=14024034950189126853&hl=en&as_sdt=0,26

 Manipulation of light in MIM plasmonic waveguide systems  (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Guoxi_Wang/publication/257689651_Manipulation_of_light_in_MIM_plasmonic_waveguide_systems/links/0c96052ca786eea463000000/Manipulation-of-light-in-MIM-plasmonic-waveguide-systems.pdf)
Quote from: Manipulation of light in MIM plasmonic waveguide systems LU Hua† , WANG GuoXi†
Here, we introduce the slow-light effect in a MIM plasmonic waveguide with quasi-period stub structures, as
shown in Figure 6(a). The geometrical parameters can be seen in [96]. Figure 6(b) shows the evolution of propagation constant at different grating depths. The results reveal that the cutoff frequency has a red-shift with the increase of the grating depth. Figure 6(c) depicts the group index c/vg as a function of the incident frequency at a given grating depth. It is found that the group velocity vg (≡∂ω/∂β) can be slowed down significantly when the incident frequency approaches the cutoff frequency. The quasi-period-stub structure is introduced to enlarge the slow light frequency range. Due to the small graded grating depth, the dispersion relations are supposed to change gradually along the waveguide with the ascending grating depth. Thus, the group velocity of incident light with different frequencies can be greatly reduced at different locations.
...
Generally, some approaches are used to generate slow light, such as EIT effects [97,98], special photonic structures[92], and stimulated Brillouin scattering [99].
I remember reading there is some non-linear process in this and I noted the enhancement of the electric field as E^4.  That it allows shifting in the frequency of light and the slowing of light.  There is some focus on cavities and some of those cavities appearing to be asymmetrical.  I also wondered if this could be related to some of the arcing noted on the copper plating inside after a few runs via roughed up copper plating and surface enhanced plasmons. 

Here is another paper of similar research using TM modes at microwave frequencies but using a meta material with grooves.  Microwave Surface-Plasmon-Like Modes on Thin Metamaterials (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Matthew_Lockyear/publication/24174007_Microwave_Surface-Plasmon-Like_Modes_on_Thin_Metamaterials/links/00b7d52cc38343a75e000000.pdf)

I am reminded a bit of the Chinese EM drive cavity they found with slots/gratings in it and wonder if there could be a connection. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 10/12/2017 12:09 pm
please be careful not to open a leak by playing with it while the frustum contains a nasty dose of RF energy.

At 25W max, I would need to hold the antenna up against my eyeball to do any harm. However, any manual tuning is performed with only a few mW during VNA, not at full power.  If you look closely at the newest image, you will notice a 0.5cm foam layer between the endplate and the sidewalls. This is covered in copper foil to make a circular compressible RF gasket.  You can see where it fits in the image of the end-plate before the copper foil is applied.  This makes a very good seal.

The most dangerous objects in the build are the high discharge lipo batteries. If they are shorted out or otherwise fail, they can burst into a huge ball of fire that can completely destroy the experiment and burn my house down.  I never leave the room when batteries are charging and I always store them in a metal box on the cement floor after use.   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JECJAgRsp-4
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 10/12/2017 12:54 pm
This seems like a pretty big deal. This is a screenshot from the paper we briefly discussed about atomic friction.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.LeBel on 10/12/2017 02:22 pm
Natural Metaphysics for Dummies
(for entertainment purposes only)

But also, on a more serious level - those Vacuum Fluctuations are real - they're not some mere accounting error - they're as real as anything in our universe. Not only can they be interacted with, but interaction with them is the whole reason our universe even exists. They are responsible for all the quantum phenomena that characterize our universe.

Each individual Vacuum Fluctuation may seem tiny and insignificant - they're measured on the Planck scale after all - but together they add up to a lot. The frustrum resonant cavity doesn't interact with all the Vacuum Fluctuations spanning across the entire universe - the frustrum and its applied field are interacting only with just the fluctuations occurring inside the space of the cavity. But together, all those Vacuum Fluctuations inside the cavity are something to push off of.

So far we've been used to just pushing off of other matter. You push off the ground when you jump, you push off the water when you swim - and rocket is pushing off its own onboard mass expelled by it to move forward. But now pushing off all those tiny Vacuum Fluctuations is the name of the game.

The tiny subatomic particles - electrons, protons, neutrons, etc - are all small enough to manifestly interact with those Vacuum Fluctuations. They do it all the time, and that's what makes these particles behave the way they do - even photons. Interaction with the Vacuum Fluctuations is even what makes Tunneling possible.

But now the trick is to make macroscopic objects, like the frustrum, interact with a whole bunch of Vacuum Fluctuations and effectively push off them. The field produced inside the resonant cavity is the mediator or intermediary by which the frustrum can push off the Vacuum Fluctuations.

While the optimal geometry is still under investigation, is there a consensus on what the optimal material composition of the resonant cavity should be? People are working in copper as the material of convenience, but I've read that if a resonant cavity could be constructed from superconducting materials, it would have an idealized Q far higher than that of copper, which would maximize internal reflection while minimizing losses.

I was also imagining that the larger the resonant cavity, then the more Vacuum Fluctuations in the interior could be pushed off of. Likewise,  the bigger the fields inside the resonant cavity, then the bigger the push would be. An hypothetical interstellar spaceship using EMdrive propulsion would then benefit from having a huge frustrum/bell with intense fields inside, to push it through the cosmos. That huge frustrum/bell would have to be engineered to wavelength-precision.

Why the quote, just to add “..on a more serious level..” followed by gibberish? When the defense lawyer draws your attention away from B and toward A, you can be sure his interest or weakness in under B. The talmudic bargaining technique and the ego challenge has been overused by your team.

This is one of many global brainstorming operations. Many teams compete and fight over for the milking of this thread. You have aerospace industry interests, Israeli interests, Russian interests, Chinese interests etc. Everyone’s problem is hiding his interest, not showing his hand. It is not perfect, but it is the closest thing we have to a plain field; all sitting at the same table ... but still fighting.

Work together, for the benefit of all, or face the consequences.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sanman on 10/12/2017 04:23 pm
Anyway, if nobody minds me asking once again - why is the Little End more important? Why is it better to have the EM or energy concentrated closer to the Little End? What's the physical significance of that?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Kenjee on 10/12/2017 04:40 pm
On the fist pic I was trying to squash bell`s small end.

On second pic is one of the bell shapes but with different mode.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 10/12/2017 04:40 pm
Anyway, if nobody minds me asking once again - why is the Little End more important? Why is it better to have the EM or energy concentrated closer to the Little End? What's the physical significance of that?

It's not. Some modes apparently make the drive thrust in reverse. That is somewhere in the earlier threads. Yes the small end has less surface area than the larger end, but you have to take into consideration how each resonant mode's energy density at the highest point is in proximity to the metal. I think it's the losses that are important.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1331686#msg1331686
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 10/12/2017 05:39 pm
Thanks but I prefer to say that I don't agree with your statement and a more  fair statement is that I have looked at it and I don't buy that interpretation. But I'm not claiming to be the worlds expert on the subject. It's been a few years since grad school. I think that interpretation is funny because it directly suggests vacuum energy 'props up' all atoms continuously while the author and those who are of that view generally are adamant that vacuum energy cannot be exploited for energy.  I agree because I'm skeptical of vacuum energy and am less enthusiastic of EMDrive theories that resort to it. ;D

See attached. This is virtually identical to the SED results by Puthoff.

Garett Moddel proposed an energy technology based on this concept, that the quantum vacuum supports the electron stability as explained here;

http://ecee.colorado.edu/~moddel/QEL/ZPE.html

http://ecee.colorado.edu/~moddel/QEL/Papers/DmitriyevaModdel12.pdf

Experiments showed nothing conclusive.


Just because one can 'model' a real effect with assumed vacuum fluctuations is not proof the vacuum really acts like the model. If it was so clear, Moddel's idea should easily work.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 10/12/2017 06:19 pm
Looks like having an adjustable end-plate is definitely an advantage. -38.4dB return loss after adjusting all four of the knobs shown for a bit. This is better than I could achieve with the end-plates bolted directly to the side-walls.  This is very close, yet better than the -37.1dB return loss for the flat end_plates made of polished 1mm solid copper.

I also converted the 16.5V 10Ah lipo battery into a 12.6V 10Ah battery. This should allow me to more than double the capacity of the current 12.6V 4Ah lipo.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 10/12/2017 08:05 pm
On the fist pic I was trying to squash bell`s small end.

On second pic is one of the bell shapes but with different mode.

Very nice looking plots but please include a short explanation of the significance of what you are showing so we all know what point you are making. Thanks.

Thanx, of course I`ll try to explain. You see, we have this rainbow elastic balls that are in some volume. I`m trying to maximally strech them at one end and squash them at the other end. I think that significance of this is in fact that if something is elastic it needs to be streched or squashed. I know I would, if I was elastic.

I hope it was helpful.
Here is another shape for you.

I asked a sincere question and would like a sincere answer. Why is that too much to ask?
It is entirely unclear what you expect him to say. He is producing simulations showing the field strength and energy density for carious modes in various shapes. These will almost certainly be relevant to how the emDrive works if it is ever found that the emDrive works. Most proposed theories however do not even try to figure out what field patterns are the most useful. If the emDrive does not work they are just pretty pictures showing the patterns that can exist in nature.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Kenjee on 10/12/2017 08:51 pm
Same for Bell

Thank you, thank you, thank you !

Sorry for begging you some more, but... if/when you'll have some time, could you redo the calculations/drawings for the bell but reversing the bottom curve (pointing inside) ? See, I was looking at the pic shown here http://vixra.org/pdf/1706.0283v1.pdf (fig 3.2, page 11) and I wonder how reversing the bottom curve affects the distribution of fields; maybe it's a crazy line of thought (again, as I already wrote, this isn't my "cup of coffee") but I'm curious to see what happens if we shape the cavity to attempt maximizing reflections from the bottom (larger) pane toward the side walls and, at the same time, maximize the reflections from the top (smaller) pane toward the larger pane (minimizing the ones going to side walls)

I think that you were looking for this. Sorry for delay.
Bell with inversed big end.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sghill on 10/12/2017 10:44 pm
I believe I can say that a single clear note targeted properly in the chamber by the geometry of the chamber will result in a more powerful effect than many points of high energy density.

So my question for Kenjee is can you further play with the geometry to clean up the note and eliminate the remaining harmonics?

Woah! Thanks Kenjee!!!!

Look at that energy density when you tuned out the harmonics! You nearly tripled it!!!

A little more tuning and you're there! For this shape and frequency. Play with the bottom plate curve to focus the harmonics up into the center of the energy density.

Please also try two more shapes. If you position two parabolic arcs like a football you should get one very dense area in the center. If you have two catenary arcs in the same direction, but one longer than the other (like a smiley face) you should get a less dense effect, but nicely offset from the center if you shape it right, which may be better for creating thrust (assuming there is a connection).

If conversations on this thread are to be believed, you want the energy density as focused as possible, but offset from the center of the chamber.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 10/13/2017 12:54 am
My neighbor Wei is translating some of the Chinese papers that have already been linked here. While discussing them over tea yesterday afternoon he discovered an article aparently from the China National Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation detailing some of Dr Chen Yue's work which they fund. Chen is an RF engineer who completed his PhD in 2008.

Chen claims that his 80W flat cylindrical emengine, with concentric walls inside one end and co-ax signal induction half way up the cylinder section, produces 0.124mN (about 1.5mN/kW) of thrust. Wei tells me the article says that Chen has constructed several devices and that one of them is currently under test in orbit aboard the Dong Fang Hong #5 satellite, if that makes sense.

In closing Chen lists its advantages over total loss propellant thrusters. He says the emengine is too big and that its thrust is too small but that it can be improved (presumably for output) and made more efficient. He has a team working on the control system design and he is going ahead with this work despite the lack of theoretical cover because to wait would be to lose the opportunity. Lastly he mentions that Cannae P/L plans to launch a test aboard a 6U satellite in 2018.

Hoping that this is an accurate translation as we muddled through it. I will post the translations of the reports already linked here, as they become available.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 10/13/2017 01:05 am
...
Hoping that this is an accurate translation as we muddled through it. I will post the translations of the reports already linked here, as they become available.
I would appreciate it if you could also post the originals in Chinese or the links again (particularly for the one you say they write that the experiment is already in space).  Thanks.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sanman on 10/13/2017 01:48 am
It's not. Some modes apparently make the drive thrust in reverse. That is somewhere in the earlier threads. Yes the small end has less surface area than the larger end, but you have to take into consideration how each resonant mode's energy density at the highest point is in proximity to the metal. I think it's the losses that are important.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1331686#msg1331686

Hi, thanks for this. So some modes are reversing the thrust, even though the geometry of the cavity is unchanged.
As sghill said on the previous page (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1735418#msg1735418), does the sharpness/definition of the energy density zone matter? I associate sharpness/definition with local sharper gradient.

Analogy: you know how some of these nuclear fusion experiments use a very short pulse of power that qualifies as some ridiculously high wattage? A moderate amount of energy crammed into an extremely short timespan then amounts to extremely high power.

Likewise, I'm imagining that a moderate amount of energy in the frustrum, if made into an extremely sharply defined shape, could likewise have a very high local gradient around its borders. That very high local gradient could result in a "bump-dip"(crest-trough waveform, like in AlcubierreDrive pic I posted) which would "jumpstart" or "bootstrap" the motion of the frustrum.

You guys were saying that the exponential/Euler curvature of the bell shape could reduce jerk. It seems to me that you want jerk - but only in one direction - which is what that exponential/Euler/bell curvature helps to accomplish by suppressing it in the other direction. Jerk is what would bootstrap/jumpstart the motion. How to create that strong unidirectional Jerk?

One thing I was imagining was that higher frequencies of light (ie. higher than microwaves) would act as sharper waveforms to create sharper local gradients. But then there's the problem of engineering the frustrum to the precision/quality necessary to accommodate those shorter wavelengths and reflect them efficiently.

Another thing I was imagining was something I commented about in another thread: Squeezed Light (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42120.0)
Could squeezed pulses of light (even microwave light) also be useful in creating sharper local gradients to help provide jerk?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sanman on 10/13/2017 02:07 am
I believe I can say that a single clear note targeted properly in the chamber by the geometry of the chamber will result in a more powerful effect than many points of high energy density.

So my question for Kenjee is can you further play with the geometry to clean up the note and eliminate the remaining harmonics?

Woah! Thanks Kenjee!!!!

Look at that energy density when you tuned out the harmonics! You nearly tripled it!!!

A little more tuning and you're there! For this shape and frequency.... 

Please try two more shapes. If you position two parabolic arcs like a football you should get one very dense area in the center. If you have two arcs in the same direction, but one longer than the other (like a smiley face) you should get a less dense effect, but offset from the center if you shape it right.

If conversations on this thread are to be believed, you want the energy density as focused as possible, but offset from the center of the chamber.

Ah, great post, man - I was so busy typing, I didn't see it.  :)

Is it purely the energy density magnitude that matters? What about the sharpness of that energy density zone? Any comments on that?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 10/13/2017 02:11 am
Thanks but I prefer to say that I don't agree with your statement and a more  fair statement is that I have looked at it and I don't buy that interpretation. But I'm not claiming to be the worlds expert on the subject. It's been a few years since grad school. I think that interpretation is funny because it directly suggests vacuum energy 'props up' all atoms continuously while the author and those who are of that view generally are adamant that vacuum energy cannot be exploited for energy.  I agree because I'm skeptical of vacuum energy and am less enthusiastic of EMDrive theories that resort to it. ;D

See attached. This is virtually identical to the SED results by Puthoff.

Garett Moddel proposed an energy technology based on this concept, that the quantum vacuum supports the electron stability as explained here;

http://ecee.colorado.edu/~moddel/QEL/ZPE.html

http://ecee.colorado.edu/~moddel/QEL/Papers/DmitriyevaModdel12.pdf

Experiments showed nothing conclusive.


Just because one can 'model' a real effect with assumed vacuum fluctuations is not proof the vacuum really acts like the model. If it was so clear, Moddel's idea should easily work.

I suggest watching the first 5 minutes or so, of Dr. Fearn's video presentation from last year's Estes Park BPW. She does a very good job of explaining why Moddel's idea won't work, but in the context of an excited atom between two mirrors.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0wmh6b9UQM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0wmh6b9UQM)

Seriously, the ZPF is just that. It is the limit of the field mode energy at zero "Temperature". If you want to extract energy  from a heat source, you need a temperature difference. Why play in the mud around the zero point, when there are plenty of much hotter, inexhaustible heat sources available, such as Geothermal and Concentrated Solar energy. It's the same principle, just done at practical temperature differences that can be exploited cost effectively.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sanman on 10/13/2017 03:24 am
Gentlemen,

Is it possible that a bell cavity which is wider and squatter (ie. lower aspect ratio) would produce a zone of energy-density that is more lenticular/pancake shaped, and more proximately aligned with the Small End?

Wouldn't such an energy-dense zonal shape be more suited for the desired flux?

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 10/13/2017 12:48 pm
My neighbor Wei is translating some of the Chinese papers that have already been linked here. While discussing them over tea yesterday afternoon he discovered an article aparently from the China National Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation detailing some of Dr Chen Yue's work which they fund. Chen is an RF engineer who completed his PhD in 2008.

Chen claims that his 80W flat cylindrical emengine, with concentric walls inside one end and co-ax signal induction half way up the cylinder section, produces 0.124mN (about 1.5mN/kW) of thrust. Wei tells me the article says that Chen has constructed several devices and that one of them is currently under test in orbit aboard the Dong Fang Hong #5 satellite, if that makes sense.

In closing Chen lists its advantages over total loss propellant thrusters. He says the emengine is too big and that its thrust is too small but that it can be improved (presumably for output) and made more efficient. He has a team working on the control system design and he is going ahead with this work despite the lack of theoretical cover because to wait would be to lose the opportunity. Lastly he mentions that Cannae P/L plans to launch a test aboard a 6U satellite in 2018.

Hoping that this is an accurate translation as we muddled through it. I will post the translations of the reports already linked here, as they become available.

Dong Fang Hong #5 is not a satellite; It is a platform (or bare bone or framework) that Chinese future large GEO satellites will be based on. It's predecessor, Dong Fang Hong #4, is what several current Chinese GEO satellites built upon. Some new technologies that will be used in Dong Fang Hong #5 were tested on ShiJian 17 (and on some of its predecessors), which was a GEO and "technology experimental" satellite. I have said several times that Chen Yue's Emdrive was tested on ShiJian 17 and it failed to produce thrust. Chen blamed electrical or mechanical problems. oyzw, a user on this forum, first leaked this failure.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 10/13/2017 03:00 pm
I think that you were looking for this. Sorry for delay.
Bell with inversed big end.

Yes, THANK YOU A LOT, Kenjee !

Now head down to compare these simulations

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1734804#msg1734804

with the "inverted bottom" ones

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1453785;image

thank you again !



Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: D_Dom on 10/13/2017 03:13 pm
Just noticed the term "emengine". Sounds just right to my untrained ear.

...
Chen claims that his 80W flat cylindrical emengine, with concentric walls inside one end and co-ax signal induction half way up the cylinder section, produces 0.124mN (about 1.5mN/kW) of thrust...

In closing Chen lists its advantages over total loss propellant thrusters. He says the emengine is too big and that its thrust is too small but that it can be improved (presumably for output) and made more efficient.

Trying to stay at least caught up in my reading, woefully lacking comprehension. Many thanks to all who contribute
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 10/13/2017 05:22 pm
Thanks but I prefer to say that I don't agree with your statement and a more  fair statement is that I have looked at it and I don't buy that interpretation. But I'm not claiming to be the worlds expert on the subject. It's been a few years since grad school. I think that interpretation is funny because it directly suggests vacuum energy 'props up' all atoms continuously while the author and those who are of that view generally are adamant that vacuum energy cannot be exploited for energy.  I agree because I'm skeptical of vacuum energy and am less enthusiastic of EMDrive theories that resort to it. ;D

See attached. This is virtually identical to the SED results by Puthoff.

Garett Moddel proposed an energy technology based on this concept, that the quantum vacuum supports the electron stability as explained here;

http://ecee.colorado.edu/~moddel/QEL/ZPE.html

http://ecee.colorado.edu/~moddel/QEL/Papers/DmitriyevaModdel12.pdf

Experiments showed nothing conclusive.


Just because one can 'model' a real effect with assumed vacuum fluctuations is not proof the vacuum really acts like the model. If it was so clear, Moddel's idea should easily work.

I suggest watching the first 5 minutes or so, of Dr. Fearn's video presentation from last year's Estes Park BPW. She does a very good job of explaining why Moddel's idea won't work, but in the context of an excited atom between two mirrors.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0wmh6b9UQM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0wmh6b9UQM)

Seriously, the ZPF is just that. It is the limit of the field mode energy at zero "Temperature". If you want to extract energy  from a heat source, you need a temperature difference. Why play in the mud around the zero point, when there are plenty of much hotter, inexhaustible heat sources available, such as Geothermal and Concentrated Solar energy. It's the same principle, just done at practical temperature differences that can be exploited cost effectively.

Please explain then in your view, how you can accept the idea that the ZPF continuously interacts with and actually supports atom stability. If order to do that it would, have to supply the loss by radiation on a continual basis. You can't claim energy cannot be extracted while simultaneously claim it's needed to stop radiative losses in electron orbitals. Electrons in orbitals would have to be less that zero to gain energy. Makes no sense unless the logic is inconsistent. The ZPF is not the source of everything in physics and very likely not the explanation of EMDrive nor is it likely the root cause of gravitation or the Mach effect.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 10/13/2017 05:28 pm
snip...

I suggest watching the first 5 minutes or so, of Dr. Fearn's video presentation from last year's Estes Park BPW. She does a very good job of explaining why Moddel's idea won't work, but in the context of an excited atom between two mirrors.

Seriously, the ZPF is just that. It is the limit of the field mode energy at zero "Temperature". If you want to extract energy  from a heat source, you need a temperature difference. Why play in the mud around the zero point, when there are plenty of much hotter, inexhaustible heat sources available, such as Geothermal and Concentrated Solar energy. It's the same principle, just done at practical temperature differences that can be exploited cost effectively.

Please explain then in your view, how you can accept the idea that the ZPF continuously interacts with and actually supports atom stability. If order to do that it would, have to supply the loss by radiation on a continual basis. You can't claim energy cannot be extracted while simultaneously claim it's needed to stop radiative losses in electron orbitals. Electrons in orbitals would have to be less that zero to gain energy. Makes no sense unless the logic is inconsistent. The ZPF is not the source of everything in physics and very likely not the explanation of EMDrive nor is it likely the root cause of gravitation or the Mach effect.

I implied that since atoms cannot radiate when confined in a Casimir cavity, that Moddel's experiment was flawed from the get-go. That "method" will not work. IMO, extracting energy from the ZPF is the same as extracting energy from any other temperature difference. There is nothing to be gained by concentrating on the lowest temperature, where the atom is in equilibrium with the vacuum. There is no temperature difference to exploit, therefore nothing to be extracted.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 10/13/2017 05:33 pm
snip...

I suggest watching the first 5 minutes or so, of Dr. Fearn's video presentation from last year's Estes Park BPW. She does a very good job of explaining why Moddel's idea won't work, but in the context of an excited atom between two mirrors.

Seriously, the ZPF is just that. It is the limit of the field mode energy at zero "Temperature". If you want to extract energy  from a heat source, you need a temperature difference. Why play in the mud around the zero point, when there are plenty of much hotter, inexhaustible heat sources available, such as Geothermal and Concentrated Solar energy. It's the same principle, just done at practical temperature differences that can be exploited cost effectively.

Please explain then in your view, how you can accept the idea that the ZPF continuously interacts with and actually supports atom stability. If order to do that it would, have to supply the loss by radiation on a continual basis. You can't claim energy cannot be extracted while simultaneously claim it's needed to stop radiative losses in electron orbitals. Electrons in orbitals would have to be less that zero to gain energy. Makes no sense unless the logic is inconsistent. The ZPF is not the source of everything in physics and very likely not the explanation of EMDrive nor is it likely the root cause of gravitation or the Mach effect.

I implied that since atoms cannot radiate when confined in a Casimir cavity, that Moddel's experiment was flawed from the get-go. That "method" will not work. IMO, extracting energy from the ZPF is the same as extracting energy from any other temperature difference. There is nothing to be gained by concentrating on the lowest temperature, where the atom is in equilibrium with the vacuum. There is no temperature difference to exploit, therefore nothing to be extracted.

I'm not promoting Moddel's device at all, I'm skeptical of it too. But I'm skeptical of quantum fluctuations being the root of all physics as some suggest. But that's not the point of this thread. Let's move on. Thanks.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 10/13/2017 05:40 pm
My neighbor Wei is translating some of the Chinese papers that have already been linked here. While discussing them over tea yesterday afternoon he discovered an article aparently from the China National Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation detailing some of Dr Chen Yue's work which they fund. Chen is an RF engineer who completed his PhD in 2008.

Chen claims that his 80W flat cylindrical emengine, with concentric walls inside one end and co-ax signal induction half way up the cylinder section, produces 0.124mN (about 1.5mN/kW) of thrust. Wei tells me the article says that Chen has constructed several devices and that one of them is currently under test in orbit aboard the Dong Fang Hong #5 satellite, if that makes sense.

In closing Chen lists its advantages over total loss propellant thrusters. He says the emengine is too big and that its thrust is too small but that it can be improved (presumably for output) and made more efficient. He has a team working on the control system design and he is going ahead with this work despite the lack of theoretical cover because to wait would be to lose the opportunity. Lastly he mentions that Cannae P/L plans to launch a test aboard a 6U satellite in 2018.

Hoping that this is an accurate translation as we muddled through it. I will post the translations of the reports already linked here, as they become available.

Dong Fang Hong #5 is not a satellite; It is a platform (or bare bone or framework) that Chinese future large GEO satellites will be based on. It's predecessor, Dong Fang Hong #4, is what several current Chinese GEO satellites built upon. Some new technologies that will be used in Dong Fang Hong #5 were tested on ShiJian 17 (and on some of its predecessors), which was a GEO and "technology experimental" satellite. I have said several times that Chen Yue's Emdrive was tested on ShiJian 17 and it failed to produce thrust. Chen blamed electrical or mechanical problems. oyzw, a user on this forum, first leaked this failure.

Didn't Kurt's experiment with a cylindrical cavity show negative results? all experiments showing some effect are frustum shaped or asymmetric. Guido Fetta's cavities are asymmetric AFAIK.

That's why I can't understand the rationale behind Chen Yue's cylindrical cavities. The geometry of the cavity may be relevant.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sghill on 10/13/2017 09:20 pm
That's why I can't understand the rationale behind Chen Yue's cylindrical cavities. The geometry of the cavity may be relevant.

It certainly is with any sort of wind instrument....
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 10/14/2017 12:52 am
My neighbor Wei is translating some of the Chinese papers that have already been linked here. While discussing them over tea yesterday afternoon he discovered an article apparently from the China National Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation detailing some of Dr Chen Yue's work which they fund. Chen is an RF engineer who completed his PhD in 2008.

Chen claims that his 80W flat cylindrical emengine, with concentric walls inside one end and co-ax signal induction half way up the cylinder section, produces 0.124mN (about 1.5mN/kW) of thrust. Wei tells me the article says that Chen has constructed several devices and that one of them is currently under test in orbit aboard the Dong Fang Hong #5 satellite, if that makes sense.

In closing Chen lists its advantages over total loss propellant thrusters. He says the emengine is too big and that its thrust is too small but that it can be improved (presumably for output) and made more efficient. He has a team working on the control system design and he is going ahead with this work despite the lack of theoretical cover because to wait would be to lose the opportunity. Lastly he mentions that Cannae P/L plans to launch a test aboard a 6U satellite in 2018.

Hoping that this is an accurate translation as we muddled through it. I will post the translations of the reports already linked here, as they become available.
I would appreciate it if you could also post the originals in Chinese or the links again (particularly for the one you say they write that the experiment is already in space).  Thanks.
Rodal,
I have attached a .pdf of the article from a national daily, the other is just the following link as I cannot get my machine to copy the Chinese text.

http://www.sohu.com/a/190651267_349044 (http://www.sohu.com/a/190651267_349044) see half way down the page.

http://digitalpaper.stdaily.com/http_www.kjrb.com/kjrb/html/2016-12/11/content_357004.htm?div=-1 (http://digitalpaper.stdaily.com/http_www.kjrb.com/kjrb/html/2016-12/11/content_357004.htm?div=-1) is the source of the .pdf below.

Hoping I have not led you all astray, jmn..
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 10/14/2017 01:13 am

(...)

Didn't Kurt's experiment with a cylindrical cavity show negative results? all experiments showing some effect are frustum shaped or asymmetric. Guido Fetta's cavities are asymmetric AFAIK.

That's why I can't understand the rationale behind Chen Yue's cylindrical cavities. The geometry of the cavity may be relevant.
tchernik,
in George Smoot's COBE satellite, the two sensor inlets had deep radial ridges which extended the electrical path of the receptor ground (please forgive my terminology). I think the concentric walls inside one of the flat ends of Chen Yue's cylindrical emengine serve the same purpose, effectively making that end wider without having to have conical walls. This technique is sometimes adopted in RADAR feed horns if memory serves, its main advantage to Chen's emengine being simplicity.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 10/14/2017 02:03 am
snip...

I suggest watching the first 5 minutes or so, of Dr. Fearn's video presentation from last year's Estes Park BPW. She does a very good job of explaining why Moddel's idea won't work, but in the context of an excited atom between two mirrors.

Seriously, the ZPF is just that. It is the limit of the field mode energy at zero "Temperature". If you want to extract energy  from a heat source, you need a temperature difference. Why play in the mud around the zero point, when there are plenty of much hotter, inexhaustible heat sources available, such as Geothermal and Concentrated Solar energy. It's the same principle, just done at practical temperature differences that can be exploited cost effectively.

Please explain then in your view, how you can accept the idea that the ZPF continuously interacts with and actually supports atom stability. If order to do that it would, have to supply the loss by radiation on a continual basis. You can't claim energy cannot be extracted while simultaneously claim it's needed to stop radiative losses in electron orbitals. Electrons in orbitals would have to be less that zero to gain energy. Makes no sense unless the logic is inconsistent. The ZPF is not the source of everything in physics and very likely not the explanation of EMDrive nor is it likely the root cause of gravitation or the Mach effect.

I implied that since atoms cannot radiate when confined in a Casimir cavity, that Moddel's experiment was flawed from the get-go. That "method" will not work. IMO, extracting energy from the ZPF is the same as extracting energy from any other temperature difference. There is nothing to be gained by concentrating on the lowest temperature, where the atom is in equilibrium with the vacuum. There is no temperature difference to exploit, therefore nothing to be extracted.

I'm not promoting Moddel's device at all, I'm skeptical of it too. But I'm skeptical of quantum fluctuations being the root of all physics as some suggest. But that's not the point of this thread. Let's move on. Thanks.

Have you read my paper on Quantum Gravity? It clearly explains how Power fluctuations between matter and the vacuum lead to a gravitational field. Space-time curvature is simply an alternate interpretation of the natural effects, resulting from this QED/SED process.

My paper was published in the Estes Park BPW Proceedings.

http://ssi.org/2016-breakthrough-propulsion-proceedings/ (http://ssi.org/2016-breakthrough-propulsion-proceedings/)

The Mach effects are caused by the time derivative of the Power. So there is an obvious connection between my model of quantum gravity and the Mach effects. There is also asymmetrical power dissipation in the EM Drive, as Mulletron has pointed out as well. The notes I've posted previously;

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1729655#msg1729655 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1729655#msg1729655)

...show how a gradient in the power dissipation will result in an acceleration, and the divergence of this leads to the same Mach effect equation except, it is the vacuum-power field represented by "K" that is fluctuating in opposition to the fluctuating mass.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sanman on 10/14/2017 02:53 am
I'm not promoting Moddel's device at all, I'm skeptical of it too. But I'm skeptical of quantum fluctuations being the root of all physics as some suggest. But that's not the point of this thread. Let's move on. Thanks.

Sorry to dwell, but like WarpTech, I too felt the word "equilibrium" well up in me while reading your discussion.

We know that matter is condensed energy -- E=MC^2 tells us that. We also know that Blackbody Radiation is real. So what keeps any body from radiating itself down to nothing? It's the constant dynamic exchange with the vacuum that it's in equilibrium with. If a body at absolute zero is radiating energy - are we really extracting net energy from that body? No, certainly not - it's just part of the dynamic exchange with the vacuum - the vacuum is giving back what is being radiated out.

So I don't understand why you see some net energy extraction being alleged, when it's not.

Particles have the lifespans they do, because of their disposition relative to the vacuum they're in equilibrium with.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 10/14/2017 03:33 am
I believe I can say that a single clear note targeted properly in the chamber by the geometry of the chamber will result in a more powerful effect than many points of high energy density.

So my question for Kenjee is can you further play with the geometry to clean up the note and eliminate the remaining harmonics?

Woah! Thanks Kenjee!!!!

Look at that energy density when you tuned out the harmonics! You nearly tripled it!!!

A little more tuning and you're there! For this shape and frequency.... 

Please try two more shapes. If you position two parabolic arcs like a football you should get one very dense area in the center. If you have two arcs in the same direction, but one longer than the other (like a smiley face) you should get a less dense effect, but offset from the center if you shape it right.

If conversations on this thread are to be believed, you want the energy density as focused as possible, but offset from the center of the chamber.

Ah, great post, man - I was so busy typing, I didn't see it.  :)

Is it purely the energy density magnitude that matters? What about the sharpness of that energy density zone? Any comments on that?

Integrate the product of the energy density and the adjacent element of the surface area over the whole inner surface. The NET result will be the force. Is it zero? If the walls are perfectly conducting, it should be. However, since there are asymmetrical non-zero losses in the warm copper, maybe not.  8)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.LeBel on 10/14/2017 04:03 am


   I was thinking. Since the cavity is not evacuated, those energy density spots will interact with the gas inside. We get convection currents and other effects. Is this not like trying to make a rocket motor inside a can? Should we not work on a “clean” fabric of space-time?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sanman on 10/14/2017 04:16 am
Integrate the product of the energy density and the adjacent element of the surface area over the whole inner surface. The NET result will be the force. Is it zero? If the walls are perfectly conducting, it should be. However, since there are asymmetrical non-zero losses in the warm copper, maybe not.  8)

Alright, but how would that be inherently better than the collimated Photon Rocket?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 10/14/2017 09:45 am
IMO – We should not have any standing waves regime; they are self cancellations. We need to develop a stable E field within a variable B field. This way, we should be able to squeeze out a resultant time rate gradient which can escape/envelop the device. In turn, the time rate gradient would impart a stochastic differential to all particles (Croca) of the device and motion. 

Here is the “squeezing” rational.  A variation of B in dt induces a specific E.  If we produce a variation B in a higher E than the specific one, we are then forcing or squeezing the dt into matching the B and E we control. A proper dt gradient would effectively produce a time vector for motion.

In this case why use a microwave cavity? Why not use a powerful electromagnetic coil inducing a variable B-field inside the volume of an asymmetric HV capacitor instrad? Seems the E-field, and especially the B-field, would be much larger.

BTW the same idea applies for Harold White's Q-thruster, which relies on E×B Lorentz force acting upon "real or almost real charged virtual particles".
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 10/14/2017 10:19 am
But having played trumpet for over 20 years, I know a little about tuning and instrument design.  When you make an instrument, you want resonance, but you don't want harmonics.  When we look at simulations with multi modes, I say to myself: "That would sound horrible (like a Japanese car horn), you'd have multiple notes robbing each other of the purity and power of one note (like a brass instrument)."  To continue the analogy, I don't think it is a stretch to say that multiple points of high energy density are robbing energy from a potential clear single "note".  And because other points of discussion are making a connection between the energy density and quality within the resonant chamber with thrust potential, I believe I can say that a single clear note targeted properly in the chamber by the geometry of the chamber will result in a more powerful effect than many points of high energy density.

If these two images were a musical instrument! they would be nearly in tune, exhibiting just a bit of "splatter". The quality could be higher by changing the geometry a little more to achieve a nice single note by eliminating the remaining harmonics. I also notice the energy density is going way up compared to the multi mode simulations.

So my question for Kenjee is can you further play with the geometry to clean up the note and eliminate the remaining harmonics?

My question for others is should he (My analogy may be crap), and if so, where in the chamber should the high energy density be focused for Kenjee to tune the shape? I believe it should be near the top.
Woah! Thanks Kenjee!!!!

Look at that energy density when you tuned out the harmonics! You nearly tripled it!!!

A little more tuning and you're there! For this shape and frequency. Play with the bottom plate curve to focus the harmonics up into the center of the energy density.

Please also try two more shapes. If you position two parabolic arcs like a football you should get one very dense area in the center. If you have two catenary arcs in the same direction, but one longer than the other (like a smiley face) you should get a less dense effect, but nicely offset from the center if you shape it right, which may be better for creating thrust (assuming there is a connection).

sghill, according to Kenjee's result after your suggestion, it seems you put your finger on an important analogy with musical instruments. Let's go further. Your idea of catenary curves is an example, I have another.

Remember Juan Yang's design adding parallel (cylindrical) wall extensions on both sides of the truncated conical shape? I think the "bell" could be refined and be shaped like… a real bell, with smoother transitions, taking Yang's idea of cylindrical extension near the wide end. See the cross-section profile below illustrating this idea.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 10/14/2017 10:30 am
Gentlemen,

Is it possible that a bell cavity which is wider and squatter (ie. lower aspect ratio) would produce a zone of energy-density that is more lenticular/pancake shaped, and more proximately aligned with the Small End?

Wouldn't such an energy-dense zonal shape be more suited for the desired flux?

You mean, like this shape? ;D
(same as the bell in my previous post, squeezed to 1/3 of original height).
Although you couldn't put any people in such a cavity without frying them with microwaves and disturbing the fields, nor control its direction, this is odd.

EDIT: this shape flatter than the bell may not well focus EM waves near small end, so a second proposal below. Has anyone tested the quality resonance of such shapes?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sanman on 10/14/2017 12:02 pm
Hmm, at least we now have a way to explain why so many UFOs look the way they do  ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 10/14/2017 03:17 pm
Integrate the product of the energy density and the adjacent element of the surface area over the whole inner surface. The NET result will be the force. Is it zero? If the walls are perfectly conducting, it should be. However, since there are asymmetrical non-zero losses in the warm copper, maybe not.  8)

Alright, but how would that be inherently better than the collimated Photon Rocket?

Because a gravitational acceleration is created which is directly proportional to the time derivative of the power dissipation.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sanman on 10/14/2017 03:55 pm
Because a gravitational acceleration is created which is directly proportional to the time derivative of the power dissipation.

So the longer that field takes to dissipate without further power input into the cavity, the more propulsive this thing is?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 10/14/2017 05:07 pm
Integrate the product of the energy density and the adjacent element of the surface area over the whole inner surface. The NET result will be the force. Is it zero? If the walls are perfectly conducting, it should be. However, since there are asymmetrical non-zero losses in the warm copper, maybe not.  8)

Alright, but how would that be inherently better than the collimated Photon Rocket?

Because a gravitational acceleration is created which is directly proportional to the time derivative of the power dissipation.

What exactly is being dissipated.  This sounds a lot like saying gravity exists because of increasing entropy or energy disipation via matter.

I am inclined to think that the energy dissipation is with regards to the vacuum energy.  That is the vacuum loses energy when acting on matter in free-fall.  So energy conservation free falling matter accelerates and gains energy and the vacuum loses energy. 

(Not sure how this fits in but when that matter impacts the planet surface it loses its kinetic energy to entropy or thermal aspects much of which can escape the planets surface and travels into the solar system away from the planet.  )

However, this energy loss of the vacuum seems permanent while the matter is gathered, (reducing the dance of the matter in equilibrium with it)  the more matter is gathered.  If energy is given to the matter to allow it to escape the gravity well, the well dissipates, and the matter separated speeds up in time.  Almost like the separation of the matter allows the energy to be given back to the vacuum.  (Red shift of light escaping a gravity well is light giving some of its energy to the vacuum?)

It seems tempting to view the vacuum in a gravity well as being devoid of energy similar to the Casimir force where plates are attracted via an energy defecit between them.  However, this Casimir force is supposed to be different from gravity is it not? 

So how does this figure into your power dissipation?  Is it power being dissipated from the vacuum, where this extra energy seems to be appearing via propellant-less acceleration?  So if we keep harvesting it, creating our own black hole.  Basically devoiding the vacuum of its energy?  Dissipating the vacuum? 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 10/14/2017 07:14 pm
Integrate the product of the energy density and the adjacent element of the surface area over the whole inner surface. The NET result will be the force. Is it zero? If the walls are perfectly conducting, it should be. However, since there are asymmetrical non-zero losses in the warm copper, maybe not.  8)

Alright, but how would that be inherently better than the collimated Photon Rocket?

Because a gravitational acceleration is created which is directly proportional to the time derivative of the power dissipation.

What exactly is being dissipated.  This sounds a lot like saying gravity exists because of increasing entropy or energy disipation via matter.

I am inclined to think that the energy dissipation is with regards to the vacuum energy.  That is the vacuum loses energy when acting on matter in free-fall.  So energy conservation free falling matter accelerates and gains energy and the vacuum loses energy. 

(Not sure how this fits in but when that matter impacts the planet surface it loses its kinetic energy to entropy or thermal aspects much of which can escape the planets surface and travels into the solar system away from the planet.  )

However, this energy loss of the vacuum seems permanent while the matter is gathered, (reducing the dance of the matter in equilibrium with it)  the more matter is gathered.  If energy is given to the matter to allow it to escape the gravity well, the well dissipates, and the matter separated speeds up in time.  Almost like the separation of the matter allows the energy to be given back to the vacuum.  (Red shift of light escaping a gravity well is light giving some of its energy to the vacuum?)

It seems tempting to view the vacuum in a gravity well as being devoid of energy similar to the Casimir force where plates are attracted via an energy defecit between them.  However, this Casimir force is supposed to be different from gravity is it not? 

So how does this figure into your power dissipation?  Is it power being dissipated from the vacuum, where this extra energy seems to be appearing via propellant-less acceleration?  So if we keep harvesting it, creating our own black hole.  Basically devoiding the vacuum of its energy?  Dissipating the vacuum?

I've expressed different interpretations over the years. In my EM QV Warp Drive paper, (2015) I wrote:

"It is proposed that gravitational fields may be interpreted as a variation in the relative available driving power (Watts) of the Electromagnetic, Zero-Point Field (ZPF)."  -- Which is similar to what you are saying here. There is a loss of power in the ZPF.

However, in my Quantum Gravity paper, (2016) I added:
"It is hypothesized that the loss of power is due to increased radiative damping of matter, resulting from an increase in the local relative energy density which promotes this process."

I added this hypothesis because the ZPF "IS" the minimum energy state of the field. It can't go any lower than that, so a loss of power in the ZPF itself doesn't make sense but, we are not measuring the ZPF itself, we are measuring matter. As in, the length of a ruler and the rate of a clock. My hypothesis is then, that the local energy density enhances stimulated emission of atoms, which lowers the mean-square matter=vacuum equilibrium power.

As Dr. Fearn wrote, if we hypothesize that there is no Radiation Reaction of the atom, and that the effects of RR are due to all the rest of the matter in the Universe. Then, per QED, 1/2 the spontaneous emission probability amplitude is due to stimulated emission by the ZPF and the other 1/2 is due to stimulated emission by the rest of the matter in the Universe. That's where my hypothesis comes in.

Just a reminder, energy is observer dependent. In the frame of a distant observer, outside the gravity well. Energy appears to decrease, not increase, as matter approaches r=Rs. Time stops, so f⇒0, so h*f⇒0. Momentum on the other hand, does increase. Length contracts, so p⇒∞, so h/λ⇒∞. I didn't specify, but my model is "always" in the frame of the distant observer, observing the behavior of "matter", not the field itself.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 10/14/2017 08:10 pm
Because a gravitational acceleration is created which is directly proportional to the time derivative of the power dissipation.

So the longer that field takes to dissipate without further power input into the cavity, the more propulsive this thing is?

No, it's a time derivative (a rate), not an integral. The higher the rate of change in power, the greater the acceleration, and thrust.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 10/14/2017 10:07 pm
Integrate the product of the energy density and the adjacent element of the surface area over the whole inner surface. The NET result will be the force. Is it zero? If the walls are perfectly conducting, it should be. However, since there are asymmetrical non-zero losses in the warm copper, maybe not.  8)

Alright, but how would that be inherently better than the collimated Photon Rocket?

Because a gravitational acceleration is created which is directly proportional to the time derivative of the power dissipation.

What exactly is being dissipated.  This sounds a lot like saying gravity exists because of increasing entropy or energy disipation via matter.

I am inclined to think that the energy dissipation is with regards to the vacuum energy.  That is the vacuum loses energy when acting on matter in free-fall.  So energy conservation free falling matter accelerates and gains energy and the vacuum loses energy. 

(Not sure how this fits in but when that matter impacts the planet surface it loses its kinetic energy to entropy or thermal aspects much of which can escape the planets surface and travels into the solar system away from the planet.  )

However, this energy loss of the vacuum seems permanent while the matter is gathered, (reducing the dance of the matter in equilibrium with it)  the more matter is gathered.  If energy is given to the matter to allow it to escape the gravity well, the well dissipates, and the matter separated speeds up in time.  Almost like the separation of the matter allows the energy to be given back to the vacuum.  (Red shift of light escaping a gravity well is light giving some of its energy to the vacuum?)

It seems tempting to view the vacuum in a gravity well as being devoid of energy similar to the Casimir force where plates are attracted via an energy defecit between them.  However, this Casimir force is supposed to be different from gravity is it not? 

So how does this figure into your power dissipation?  Is it power being dissipated from the vacuum, where this extra energy seems to be appearing via propellant-less acceleration?  So if we keep harvesting it, creating our own black hole.  Basically devoiding the vacuum of its energy?  Dissipating the vacuum?

Dissipation of the internal energy of the EMdrive. Reducing its mass. Its mass isn't constant. Neither is its momentum. The way I'm thinking now is that the velocity is remaining constant, and it's the mass and the momentum that's changing. I'll see if that holds up over the course of a lot of thinking.

The wavelength spreading haunts me. I see the answer right in front of me. I've read about this, I've studied it, I've seen it in different contexts*, and yet it eludes me.

* http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1735887#msg1735887

Why do I think that I need to accelerate in order to travel to the stars? I don't. I can get there by friction too. I can slow down in a particular direction and I can still go to places unseen. If that doesn't make any sense, research about how we all travel through spacetime at c. If I slow my passage through time, I increase my passage through space.

I'm beginning to think that the EMdrive isn't translationally invariant or temporally invariant, longitudinally. It is rotationally invariant as seen when spinning the drive around its longitudinal axis.

I see a contradiction in my post, and it is probably related to the mass defect that I believe must be there, so I know I'm not understanding yet.

Just for clarification, I'm treating the electromagnetic waves as the internal forces, and I'm treating the cavity losses as the external forces. The resultant is the partially standing wave.

I do understand how the unequal losses at each end set up the unequal amplitudes (and I showed the math for how that happens in a slide) of the counterpropagating waves, and which the sum of the two is a partial standing wave. That's internal and external forces at play. It conserves momentum.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sanman on 10/15/2017 01:23 am
I'm beginning to think that the EMdrive isn't translationally invariant or temporally invariant, longitudinally. It is rotationally invariant as seen when spinning the drive around its longitudinal axis.

That's an interesting idea - what if you were to spin the EMdrive around its longitudinal axis (since it is axisymmetric) - what would be the result of doing that?

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 10/15/2017 02:02 am
I'm beginning to think that the EMdrive isn't translationally invariant or temporally invariant, longitudinally. It is rotationally invariant as seen when spinning the drive around its longitudinal axis.

That's an interesting idea - what if you were to spin the EMdrive around its longitudinal axis (since it is axisymmetric) - what would be the result of doing that?

Nothing different.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sanman on 10/15/2017 02:21 am
Because a gravitational acceleration is created which is directly proportional to the time derivative of the power dissipation.

So the longer that field takes to dissipate without further power input into the cavity, the more propulsive this thing is?

No, it's a time derivative (a rate), not an integral. The higher the rate of change in power, the greater the acceleration, and thrust.

So how do you maintain the rate of change in the power, in order to produce/sustain the acceleration?
You can't just keep jacking up the power forever - presumably that's just happening at startup, and then after that your power feed level is steady. Can you just cycle the power? If the rate of change of power is negative (ie. power level is dropping) then is the thrust or acceleration negative?

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 10/15/2017 02:27 am
Because a gravitational acceleration is created which is directly proportional to the time derivative of the power dissipation.

So the longer that field takes to dissipate without further power input into the cavity, the more propulsive this thing is?

No, it's a time derivative (a rate), not an integral. The higher the rate of change in power, the greater the acceleration, and thrust.

So how do you maintain the rate of change in the power, in order to produce/sustain the acceleration?
You can't just keep jacking up the power forever - presumably that's just happening at startup, and then after that your power feed level is steady. Can you just cycle the power? If the rate of change of power is negative (ie. power level is dropping) then is the thrust or acceleration negative?

All good questions. I suggest you read up on Dr. Rodal's paper and Prof. Tajmar's paper on the MEGA Drive. All the math and explanations are there, on how to make a thruster.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sanman on 10/15/2017 03:51 am
There are ultra-short pulse lasers, like Femtosecond-pulse Lasers. There are even long-wave versions of these. If this short-pulsed approach were taken using microwaves, then could that provide the high rate of change in power to give better acceleration?

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7442760/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrashort_pulse
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 10/15/2017 04:04 am
There are ultra-short pulse lasers, like Femtosecond-pulse Lasers. There are even long-wave versions of these. If this short-pulsed approach were taken using microwaves, then could that provide the high rate of change in power to give better acceleration?

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7442760/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrashort_pulse

Like chirped pulse amplification? I made this post a month after I found some insight on YouTube (which I talked about in a recently moderated post).

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1653933#msg1653933
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 10/15/2017 02:26 pm
This is an interesting visual.

https://youtu.be/DdC0QN6f3G4
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sanman on 10/15/2017 02:43 pm
Why do I think that I need to accelerate in order to travel to the stars? I don't. I can get there by friction too. I can slow down in a particular direction and I can still go to places unseen. If that doesn't make any sense, research about how we all travel through spacetime at c. If I slow my passage through time, I increase my passage through space.

I'm beginning to think that the EMdrive isn't translationally invariant or temporally invariant, longitudinally. It is rotationally invariant as seen when spinning the drive around its longitudinal axis.

I really think that Time is just a non-physical construct imagined by us, and that Entropy is the more representative and more physically meaningful concept. Time simply marks the changes in Entropy, and progression of Time is really just progression of Entropy. Relativistic effects on Time are actually just relativistic effects on Entropy and its rate of change. We define all Observation through our own mental process of Observation, which is simply based on a a sequence of Entropy-correlated states.

So when you say "if I slow my passage in time, then..." - I'd argue that it's better to think in terms of "if I slow my Entropy changes, then..." - ie. it's better to re-think and re-work everything temporally-related in terms of entropy instead.
Not trying to be metaphysical or philosphical here, just going with Occam's Razor. (It's actually Time which is metaphysical, while Entropy is physical)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 10/15/2017 03:39 pm
Integrate the product of the energy density and the adjacent element of the surface area over the whole inner surface. The NET result will be the force. Is it zero? If the walls are perfectly conducting, it should be. However, since there are asymmetrical non-zero losses in the warm copper, maybe not.  8)

Alright, but how would that be inherently better than the collimated Photon Rocket?

Because a gravitational acceleration is created which is directly proportional to the time derivative of the power dissipation.

What exactly is being dissipated.  This sounds a lot like saying gravity exists because of increasing entropy or energy disipation via matter.

I am inclined to think that the energy dissipation is with regards to the vacuum energy.  That is the vacuum loses energy when acting on matter in free-fall.  So energy conservation free falling matter accelerates and gains energy and the vacuum loses energy. 

(Not sure how this fits in but when that matter impacts the planet surface it loses its kinetic energy to entropy or thermal aspects much of which can escape the planets surface and travels into the solar system away from the planet.  )

However, this energy loss of the vacuum seems permanent while the matter is gathered, (reducing the dance of the matter in equilibrium with it)  the more matter is gathered.  If energy is given to the matter to allow it to escape the gravity well, the well dissipates, and the matter separated speeds up in time.  Almost like the separation of the matter allows the energy to be given back to the vacuum.  (Red shift of light escaping a gravity well is light giving some of its energy to the vacuum?)

It seems tempting to view the vacuum in a gravity well as being devoid of energy similar to the Casimir force where plates are attracted via an energy defecit between them.  However, this Casimir force is supposed to be different from gravity is it not? 

So how does this figure into your power dissipation?  Is it power being dissipated from the vacuum, where this extra energy seems to be appearing via propellant-less acceleration?  So if we keep harvesting it, creating our own black hole.  Basically devoiding the vacuum of its energy?  Dissipating the vacuum?

Dissipation of the internal energy of the EMdrive. Reducing its mass. Its mass isn't constant. Neither is its momentum. The way I'm thinking now is that the velocity is remaining constant, and it's the mass and the momentum that's changing. I'll see if that holds up over the course of a lot of thinking.

The wavelength spreading haunts me. I see the answer right in front of me. I've read about this, I've studied it, I've seen it in different contexts*, and yet it eludes me.

* http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1735887#msg1735887

Why do I think that I need to accelerate in order to travel to the stars? I don't. I can get there by friction too. I can slow down in a particular direction and I can still go to places unseen. If that doesn't make any sense, research about how we all travel through spacetime at c. If I slow my passage through time, I increase my passage through space.

I'm beginning to think that the EMdrive isn't translationally invariant or temporally invariant, longitudinally. It is rotationally invariant as seen when spinning the drive around its longitudinal axis.

I see a contradiction in my post, and it is probably related to the mass defect that I believe must be there, so I know I'm not understanding yet.

Just for clarification, I'm treating the electromagnetic waves as the internal forces, and I'm treating the cavity losses as the external forces. The resultant is the partially standing wave.

I do understand how the unequal losses at each end set up the unequal amplitudes (and I showed the math for how that happens in a slide) of the counterpropagating waves, and which the sum of the two is a partial standing wave. That's internal and external forces at play. It conserves momentum.


The lowering in amplitude being less photons.  Pardon my earlier statement, I was not implying you thought photons lost frequency via conversion to heat The traveling wave part should increase with asymmetrical power loss at one end.  Like throwing a superconductor on one end (or highly reflective) and something less reflective on the other.  For a traveling wave in the direction you want antenna placement may be integral. 

One reason it may be integral is because you would want the traveling magnetic part of the wave to act on as much of the frustum as possible before it dissipates (poor reflection).  This would be similar to using eddy currents in the cavity with the traveling magnetic part to drag the EM drive along. 

The trick would be to show this could be better than photon propulsion.  I am inclined to think it just might be if the traveling wave some how acts on the sides of the frustum walls dragging, but if the light is truly dragging the frustum then we might have the effect that could red-shift the traveling wave via transference of energy. So the cavity would drag along in the direction of energy dissipation.   I am not sure how Q factors in here. 

This also reminds me of plasmon polariton resonance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_plasmon_polariton . 

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1735700#msg1735700

Manipulation of light in MIM plasmonic waveguide systems  (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Guoxi_Wang/publication/257689651_Manipulation_of_light_in_MIM_plasmonic_waveguide_systems/links/0c96052ca786eea463000000/Manipulation-of-light-in-MIM-plasmonic-waveguide-systems.pdf)
Quote from: Manipulation of light in MIM plasmonic waveguide systems LU Hua† , WANG GuoXi†
The results reveal that the cutoff frequency has a red-shift with the increase of the grating depth. Figure 6(c) depicts the group index c/vg as a function of the incident frequency at a given grating depth. It is found that the group velocity vg (≡∂ω/∂β) can be slowed down significantly when the incident frequency approaches the cutoff frequency. The quasi-period-stub structure is introduced to enlarge the slow light frequency range.

In a research paper they were noting the broadening of light pulses they were sending into what I though was asymmetrical cavities in one paper I was reading.  There seems to be some cases where it is advantageous to put in dielectrics to increase the momentum of the light to better couple the light for plasmon polariton resonance.  Not sure exactly of the significance. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 10/15/2017 04:17 pm
Why do I think that I need to accelerate in order to travel to the stars? I don't. I can get there by friction too. I can slow down in a particular direction and I can still go to places unseen.
You seem to be confused. Slowing down is still accelerating. The same relativistic effects happen. Also, if you are going to talk about friction, it needs to be friction on some external medium. This may sound a bit pedantic, but it is important to be clear when discussing things like this.

I really think that Time is just a non-physical construct imagined by us, and that Entropy is the more representative and more physically meaningful concept. Time simply marks the changes in Entropy, and progression of Time is really just progression of Entropy. Relativistic effects on Time are actually just relativistic effects on Entropy and its rate of change. We define all Observation through our own mental process of Observation, which is simply based on a a sequence of Entropy-correlated states.

So when you say "if I slow my passage in time, then..." - I'd argue that it's better to think in terms of "if I slow my Entropy changes, then..." - ie. it's better to re-think and re-work everything temporally-related in terms of entropy instead.
Not trying to be metaphysical or philosphical here, just going with Occam's Razor. (It's actually Time which is metaphysical, while Entropy is physical)
Your description quite trivially does not match reality, so it fails Occam's Razor. The only correlation between entropy and time is that as time progresses forward, the rate of change of entropy is greater than or equal to 0. As a very explicit example, if you have a block of wood sitting somewhere, entropy is increasing very slowly. If you then light the wood on fire, entropy is increasing many orders of magnitude faster, yet no clocks nearby will run at a different rate. Time is therefore quite real and distinct from entropy.

There have been a lot of theories I have seen posted recently, and I have just skimmed most of them. Generally there are a lot of suggestions like this one for radical changes to physics, yet no attempt to even check if basic mechanics is still consistent under them. I get some people are just brainstorming or thinking out loud, but this seems to be significantly adding to the noise floor in the thread.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 10/15/2017 04:23 pm
Why do I think that I need to accelerate in order to travel to the stars? I don't. I can get there by friction too. I can slow down in a particular direction and I can still go to places unseen.
You seem to be confused. Slowing down is still accelerating. The same relativistic effects happen. Also, if you are going to talk about friction, it needs to be friction on some external medium. This may sound a bit pedantic, but it is important to be clear when discussing things like this.


Yeah you're right, I should have said decelerate.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 10/15/2017 04:40 pm
...

I suppose if a traveling wave in a waveguide red-shifted, the wave guide would have to accelerate or (the circling current may accelerate, causing a change in charge or undesired modes.)  I do vaguely remember some problem in waveguide mechanics (Maybe TT stated it) where they choose waveguides well beyond cutoff because of increased resistance if the waveguide is too small.  Wondering if there could be an Eddy current braking effect acting on the wave guide with a traveling wave that is close to cutoff. 

Maybe elongating the EM drive to be as long as possible near cutoff for a traveling wave might have some interesting results?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sanman on 10/15/2017 05:15 pm
Your description quite trivially does not match reality, so it fails Occam's Razor. The only correlation between entropy and time is that as time progresses forward, the rate of change of entropy is greater than or equal to 0. As a very explicit example, if you have a block of wood sitting somewhere, entropy is increasing very slowly. If you then light the wood on fire, entropy is increasing many orders of magnitude faster, yet no clocks nearby will run at a different rate. Time is therefore quite real and distinct from entropy.

The Entropy state of our brain is what I was referring to when I said our "mental process of observation" - that is what allows us to note the passage of Time. The block of wood has its own entropy state independent of our brain - so yes, it can vary for the block of wood (catches on fire or doesn't), and that doesn't affect the entropy state of our brain.

But there is the Overall Entropy state of Our Local Universe - and the entropy state of a clock is more correlated to this Overall Entropy state of Our Local Universe than it is to the entropy state of the block of wood (burning or not), or the entropy state of our brain. That's the reason why we have devised the clock and its mechanisms to help us mark the passage of time - because our own brains are not as reliably correlated to the Overall Entropy state of Our Local Universe, but the clock and its underlying mechanisms are. One human being will feel "time flies very fast" while another will simultaneously feel "time is passing very slowly", because our brains are independent of each other, and our brains are not reliably uniform in marking the Overall Entropy state of Our Local Universe.


The forward progression of Time, as we perceive it, is because of the Arrow of Entropy, and the Arrow of Entropy is because our mental process - the thinking and remembering, the means by which we Observe - is itself a sequence of entropy-correlated states reflecting progressive increase in Entropy.

Sorry to divert conversation with discussion of Physical-vs-Metaphysical. But Time is metaphysical, while Entropy is physical. We are only able to mark time due to changes in Entropy - because we are only able to think/remember/Observe due to changes in Entropy (inside our brains).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 10/15/2017 05:20 pm
From the little I understand of Warptech’s theory, dissipation is closely linked to the rate of flow of time. As mentioned a few times here, manipulating the rate of flow of time leads directly to gravitational forces by direct application of GR.

If you take this step further, one can generate an exact solution of the free space field equations which corresponds to a plane wave in the x,t plane. Remarkably *any* waveform travelling at c is a solution.

Lastly, if a symmetrical pulse passes a test particle, the test particle does *not* seem to return to its original position. The geodesic equations are non-linear and I believe induce Coriolis-like terms which cause the particle to experience a net movement.

I don’t know how you would generate such plane waves, or if that might occur in the EMdrive.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 10/15/2017 05:20 pm
...
Your description quite trivially does not match reality, so it fails Occam's Razor. The only correlation between entropy and time is that as time progresses forward, the rate of change of entropy is greater than or equal to 0. As a very explicit example, if you have a block of wood sitting somewhere, entropy is increasing very slowly. If you then light the wood on fire, entropy is increasing many orders of magnitude faster, yet no clocks nearby will run at a different rate. Time is therefore quite real and distinct from entropy.

...

While I agree with your intent above or at least the bulk of it, in this last.., "yet no clocks nearby will run at a different rate. Time is therefore quite real and distinct from entropy.", I question the logic.

Clocks are not time. Clocks measure/record change, within an agreed upon rate. I agree that entropy as you describe above, does not change the way clocks measure/record any rate of change... But clocks are not time. Time is a construct of the mind we use to communicate how we observe and experience change. A construct for which we use clocks as descriptive rulers. IOW Change is real and time is a construct of the mind used to communicate, the measurement, observation and experience of change.

This is most times a nit picking distinction (almost certainly in this case), because the concept is critical to our understanding of everything else, "under the sun" and to communication itself. However sometimes in these discussions the tendency to attribute to "Time" some sort of inherent independent reality, as if it were causative rather than a descriptive construct, seems to confuse at least to some extent, many of the other concepts and possible mechanisms being discussed.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 10/15/2017 05:36 pm

There have been a lot of theories I have seen posted recently, and I have just skimmed most of them. Generally there are a lot of suggestions like this one for radical changes to physics, yet no attempt to even check if basic mechanics is still consistent under them. I get some people are just brainstorming or thinking out loud, but this seems to be significantly adding to the noise floor in the thread.

There's only one thing that an EMdrive does well (certainly not thrusting), it's getting people to think. That's why I replaced the Monolith with an EMdrive in my display pic.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 10/15/2017 06:42 pm
The Entropy state of our brain is what I was referring to when I said our "mental process of observation" - that is what allows us to note the passage of Time. The block of wood has its own entropy state independent of our brain - so yes, it can vary for the block of wood (catches on fire or doesn't), and that doesn't affect the entropy state of our brain.
The passage of time is independent of entropy. entropy cannot measure the passage of time, only the direction.

But there is the Overall Entropy state of Our Local Universe - and the entropy state of a clock is more correlated to this Overall Entropy state of Our Local Universe than it is to the entropy state of the block of wood (burning or not), or the entropy state of our brain.
No. The entropy change in our bodies, in the block of wood, etc. affect the local entropy of the universe, so burning a block of wood increases the rate at which entropy increases, and if entropy could be used instead of time, that means a nearby clock (with a mechanical mechanism electrical mechanism, or any other principle of operation) should run faster.

Sorry to divert conversation with discussion of Physical-vs-Metaphysical. But Time is metaphysical, while Entropy is physical.
Completely false. Time is physical. You cannot write the laws of physics without time. You cannot use entropy to fully describe an elastic collision between 2 balls, but you do need to use time to do so.

We are only able to mark time due to changes in Entropy - because we are only able to think/remember/Observe due to changes in Entropy (inside our brains).
I skipped most of the stuff you talked about observation and brains because it is quite obvious that the chemical balance inside our brains does not actually affect the rate that time passes. This sentence though goes a step further into utter contradictory nonsense. Remembering stuff inside our brains would mean an increase in order, and a local decrease in entropy (enabled by the increase in entropy caused by digestion and metabolic processes, our bodies maintain an internal equilibrium, so the positive entropy change ends up generally leaving our bodies along with the waste heat.).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 10/15/2017 07:54 pm
The forgotten mystery of inertia

https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-forgotten-mystery-of-inertia
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sanman on 10/15/2017 07:58 pm
The passage of time is independent of entropy. entropy cannot measure the passage of time, only the direction.


Sir, I'm saying the importance of Entropy is greater than the importance of Time.

Sir, I'm not trying to mindlessly/stubbornly quarrel with you or provoke you. I'm happy to continue this chat in Private Message to avoid raising the noise floor as you've pointed out.  :)


Quote
No. The entropy change in our bodies, in the block of wood, etc. affect the local entropy of the universe, so burning a block of wood increases the rate at which entropy increases, and if entropy could be used instead of time, that means a nearby clock (with a mechanical mechanism electrical mechanism, or any other principle of operation) should run faster.

Sir, I understand and completely agree with you that entropy of the component objects of the universe affect the total entropy of the universe. However, my point was that the rate of entropy increase of the burning block of wood (vs non-burning block) does not reflect the overall rate of entropy increase of the universe. (Because the universe is comprised of a lot more than just that block of wood. Therefore your invoking of the block of wood as a counter-argument to me was a Straw Man)


Quote
Completely false. Time is physical. You cannot write the laws of physics without time. You cannot use entropy to fully describe an elastic collision between 2 balls, but you do need to use time to do so.

Sure you can, because the person observing the collision (or the universe inside which the collision is occurring) is undergoing entropy progression which you call passage of Time. Time is a representation of Entropy (with Entropy being the more meaningful property)

Why don't we continue in Private Message chat? As you say, this can avoid raising Noise Floor.  :)

Quote
I skipped most of the stuff you talked about observation and brains because it is quite obvious that the chemical balance inside our brains does not actually affect the rate that time passes. This sentence though goes a step further into utter contradictory nonsense. Remembering stuff inside our brains would mean an increase in order, and a local decrease in entropy (enabled by the increase in entropy caused by digestion and metabolic processes, our bodies maintain an internal equilibrium, so the positive entropy change ends up generally leaving our bodies along with the waste heat.).


Sir, the salient actions of thinking and remembering (ie. the basis of Observing) are electrochemical actions which occur with entropy increase. The supporting actions that you describe - digesting, metabolizing, etc, while also being chemical processes which also correlate with entropy increase of the universe, are still nevertheless not the thinking/remembering/Observing actions (mental process) themselves.

I'm saying that the physical basis for our mental process of thinking/remembering/Observing is the fundamental reason for our sense of passage of time, which we have adopted as a convention in analyzing physics. This is why time passes for us, this is why we experience passage of T in a way that we do not experience passage of X, Y, Z. Mathematically, we should be able to treat T as just another dimensional axis, like X, Y, Z. So then in real life, why don't we experience T in the same way that we experience X, Y, Z? Why do we instead experience T uniquely as our ordinal axis, which does not happen for X, Y, Z?

This ordinal axis (euphemistically referred to as T) is the result of a chain of entropy-correlated states in our brains, which is what enables us to be conscious, to think, to remember, to know there was a past as opposed to just experiencing the present - ie. the basis for our ability to be Observers, the convention by which we define Observation in physics.

It's because our mental process is correlated to Entropy progression, that we even have a sense of an ordinal dimension (Time). This is what fundamentally differentiates T from X,Y,Z in our perception. Entropy is the reason why we take T as our ordinal axis - specifically, because entropy progression correlates to a sequence of thought/memory states that are the basis for our Observation.


If the universe is deterministic and all the other "future" states of the universe exist in a determinate way, the reason that we progress through these states is rooted in the physical nature of our mental process.

I apologize to everyone for raising the Noise Floor in this thread, I will discontinue discussion here and I'm happy to continue in Private Message chat.  :)


While I agree with your intent above or at least the bulk of it, in this last.., "yet no clocks nearby will run at a different rate. Time is therefore quite real and distinct from entropy.", I question the logic.

Clocks are not time. Clocks measure/record change, within an agreed upon rate. I agree that entropy as you describe above, does not change the way clocks measure/record any rate of change... But clocks are not time. Time is a construct of the mind we use to communicate how we observe and experience change. A construct for which we use clocks as descriptive rulers. IOW Change is real and time is a construct of the mind used to communicate, the measurement, observation and experience of change.

This is most times a nit picking distinction (almost certainly in this case), because the concept is critical to our understanding of everything else, "under the sun" and to communication itself. However sometimes in these discussions the tendency to attribute to "Time" some sort of inherent independent reality, as if it were causative rather than a descriptive construct, seems to confuse at least to some extent, many of the other concepts and possible mechanisms being discussed.

Thanks for this - I too am trying to say that Time is just a euphemism or descriptor, and not some required property to describe the universe. Entropy is an alternative descriptor, and a more meaningful one, imho. There is no fundamental compulsion that compels "passage of Time" - it's our mental process that creates the perception of passage of time. And the direction of that Time axis is determined by Entropy, which connects each mental state (ie. each observational state) to the next.

Think of a Connect-The-Dots puzzle. The dots are the observed states of the universe, and are numbered by the entropy level. No dot has a true chonological precedence over others - the order of precedence is defined by the adjacent entropy states that form our thinking/remembering process. It's from that, that our convention of chronology arises.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 10/15/2017 09:10 pm
Sir, I'm not trying to mindlessly/stubbornly quarrel with you or provoke you. I'm happy to continue this chat in Private Message to avoid raising the noise floor as you've pointed out.  :)
I appreciate the offer, but for now I think this is better worked out in public. For one thing, as was stated above by Mulletron, one of the benefits of the emDrive is getting people to think, but thinking based on falsehoods is unhelpful, so I want to correct the repeated false statements you have made.

Sir, I understand and completely agree with you that entropy of the component objects of the universe affect the total entropy of the universe. However, my point was that the rate of entropy increase of the burning block of wood (vs non-burning block) does not reflect the overall rate of entropy increase of the universe. (Because the universe is comprised of a lot more than just that block of wood. Therefore your invoking of the block of wood as a counter-argument to me was a Straw Man)
No, it is not a straw man, I am giving it as an example, and you just now have described what you think happens in this situation. What you just described is wrong. You start off fine with "agree with you that entropy of the component objects of the universe affect the total entropy of the universe"

But then you contradict this with the claim that the total entropy of the universe does not increase faster when the log is on fire. This claim is simply wrong. If I were to write your claim mathematically, it would be equivalent to 1+2 = 1 (base rate of universal entropy increase + additional rate of increase due to log burning = base rate of universal entropy increase.)

agree with you that entropy of the component objects of the universe affect the total entropy of the universe
Quote
Completely false. Time is physical. You cannot write the laws of physics without time. You cannot use entropy to fully describe an elastic collision between 2 balls, but you do need to use time to do so.

Sure you can, because the person observing the collision (or the universe inside which the collision is occurring) is undergoing entropy progression which you call passage of Time. Time is a representation of Entropy (with Entropy being the more meaningful property)[/quote]
This is all wrong. You cannot do what you claim. Go ahead and try. (Here is a hint to get you started: entropy is constant in the system. There is no external observer required for 2 balls to collide. If you want to bring in an external observer, you are going to then have to describe a mechanism where the balls magically start moving faster when entropy starts increasing faster elsewhere, such as by someone lighting a log on fire)

You seem to be under some kind of mistaken assumption where you think entropy must always be increasing. There is no such rule in physics, the only rule is that it cannot decrease globally. It can stay constant.

Sir, the salient actions of thinking and remembering (ie. the basis of Observing) are electrochemical actions which occur with entropy increase. The supporting actions that you describe - digesting, metabolizing, etc, while also being chemical processes which also correlate with entropy increase of the universe, are still nevertheless not the thinking/remembering/Observing actions (mental process) themselves.
No, forgetting something would entail a local entropy increase, but storing a memory would by definition be a local increase. Chemical reactions can occur that locally decrease entropy, as long as the cost is simultaneously paid (metabolic processes).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 10/16/2017 02:11 am


While I agree with your intent above or at least the bulk of it, in this last.., "yet no clocks nearby will run at a different rate. Time is therefore quite real and distinct from entropy.", I question the logic.

Clocks are not time. Clocks measure/record change, within an agreed upon rate. I agree that entropy as you describe above, does not change the way clocks measure/record any rate of change... But clocks are not time. Time is a construct of the mind we use to communicate how we observe and experience change. A construct for which we use clocks as descriptive rulers. IOW Change is real and time is a construct of the mind used to communicate, the measurement, observation and experience of change.

This is most times a nit picking distinction (almost certainly in this case), because the concept is critical to our understanding of everything else, "under the sun" and to communication itself. However sometimes in these discussions the tendency to attribute to "Time" some sort of inherent independent reality, as if it were causative rather than a descriptive construct, seems to confuse at least to some extent, many of the other concepts and possible mechanisms being discussed.

Thanks for this - I too am trying to say that Time is just a euphemism or descriptor, and not some required property to describe the universe. Entropy is an alternative descriptor, and a more meaningful one, imho. There is no fundamental compulsion that compels "passage of Time" - it's our mental process that creates the perception of passage of time. And the direction of that Time axis is determined by Entropy, which connects each mental state (ie. each observational state) to the next.

Think of a Connect-The-Dots puzzle. The dots are the observed states of the universe, and are numbered by the entropy level. No dot has a true chonological precedence over others - the order of precedence is defined by the adjacent entropy states that form our thinking/remembering process. It's from that, that our convention of chronology arises.

I believe you missed at least a part of what I intended.

When you contend, ” … Entropy is an alternative descriptor, and a more meaningful one, …”, I believe you are wrong. Entropy is just a specific type of change. Without an awareness of change, entropy has no meaning. Without a previously agreed upon concept of time and clock to use as a standard for the rate of change, we cannot accurately communicate ideas, thoughts and experiences, that involve change. Without the concept of time entropy has no meaning.

There is (or was) a small remote tribe in the Brazilian Amazon who had no concept of time. No today, yesterday, tomorrow or even the idea of morning, noon etc. Their language was all based on now… And another I believe from somewhere in Peru whose language ended with yesterday, today (now) and tomorrow. No day after tomorrow or day before yesterday.

The point is that the concept of time and a well defined previously agreed upon ruler to measure it with, a clock and calendar, are needed to discuss the fine details of things like entropy. Without the clock, our concept of time and the word "time" itself sometimes, we would be unable to clearly communicate much of our experience, observations and thoughts.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 10/16/2017 08:57 am
All,

The reality of clock time cannot be sensibly disputed because a clock can be formed upon such a wide variety of constantly changing mechanisms, many of which have the same relative rate of progress against solar system dynamics. I agree with Schrodinger that math must be a natural component of thought, wherever it occurs and time is surely a fundamental component of mathematics. What bothers me is that complex numbers do not seem to have the same credibility despite their being ubiquitous at all levels of analysis.

Complex numbers did not, so far as I know, appear in the mathematical tool kit until Euler (please correct me if I am wrong) who was alive at the same time as Newton. They were named imaginary because their incorporation into the list of number sets was conceptually challenging. The real (scalar) component and its imaginary (complex) conjugate were brought into stark contrast by their names, as if the former had substance and the latter none. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It seems obvious that complex numbers arise naturally as irreplaceable predictors of physical reality at the level of quadratic equations and argand diagrams. At the level of GR they are essential to every concept. Either complex numbers are a valid mathematical form or they are not. If they are, their judicial application to a set of observations can clarify our understanding of observed relationships just as the application of any other relevant number set can.

The incorporation of complex time into our understanding of inertia, gravity and quantum transposition, by visualisation of the forward coincidence of distant locations for everything exchanged at the speed of light, may yet become vital to the demystification of emdrive action. Remember folks, there are no such things as genuinely identical units of physical substance, despite the converse being the most fundamental axiom of mathematics. Math still works though, because it truly represents relationships, including complex ones.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Kenjee on 10/16/2017 10:10 am
Time is gravity?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 10/16/2017 03:13 pm
I'm thinking that I will back out of the advanced propulsion workshop in November. I've been working non-stop for a week now trying to collect good data and I can't seem to nail down the noise problem (see image below). I can easily detect forces below 3uN if the pendulum is completely still, but that is seldom the case - which is very frustrating. Just when I think I have solved the problem and get a clean run, the noise returns the next day with the same vigor. There has to be something fundamentally wrong that i'm missing, or this is the reason these experiments are performed in a vacuum!    In order to minimize the noise further I would need to increase the torsional spring constant and get a laser displacement sensor with higher resolution - which requires an ADC with higher resolution. In other words, another major retooling and expense.

There were emails this weekend about how they may have too many presentations on the emdrive this year.   Without good clear data, I wouldn't have much to add. It's also just a hobby for me and the idea of presenting this material in front of a bunch of professional scientists is very intimidating.  I know a cancellation means I probably won't be invited back, but I can't present this kind of data and expect it to be taken seriously.  There is also a deadline for a final paper that I just can't commit to.   I should have never accepted the offer to present to begin with. I am deeply sorry to those who recommended me and everyone counting on me.

I will continue working, as it brings me joy and satisfaction, just at a slower pace.
My Best,
Jamie
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: InterestedEngineer on 10/16/2017 05:06 pm
I'm thinking that I will back out of the advanced propulsion workshop in November. I've been working non-stop for a week now trying to collect good data and I can't seem to nail down the noise problem (see image below). I can easily detect forces below 3uN if the pendulum is completely still, but that is seldom the case - which is very frustrating. Just when I think I have solved the problem and get a clean run, the noise returns the next day with the same vigor. There has to be something fundamentally wrong that i'm missing, or this is the reason these experiments are performed in a vacuum!    In order to minimize the noise further I would need to increase the torsional spring constant and get a laser displacement sensor with higher resolution - which requires an ADC with higher resolution. In other words, another major retooling and expense.

From the looks of this graph you have noise with period of about 30-60 seconds.  I don't think improving the damping or ADC resolution is going to help.  You have to eliminate the source of the noise.   (well, if you set the damping tau to 120 seconds it would help, but wow that's a long time...)

Central air heating/conditioning coming on a regular cycle?  What in your area would generate noise at 30-60 second intervals?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 10/16/2017 05:31 pm
Central air heating/conditioning coming on a regular cycle?  What in your area would generate noise at 30-60 second intervals?

HVAC is always turned off during tests. The closest appliance is the refrigerator above one level, but not directly above the test stand - about 10 feet off to the left. Data is captured by a laptop 15' away with a small fan output that is muffled. There's nothing else around.

You can see all of the weights added in an attempt to stabilize below. 

I'm grasping for straws now thinking that it is the shape of the dampening fluid reservoir. I am using a rectangular reservoir with a rectangular damping paddle. I was reading best practices for damping a torsional pendulum where it was recommended that a circular reservoir be used. However, it didn't go into the details why that was recommended.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: jmossman on 10/16/2017 06:16 pm
...
I've been working non-stop for a week now trying to collect good data and I can't seem to nail down the noise problem (see image below). I can easily detect forces below 3uN if the pendulum is completely still, but that is seldom the case - which is very frustrating. Just when I think I have solved the problem and get a clean run, the noise returns the next day with the same vigor. There has to be something fundamentally wrong that i'm missing, or this is the reason these experiments are performed in a vacuum!
...

From the looks of this graph you have noise with period of about 30-60 seconds.  I don't think improving the damping or ADC resolution is going to help.  You have to eliminate the source of the noise.   (well, if you set the damping tau to 120 seconds it would help, but wow that's a long time...)

Central air heating/conditioning coming on a regular cycle?  What in your area would generate noise at 30-60 second intervals?

@Monomorphic,

Could you describe your rig when you are running calibration pulses?  Does disconnecting all of the batteries on the rig have any effect on the noise profile during calibration?

For your calibration pulses, are you using a permanent magnet on the torsion arm, and an electromagnet nearby?  Would it be possible to physically move the electromagnet after the calibration pulse?  A moving permanent magnet can induce currents in a nearby electromagnet, so I was wondering if that might be one of the noise sources.  Increasing the size of the air gap after the calibration pulse finishes would help test whether the electromagnet was having any effect on the noise.

Does the noise profile look different if the calibration pulse is stronger/weaker?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 10/16/2017 06:30 pm
Could you describe your rig when you are running calibration pulses?  Does disconnecting all of the batteries on the rig have any effect on the noise profile during calibration?

For your calibration pulses, are you using a permanent magnet on the torsion arm, and an electromagnet nearby?  Would it be possible to physically move the electromagnet after the calibration pulse?  A moving permanent magnet can induce currents in a nearby electromagnet, so I was wondering if that might be one of the noise sources.  Increasing the size of the air gap after the calibration pulse finishes would help test whether the electromagnet was having any effect on the noise.

Does the noise profile look different if the calibration pulse is stronger/weaker?

With everything unplugged and unpowered, I still get the noise. The calibration pulse is simply a small electromagnet outside of the enclosure. Inside the enclosure attached to the pendulum is a small aluminum arm that extends to 4cm away from the calibration coil. Attached to this arm is a small ferromagnetic screw. I use the electromagnet at a known distance and current to exert a force on the screw. Yes, I still get the noise even if the calibration coil is taken away.

I also performed a test increasing the air-gap. See below. The little spike in the middle in me moving the coil. This was one of the better runs.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: DusanC on 10/16/2017 06:43 pm
Could you describe your rig when you are running calibration pulses?  Does disconnecting all of the batteries on the rig have any effect on the noise profile during calibration?

For your calibration pulses, are you using a permanent magnet on the torsion arm, and an electromagnet nearby?  Would it be possible to physically move the electromagnet after the calibration pulse?  A moving permanent magnet can induce currents in a nearby electromagnet, so I was wondering if that might be one of the noise sources.  Increasing the size of the air gap after the calibration pulse finishes would help test whether the electromagnet was having any effect on the noise.

Does the noise profile look different if the calibration pulse is stronger/weaker?

With everything unplugged and unpowered, I still get the noise. The calibration pulse is simply a small electromagnet outside of the enclosure. Inside the enclosure attached to the pendulum is a small aluminum arm that extends to 4cm away from the calibration coil. Attached to this arm is a small ferromagnetic screw. I use the electromagnet at a known distance and current to exert a force on the screw. Yes, I still get the noise even if the calibration coil is taken away.

I also performed a test increasing the air-gap. See below. The little spike in the middle in me moving the coil. This was one of the better runs.

Can you try doing the measurement at 3-4AM. Once we tried to measure displacement of large machining center and we measured surrounding noise from the traffic more than 100m away (not audio, but oscillations traveling through the ground) even as machine + foundation weighted more than 20t. At 3-4AM we managed to make good measurements.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: DusanC on 10/16/2017 06:47 pm
Central air heating/conditioning coming on a regular cycle?  What in your area would generate noise at 30-60 second intervals?

HVAC is always turned off during tests. The closest appliance is the refrigerator above one level, but not directly above the test stand - about 10 feet off to the left. Data is captured by a laptop 15' away with a small fan output that is muffled. There's nothing else around.

You can see all of the weights added in an attempt to stabilize below. 

I'm grasping for straws now thinking that it is the shape of the dampening fluid reservoir. I am using a rectangular reservoir with a rectangular damping paddle. I was reading best practices for damping a torsional pendulum where it was recommended that a circular reservoir be used. However, it didn't go into the details why that was recommended.

Because of oscillations in fluid reservoir circular reservoir is better as you have only one main oscillating frequency.

What happens if you don't make the calibration pulse a pulse, but you increase the force slowly so to keep acceleration of whole torsional pendulum low?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 10/16/2017 07:00 pm
I'm thinking that I will back out of the advanced propulsion workshop in November. I've been working non-stop for a week now trying to collect good data and I can't seem to nail down the noise problem (see image below). I can easily detect forces below 3uN if the pendulum is completely still, but that is seldom the case - which is very frustrating. Just when I think I have solved the problem and get a clean run, the noise returns the next day with the same vigor. There has to be something fundamentally wrong that i'm missing, or this is the reason these experiments are performed in a vacuum!    In order to minimize the noise further I would need to increase the torsional spring constant and get a laser displacement sensor with higher resolution - which requires an ADC with higher resolution. In other words, another major retooling and expense.

There were emails this weekend about how they may have too many presentations on the emdrive this year.   Without good clear data, I wouldn't have much to add. It's also just a hobby for me and the idea of presenting this material in front of a bunch of professional scientists is very intimidating.  I know a cancellation means I probably won't be invited back, but I can't present this kind of data and expect it to be taken seriously.  There is also a deadline for a final paper that I just can't commit to.   I should have never accepted the offer to present to begin with. I am deeply sorry to those who recommended me and everyone counting on me.

I will continue working, as it brings me joy and satisfaction, just at a slower pace.
My Best,
Jamie

How about going but making your paper into a poster, not a main presentation? You also might get more good ideas and feedback from personal interaction with those present if you go. Just a suggestion. :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 10/16/2017 07:05 pm
Could you describe your rig when you are running calibration pulses?  Does disconnecting all of the batteries on the rig have any effect on the noise profile during calibration?

For your calibration pulses, are you using a permanent magnet on the torsion arm, and an electromagnet nearby?  Would it be possible to physically move the electromagnet after the calibration pulse?  A moving permanent magnet can induce currents in a nearby electromagnet, so I was wondering if that might be one of the noise sources.  Increasing the size of the air gap after the calibration pulse finishes would help test whether the electromagnet was having any effect on the noise.

Does the noise profile look different if the calibration pulse is stronger/weaker?

With everything unplugged and unpowered, I still get the noise. The calibration pulse is simply a small electromagnet outside of the enclosure. Inside the enclosure attached to the pendulum is a small aluminum arm that extends to 4cm away from the calibration coil. Attached to this arm is a small ferromagnetic screw. I use the electromagnet at a known distance and current to exert a force on the screw. Yes, I still get the noise even if the calibration coil is taken away.

I also performed a test increasing the air-gap. See below. The little spike in the middle in me moving the coil. This was one of the better runs.

This is probably the dumbest thing I've ever said but have you tried adding the opposite of the noise signal in a feedback loop to see what happens?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 10/16/2017 07:15 pm
Here is a test run that may be of interest to PotomacNeuron. This is where I only supplied power (6.3A) to the amplifier.  No RF is present.  I didn't notice any major movement from powering the amp the couple of times I tried this - just what I interpret as a little delayed noise from heat dissipation.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 10/16/2017 07:18 pm
This is probably the dumbest thing I've ever said but have you tried adding the opposite of the noise signal in a feedback loop to see what happens?

If someone wants to try, here are the excel files. If there is an easy way to do that in excel, please let me know the formula I should use.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mr. Peter on 10/16/2017 07:41 pm
I'm thinking that I will back out of the advanced propulsion workshop in November. I've been working non-stop for a week now trying to collect good data and I can't seem to nail down the noise problem (see image below). I can easily detect forces below 3uN if the pendulum is completely still, but that is seldom the case - which is very frustrating. Just when I think I have solved the problem and get a clean run, the noise returns the next day with the same vigor. There has to be something fundamentally wrong that i'm missing, or this is the reason these experiments are performed in a vacuum!    In order to minimize the noise further I would need to increase the torsional spring constant and get a laser displacement sensor with higher resolution - which requires an ADC with higher resolution. In other words, another major retooling and expense.

There were emails this weekend about how they may have too many presentations on the emdrive this year.   Without good clear data, I wouldn't have much to add. It's also just a hobby for me and the idea of presenting this material in front of a bunch of professional scientists is very intimidating.  I know a cancellation means I probably won't be invited back, but I can't present this kind of data and expect it to be taken seriously.  There is also a deadline for a final paper that I just can't commit to.   I should have never accepted the offer to present to begin with. I am deeply sorry to those who recommended me and everyone counting on me.

I will continue working, as it brings me joy and satisfaction, just at a slower pace.
My Best,
Jamie

Hi Jamie,
This is how guys from University of Florida mitigate environmental effects
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2017-5138

and speaking of LDS you can save some $$$ and build your own instead
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00834557/document
or go for capacitive ones.

Maybe it's seismic noise, FFT would be helpful. Good luck anyway, don't give up man.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SteveD on 10/16/2017 07:47 pm
Central air heating/conditioning coming on a regular cycle?  What in your area would generate noise at 30-60 second intervals?

HVAC is always turned off during tests. The closest appliance is the refrigerator above one level, but not directly above the test stand - about 10 feet off to the left. Data is captured by a laptop 15' away with a small fan output that is muffled. There's nothing else around.

You can see all of the weights added in an attempt to stabilize below. 

I'm grasping for straws now thinking that it is the shape of the dampening fluid reservoir. I am using a rectangular reservoir with a rectangular damping paddle. I was reading best practices for damping a torsional pendulum where it was recommended that a circular reservoir be used. However, it didn't go into the details why that was recommended.

Does this matter?  What level of force are you detecting from the device.  If it is 6 uN or more I don't think 3uN of noise much matters.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mark7777777 on 10/16/2017 08:14 pm
Could you describe your rig when you are running calibration pulses?  Does disconnecting all of the batteries on the rig have any effect on the noise profile during calibration?

For your calibration pulses, are you using a permanent magnet on the torsion arm, and an electromagnet nearby?  Would it be possible to physically move the electromagnet after the calibration pulse?  A moving permanent magnet can induce currents in a nearby electromagnet, so I was wondering if that might be one of the noise sources.  Increasing the size of the air gap after the calibration pulse finishes would help test whether the electromagnet was having any effect on the noise.

Does the noise profile look different if the calibration pulse is stronger/weaker?

With everything unplugged and unpowered, I still get the noise. The calibration pulse is simply a small electromagnet outside of the enclosure. Inside the enclosure attached to the pendulum is a small aluminum arm that extends to 4cm away from the calibration coil. Attached to this arm is a small ferromagnetic screw. I use the electromagnet at a known distance and current to exert a force on the screw. Yes, I still get the noise even if the calibration coil is taken away.

I also performed a test increasing the air-gap. See below. The little spike in the middle in me moving the coil. This was one of the better runs.

Maybe turn the mains switch to your entire house power off. And also turn your hot water cylinder power switch off too if that is separate.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: JonathanD on 10/16/2017 08:23 pm
What if you just stick the whole table on top of a memory foam mattress?

#overlysimplisticthoughtoftheday
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 10/16/2017 08:44 pm
There is either a significant noise source, or a small noise source exciting a very poorly damped (and complex) mode of oscillation. Try a second damper to eliminate oscillations on axes through the damper, or failing that make the damper paddle much longer with the same total damping. Sorry to be broken record, but if you are desperate you might as well try it. No garauntee it will work.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SteveD on 10/16/2017 09:36 pm
Is 3 uN really a "significant" noise source.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 10/16/2017 10:41 pm
Could you describe your rig when you are running calibration pulses?  Does disconnecting all of the batteries on the rig have any effect on the noise profile during calibration?

For your calibration pulses, are you using a permanent magnet on the torsion arm, and an electromagnet nearby?  Would it be possible to physically move the electromagnet after the calibration pulse?  A moving permanent magnet can induce currents in a nearby electromagnet, so I was wondering if that might be one of the noise sources.  Increasing the size of the air gap after the calibration pulse finishes would help test whether the electromagnet was having any effect on the noise.

Does the noise profile look different if the calibration pulse is stronger/weaker?

With everything unplugged and unpowered, I still get the noise. The calibration pulse is simply a small electromagnet outside of the enclosure. Inside the enclosure attached to the pendulum is a small aluminum arm that extends to 4cm away from the calibration coil. Attached to this arm is a small ferromagnetic screw. I use the electromagnet at a known distance and current to exert a force on the screw. Yes, I still get the noise even if the calibration coil is taken away.

I also performed a test increasing the air-gap. See below. The little spike in the middle in me moving the coil. This was one of the better runs.

The noise isn't as important at the signal to noise ratio. You did a lot of work to maximize the performance of the frustum. If you haven't done the tests, how do you know your signal is still down in the mud? The biggest issue with past data is not so much the noise as it is the "drift" to a new baseline.

Also, try putting your crash cart on a memory foam cushion to decouple vibration induced from the floor.

IMO, you should present what you have. Compared to what Prof. Tajmar presented last year on the MEGA, you've done a helluva lot more work and have a lot more data than he had to present. I think a lot of people will really appreciate all the work you put into this, and how much difficulty there is in eliminating the noise.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 10/16/2017 10:51 pm
This is probably the dumbest thing I've ever said but have you tried adding the opposite of the noise signal in a feedback loop to see what happens?

If someone wants to try, here are the excel files. If there is an easy way to do that in excel, please let me know the formula I should use.

Just subtracting the blue and orange traces eliminates the slow noise. The question would be, when the Frustum is powered, does the reaction happen fast enough to cause a differential in the two sensors? But I don't think that's what Bob012345 had in mind. Connecting an Op-amp to the signal to drive the Electromagnet in opposition to the noise, could be used as a feedback loop to stabilize the arm.

Still, since the noise has a period of 30 to 60 seconds, and the Frustum can charge to full power, Max Q in what, microseconds (??), I don't see the problem. The low frequency noise would only be an issue if the thrust is due to thermal heating, not "something else", I think. What you need to determine is if the signal is significant compared to the noise.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 10/16/2017 11:05 pm
IMO, you should present what you have. Compared to what Prof. Tajmar presented last year on the MEGA, you've done a helluva lot more work and have a lot more data than he had to present. I think a lot of people will really appreciate all the work you put into this, and how much difficulty there is in eliminating the noise.

Thank you, but I have already sent the cancellation notice to Heidi Fearn. She was very gracious in her reply.  There was a late addition, so there shouldn't be issues with the schedule.  She said I would be invited to present at the next conference in Estes Park 2018 to give me more time with the experiment.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SteveD on 10/16/2017 11:29 pm
IMO, you should present what you have. Compared to what Prof. Tajmar presented last year on the MEGA, you've done a helluva lot more work and have a lot more data than he had to present. I think a lot of people will really appreciate all the work you put into this, and how much difficulty there is in eliminating the noise.

Thank you, but I have already sent the cancellation notice to Heidi Fearn. She was very gracious in her reply.  There was a late addition, so there shouldn't be issues with the schedule.  She said I would be invited to present at the next conference in Estes Park 2018 to give me more time with the experiment.

You could still see about presenting a poster on fabrication techniques and the expirmental setup, perhaps with preliminary data from a couple of runs.  Folks may want to crib some of that for their designs.  Me, I just want to see if there is a jerk action somewhere in your automated tests.  Maybe setup with labview and generate a bunch of runs this weekend.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 10/17/2017 01:35 am
Could you describe your rig when you are running calibration pulses?  Does disconnecting all of the batteries on the rig have any effect on the noise profile during calibration?

For your calibration pulses, are you using a permanent magnet on the torsion arm, and an electromagnet nearby?  Would it be possible to physically move the electromagnet after the calibration pulse?  A moving permanent magnet can induce currents in a nearby electromagnet, so I was wondering if that might be one of the noise sources.  Increasing the size of the air gap after the calibration pulse finishes would help test whether the electromagnet was having any effect on the noise.

Does the noise profile look different if the calibration pulse is stronger/weaker?

With everything unplugged and unpowered, I still get the noise. The calibration pulse is simply a small electromagnet outside of the enclosure. Inside the enclosure attached to the pendulum is a small aluminum arm that extends to 4cm away from the calibration coil. Attached to this arm is a small ferromagnetic screw. I use the electromagnet at a known distance and current to exert a force on the screw. Yes, I still get the noise even if the calibration coil is taken away.

I also performed a test increasing the air-gap. See below. The little spike in the middle in me moving the coil. This was one of the better runs.

I am tempted to point you in the direction of possibly wanting your experiment to osculate at some desired frequency - possibly a very low to no frequency (low pass filter).  Some possible solutions then come to mind. 

The first I will suggest is a low frequency filter.  Basically a capacitor and inductor/resistor circuit set up so that current flowing in the circuit filters different frequencies.  Inductors/resistors resist rapid changes in current and so develop voltages.  The capacitor part of the circuit is the high frequency filter while showing voltages for low frequency changes in current.  (I'm probably not describing anything new to you but may be to other readers.)

Proper choice of your capacitor inductor components will allow you to filter out the low frequency signal of about 60 seconds while looking for a desired higher frequency signal if using a "High pass filter".  Using a low pass filter you could filter out the 60 second signal in favor of a much longer signal of constant thrust.

http://www.learningaboutelectronics.com/Articles/High-pass-filter-calculator.php 
http://www.learningaboutelectronics.com/Articles/Low-pass-filter-calculator.php

It is possible to use both and analyze low and high frequency aspects using separate filters. 

There are some op amp versions of these filters with gain. 

Another option using a frequency might be a lock in amplifier.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lock-in_amplifier You might be able to do this artificially using just the software.  Basically a lock in amplifier observes two signals.  One signal is a seed frequency that when it goes negative it flips the other observed signal.  Because noise when flipped between positive and negative and integrated adds to zero as well as many undesired signals this eliminates noise.  You then pulse your EM drive at the seed frequency (hopefully) causing an osculation in the thrust signal while recording the thrust signal. 

This thrust signal is then inverted according to the seed signal and integrated.  The seed signal can be either a sine or cosine signal or both and many use both.  They are phase sensitive so you have to be in the right phase but the dual phase amplifiers eliminate this.

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lock-in_amplifier
Basic principles
...
More advanced, so called two-phase lock-in-amplifiers have a second detector, doing the same calculation as before, but with an additional 90° phase shift. Thus one has two outputs: {\displaystyle X=V_{\text{sig}}\cos \theta } {\displaystyle X=V_{\text{sig}}\cos \theta } is called the "in-phase" component, and {\displaystyle Y=V_{\text{sig}}\sin \theta } {\displaystyle Y=V_{\text{sig}}\sin \theta } the "quadrature" component. These two quantities represent the signal as a vector relative to the lock-in reference oscillator. By computing the magnitude (R) of the signal vector, the phase dependency is removed:

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/30fd821023d916c5e7dbf206b67362ad9a417c0c)
The phase can be calculated from

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/ab7bdf634ceab4acba0d6c0fbad4355ea9fc15db)

Matching the seed signal to the resonant frequency of a pendulum can further amplify the signal which may/may not be desired.

As stated earlier by WarpTech if your signal to noise ratio is large enough the noise may not make a difference. 

In the back of my mind I was also wondering if your radiant body heat could have some effect on the apparatus.  If you are moving about the room your thermal radiation may also have an effect.

For constant thrust at very low frequency maybe a low pass filter at 0.001 Hz might do the trick? 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: jay343 on 10/17/2017 05:19 am
Here's a hunch: try changing or removing the damping oil, or sealing it with a plastic film with the smallest opening possible for the paddle strut's movement. I'm wondering if there is a drinking bird effect going on.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 10/17/2017 08:28 am
Is 3 uN really a "significant" noise source.

Yes, I would say it is. With a comparable torsion balance, I had a 0.3 µN resolution. I hope to get even a little below that with my improved setup.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 10/17/2017 08:33 am
...
The first I will suggest is a low frequency filter.  Basically a capacitor and inductor/resistor circuit set up so that current flowing in the circuit filters different frequencies.
....
Another option using a frequency might be a lock in amplifier. 
...

I agree that adding a low-pass filter can be benificial. Using a lock-in amp is a bit of an overkill for a setup like this, I would say. That should not be necessary.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 10/17/2017 08:41 am
I'm thinking that I will back out of the advanced propulsion workshop in November. I've been working non-stop for a week now trying to collect good data and I can't seem to nail down the noise problem
...

I will still not be able to beat you, Jamie (in being the first in the new series of DIY experiments). I estimate I need another two weeks full-time work to get everything working. Which I don't have available at the moment.  :-[
We just keep on going. Like you, I learn a lot. First of all, I have to be sure which resonances I am seeing in the frustum cavity.
Cheers, Peter
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 10/17/2017 10:17 am
I'm thinking that I will back out of the advanced propulsion workshop in November. I've been working non-stop for a week now trying to collect good data and I can't seem to nail down the noise problem (see image below). I can easily detect forces below 3uN if the pendulum is completely still, but that is seldom the case - which is very frustrating. Just when I think I have solved the problem and get a clean run, the noise returns the next day with the same vigor. There has to be something fundamentally wrong that i'm missing, or this is the reason these experiments are performed in a vacuum!    In order to minimize the noise further I would need to increase the torsional spring constant and get a laser displacement sensor with higher resolution - which requires an ADC with higher resolution. In other words, another major retooling and expense.

Jamie, just shooting in the dark, but did you consider that the noise you're observing may be somewhat picked up by the cabling ? Also, if I'm not wrong, the computer and the analyzer are sitting on the arm, I suppose either or both have an internal oscillator used for the clock, and that may generate some noise, same goes for USB signals.

Not willing to teach you how to run your business, just throwing some ideas on the table in an attempt to help

There were emails this weekend about how they may have too many presentations on the emdrive this year.   Without good clear data, I wouldn't have much to add. It's also just a hobby for me and the idea of presenting this material in front of a bunch of professional scientists is very intimidating.  I know a cancellation means I probably won't be invited back, but I can't present this kind of data and expect it to be taken seriously.  There is also a deadline for a final paper that I just can't commit to.   I should have never accepted the offer to present to begin with. I am deeply sorry to those who recommended me and everyone counting on me.

I will continue working, as it brings me joy and satisfaction, just at a slower pace.
My Best,
Jamie

That's a pity, even if you don't have data, you still have a whole bunch of informations about building a test rig, not just that, confronting ideas with people at the conference may give you ideas and/or possibly solutions to the noise issues

Keep up the good work, Jamie !

[edit]

You also made some measurements while changing/rearranging/recabling... maybe comparing those with the current noise figures you may have some idea about what's causing that noise floor; that said... what's the "expected" thrust from your cavity ? See, if it's above the noise level, then the noise may still be dealt with, no ?

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 10/17/2017 11:41 am
I was about to post something already pointed by Mr Peter (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1735091#msg1735091) a week ago, that I personally missed within the fast pace of recent developments on this board. As others may have also missed Mr Peter's original post (nobody commented on this document) I put it here again with more emphasis, and a few comments.

This is a 70-page long thesis on the EmDrive by Joshua Steven Pennington, PhD Student, BS in Physics (2015), BS in Mechanical Engineering (2015) and MS in Microelectronics-Photonics (2017) at the University of Arkansas (UARK), Fayetteville.

(https://www.uark.edu/_resources/img/logo-on-red.png)(http://ayuba.fr/images/emdrive/Joshua-Pennington.jpg)

• Pennington, J. S. (2017) "Optimization of Miniaturized Resonant Microwave Cavities for Use in Q-Thrusters". Theses and Dissertations. 2473.
http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/2473
PDF file attached to this message. Pennington's poster also attached.

Quote from: Josh Pennington
Abstract
A gedankenexperiment was considered to compare a hypothetical thruster that used no reaction mass to propulsion methods currently in use. A brief discussion of previous research work done on closed resonant cavity thrust devices was conducted. Using the previous work as a template, a simulation plan was devised. Computational models of resonant microwave cavities were constructed and investigated using COMSOL software. These COMSOL simulations were verified against known analytical solutions using Matlab software as a computational tool. Multiphysics simulations were created to study the microwave heating environment of the resonant cavities. From the COMSOL study outputs, the electromagnetic field magnitude, temperature, surface resistive losses, volume resistive losses, quality factor, and energy contained in the electric field were presented and discussed. The disagreements between the computational model and real-world resonant cavities were also presented and discussed.

Key points:

• Josh Pennington's work consists in modeling cavities and antennas in COMSOL to understand electrical and thermal effects and their possible contribution to real world experimental error.

• EagleWorks helped him. That's why Pennington talks of "Q-thrusters" instead of an "EmDrive" nor the more neutral terms of RF resonant cavity thruster. Yet he cited Shawyer in his thesis as the inventor of the "EM Drive". But IMHO specifically talking of "Quantum Vacuum Plasma Thruster" introduces a bias on how such a thing might work.

• The dominant electric field shape is the resonant mode of the cavity rather than the radiation pattern of the antenna.

• His Future work includes:
- Construction of a sensitive torsion pendulum.
- Construction of a Q-thruster.
- Use coupled Q-thrusters to investigate the current theory of operation.

But what strikes me the most is:

• The spherical COMSOL simulation had a high amount of disagreement with the spherical analytical models (unlike the rectangular and cylindrical COMSOL simulations which had a very high amount of agreement to the analytical models). This disagreement exists because the COMSOL solution does not completely match the analytical solution, whatever the mesh used in COMSOL (fine or coarse). The COMSOL output can be seen to be smeared across a range of answers not matched by the spherical Bessel function. The lack of change in the data set even after manipulation leads to the belief that COMSOL's Eigenstudy does not directly compute the electric field in the geometry by directly solving Maxwell's equations, but instead relies on some non-physical overlay to create arbitrary form factors for the electric field within resonant cavities.

Although COMSOL simulations are not about thrust predictions, they are eigensolutions to the eigenvalue problem. So what exactly is this discrepancy between COMSOL and analytical solutions? Can it introduce errors in further calculus, if one only relies on COMSOL to build frustum cavities with very tight precision? I can't help but think about Roger Shawyer telling TheTraveller two years ago (in Thread #3) (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1382951#msg1382951) that SPR does not relies on COMSOL or similar simulation softwares because of problems for the specific case of the EmDrive, and that they had to resort to their own in house software instead.

Rodal then disproved TT (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1382962#msg1382962) (who was reporting Shawyer's email message about the problem of COMSOL when applied to the EmDrive, especially the controversial "cut-off rule" of a cylindrical waveguide applied to a closed cavity as a key for thrust generation) with a peer-reviewed paper validating the precision and power of COMSOL, but this paper treated precisely of rectangular cavities, which COMSOL does not have any problem with according to Pennington.

Surprisingly, Pennington does not seem to care as he concludes:

Quote from: Josh Pennington
It is not expected that the failure to accurately compare COMSOL’s spherical resonant cavity model to that represented by the analytical solution will affect the cavities that are the focus of this thesis.

Even so he will use COMSOL to design his cavities and built his test articles.

EDIT: Sorry I attached the poster twice. The PDF "Optimization of Miniaturized Resonant Microwave Cavities for Use in Q-trusters" is now correctly attached.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Eusa on 10/17/2017 01:46 pm
There is either a significant noise source, or a small noise source exciting a very poorly damped (and complex) mode of oscillation. Try a second damper to eliminate oscillations on axes through the damper, or failing that make the damper paddle much longer with the same total damping. Sorry to be broken record, but if you are desperate you might as well try it. No garauntee it will work.
With LIGO they have regular intentional harmonic oscillation set for masses with mirrors. Continuous acceleration dampens other noise to be better recognizable...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 10/17/2017 02:03 pm

Jamie, just shooting in the dark, but did you consider that the noise you're observing may be somewhat picked up by the cabling ? Also, if I'm not wrong, the computer and the analyzer are sitting on the arm, I suppose either or both have an internal oscillator used for the clock, and that may generate some noise, same goes for USB signals.

Not willing to teach you how to run your business, just throwing some ideas on the table in an attempt to help

Agree. Though using an on-board computer can make it easier to automate the experiment, it also potentially introduces noise. When I did my experiment, I designed an optically activated solid stat switch that does not have internal oscillator. Everything is static. Maybe it is worth to move the computer to the framework, from where it uses laser or flashlight to control the experiment equipped with optically activated (or RF controlled) solid stat switches.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 10/17/2017 02:08 pm

Jamie, just shooting in the dark, but did you consider that the noise you're observing may be somewhat picked up by the cabling ? Also, if I'm not wrong, the computer and the analyzer are sitting on the arm, I suppose either or both have an internal oscillator used for the clock, and that may generate some noise, same goes for USB signals.

Not willing to teach you how to run your business, just throwing some ideas on the table in an attempt to help

Agree. Though using an on-board computer can make it easier to automate the experiment, it also potentially introduces noise. When I did my experiment, I designed an optically activated solid stat switch that does not have internal oscillator. Everything is static. Maybe it is worth to move the computer to the framework, from where it uses laser or flashlight to control the experiment equipped with optically activated (or RF controlled) solid stat switches.

Though I do statistical analysis to make a living, I do not suggest filtering or other kind of data processing techniques in resolving Monomorphic's noise problem. It is not a fundamental noise. It has a source that can be removed.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 10/17/2017 02:17 pm
Something is causing the pendulum to move in unexpected ways. It has too many degrees of freedom in my opinion and needs to be constrained to the one we are measuring.

The plan is to remove the piano wire and replace it with flexure bearings. I have to be careful that I use flexure bearings that do not exceed by much the current 0.00326 lb-in per degree torsion spring constant but can still support ~25lbs. That means I can use either one E-10 c-flex bearing (0.0036 lb-in per degree, 36.5lbs axial load capacity) or two D-10 bearings (0.0018 lb-in per degree, 22.7 lbs axial load capacity). I will also be replacing the rectangular damping fluid reservoir with something circular.

I ordered the three flexure bearings today, as they are not very expensive, but installing them is going to require a couple of weeks.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 10/17/2017 02:42 pm
Something is causing the pendulum to move in unexpected ways. It has too many degrees of freedom in my opinion and needs to be constrained to the one we are measuring.

The plan is to remove the piano wire and replace it with flexure bearings. I have to be careful that I use flexure bearings that do not exceed by much the current 0.00326 lb-in per degree torsion spring constant but can still support ~25lbs. That means I can use either one E-10 c-flex bearing (0.0036 lb-in per degree, 36.5lbs axial load capacity) or two D-10 bearings (0.0018 lb-in per degree, 22.7 lbs axial load capacity). I will also be replacing the rectangular damping fluid reservoir with something circular.

I ordered the three flexure bearings today, as they are not very expensive, but installing them is going to require a couple of weeks.

I do not agree. The noise problem is caused by a noise source, not by the degree of freedom of movement. Just find the noise source, remove it and the experiment is good to go.

Also flexure bearing has its own problems. It will droop and transform mass center shift into thrust-like force.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 10/17/2017 03:13 pm
...

Rodal then disproved TT (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1382962#msg1382962) (who was reporting Shawyer's email message about the problem of COMSOL when applied to the EmDrive, especially the controversial "cut-off rule" of a cylindrical waveguide applied to a closed cavity as a key for thrust generation) with a peer-reviewed paper validating the precision and power of COMSOL, but this paper treated precisely of rectangular cavities, which COMSOL does not have any problem with according to Pennington.

...
1) My paper on cut-off solutions (attached below) had a comparison with an exact solution for a truncated conical cavity, and not for a rectangular cavity.  Actually, I did not perform any comparisons for rectangular cavities.  The message you are quoting is one of many I wrote addressing this issue, there are stronger reasons to challenge TT's statements about the appropriateness of numerical solutions than the message quoted.

2) Finite Element Methods should not be discussed as "black boxes", preferably in academic graduate research one  should write the numerical routines which presumes having access to change the code.

3) COMSOL uses the Galerkin solution method, which is one the weakest methods of numerical solution.  Particularly if one suspects a numerical code, one should use more than one code for comparison, particularly in academic research. For example, one should use excellent codes like ABAQUS, and ADINA that have a strong theoretical basis.  Most importantly academic research should address address convergence of the numerical scheme. 

4) In this case (the EM Drive) the pertinent comparison between exact solutions and numerical methods should be for a truncated conical cavity (and not for spherical or rectangular cavities).  A comparison with a cylindrical cavity is also pertinent, as most EM Drive designs have been close to cylindrical. A comparison with a spherical geometry is the least pertinent (as readily apparent from an understanding of the resonant modes in a perfectly symmetric spherical cavity as compared to an asymmetric resonant cavity like the EM Drive).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 10/17/2017 04:06 pm
...

Rodal then disproved TT (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1382962#msg1382962) (who was reporting Shawyer's email message about the problem of COMSOL when applied to the EmDrive, especially the controversial "cut-off rule" of a cylindrical waveguide applied to a closed cavity as a key for thrust generation) with a peer-reviewed paper validating the precision and power of COMSOL, but this paper treated precisely of rectangular cavities, which COMSOL does not have any problem with according to Pennington.

...
1) My paper on cut-off solutions (attached below) had a comparison with an exact solution for a truncated conical cavity, and not for a rectangular cavity.  Actually, I did not perform any comparisons for rectangular cavities.
You are right, I was quoting one of your messages where you were referring specifically to a peer-reviewed paper on rectangular cavities, that you cited as a demonstration of COMSOL's efficiency: "Push-Pull Phenomenon of a Dielectric Particle in a Rectangular Waveguide" (http://www.jpier.org/PIER/pier151/07.15022404.pdf). Other posts of yours including your paper you attached in your message above, are more precise on that matter.

The message you are quoting is one of many I wrote addressing this issue, there are stronger reasons to challenge TT's statements about the appropriateness of numerical solutions than the message quoted.

2) Finite Element Methods should not be discussed as "black boxes", preferably in academic graduate research one  should write the numerical routines which presumes having access to change the code.

3) COMSOL uses the Galerkin solution method, which is one the weakest methods of numerical solution.  Particularly if one suspects a numerical code, one should use more than one code for comparison, particularly in academic research. For example, one should use excellent codes like ABAQUS, and ADINA that have a strong theoretical basis.  Most importantly academic research should address address convergence of the numerical scheme. 

4) In this case (the EM Drive) the pertinent comparison between exact solutions and numerical methods should be for a truncated conical cavity (and not for spherical or rectangular cavities).  A comparison with a cylindrical cavity is also pertinent, as most EM Drive designs have been close to cylindrical. A comparison with a spherical geometry is the least pertinent (as readily apparent from an understanding of the resonant modes in a perfectly symmetric spherical cavity as compared to an asymmetric resonant cavity like the EM Drive).

If I understand all the above correctly, you do agree with Pennington that the discrepancy between the results of COMSOL for spherical cavities vs spherical analytical models is pointless in the case of the EmDrive, because a truncated cone is closer to a cylinder than to a sphere (for that matter the cylindrical COMSOL simulations had a very high amount of agreement to the analytical models).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SteveD on 10/17/2017 04:12 pm
Try moving the device to the other side of the lab.  The noise may be caused by vibration from sewer or other piping running near mono's basement.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: jay343 on 10/17/2017 05:15 pm
Have you tried monitoring the temperature, humidity, and/or the ambient electromagnetic fields in and around the balance? Maybe one of those will track the noise.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 10/17/2017 05:39 pm
Something is causing the pendulum to move in unexpected ways. It has too many degrees of freedom in my opinion and needs to be constrained to the one we are measuring.

The plan is to remove the piano wire and replace it with flexure bearings. I have to be careful that I use flexure bearings that do not exceed by much the current 0.00326 lb-in per degree torsion spring constant but can still support ~25lbs. That means I can use either one E-10 c-flex bearing (0.0036 lb-in per degree, 36.5lbs axial load capacity) or two D-10 bearings (0.0018 lb-in per degree, 22.7 lbs axial load capacity). I will also be replacing the rectangular damping fluid reservoir with something circular.

I ordered the three flexure bearings today, as they are not very expensive, but installing them is going to require a couple of weeks.
Consider measuring air speed inside the enclosure (it can be done wirelessly) and see whether you can correlate it to the noise.  Even within the enclosure you have natural thermal convection, because the size of your chamber is such that you are never going to eliminate natural thermal convection (unless you use a vacuum chamber).

Recall the videos of rfmwguy and the natural movement of his device in his garage.

See for example:  http://www.tsi.com/uploadedFiles/_Site_Root/Products/Literature/Spec_Sheets/AirPro%20500_US_5001784_Web.pdf

which has a minimum of 3 feet/minute = 0.015 m/s
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 10/17/2017 05:45 pm
Could you describe your rig when you are running calibration pulses?  Does disconnecting all of the batteries on the rig have any effect on the noise profile during calibration?

For your calibration pulses, are you using a permanent magnet on the torsion arm, and an electromagnet nearby?  Would it be possible to physically move the electromagnet after the calibration pulse?  A moving permanent magnet can induce currents in a nearby electromagnet, so I was wondering if that might be one of the noise sources.  Increasing the size of the air gap after the calibration pulse finishes would help test whether the electromagnet was having any effect on the noise.

Does the noise profile look different if the calibration pulse is stronger/weaker?

With everything unplugged and unpowered, I still get the noise. The calibration pulse is simply a small electromagnet outside of the enclosure. Inside the enclosure attached to the pendulum is a small aluminum arm that extends to 4cm away from the calibration coil. Attached to this arm is a small ferromagnetic screw. I use the electromagnet at a known distance and current to exert a force on the screw. Yes, I still get the noise even if the calibration coil is taken away.

I also performed a test increasing the air-gap. See below. The little spike in the middle in me moving the coil. This was one of the better runs.

A long shot but are you breathing near the test setup during the runs?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: jmossman on 10/17/2017 06:00 pm
Something is causing the pendulum to move in unexpected ways. It has too many degrees of freedom in my opinion and needs to be constrained to the one we are measuring.

The plan is to remove the piano wire and replace it with flexure bearings. I have to be careful that I use flexure bearings that do not exceed by much the current 0.00326 lb-in per degree torsion spring constant but can still support ~25lbs. That means I can use either one E-10 c-flex bearing (0.0036 lb-in per degree, 36.5lbs axial load capacity) or two D-10 bearings (0.0018 lb-in per degree, 22.7 lbs axial load capacity). I will also be replacing the rectangular damping fluid reservoir with something circular.

I ordered the three flexure bearings today, as they are not very expensive, but installing them is going to require a couple of weeks.

I do not agree. The noise problem is caused by a noise source, not by the degree of freedom of movement. Just find the noise source, remove it and the experiment is good to go.

Also flexure bearing has its own problems. It will droop and transform mass center shift into thrust-like force.

@Monomorphic,

I think the "noise" you are seeing is because your rig acting like a seismograph.  :o

A quick Google search came up with seismic Rayleigh waves being well within the frequency range of the noise you are observing:

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/EarthSci/people/lidunka/GEOL2014/Geophysics4%20-%20Seismic%20waves/SEISMOLOGY%20.htm

Quote
Rayleigh waves
period is typically ~ 20s, with wavelength of ~100km

I'd recommend reviewing some of Seeshell's (and Dr.Rodal's) earlier posts about building vibration isolation for your stand (i.e. desk) as the next step before attempting a switch to flexure bearings.  The larger mass of your desk/enclosure should help with tuning the vibration isolation (if I recall the details correctly).  I'd recommend losing the wheels on the desk/enclosure (at least temporarily) if one were to pursue vibration isolation options.

-James
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: drjrkuhn on 10/17/2017 06:01 pm
Consider measuring air speed inside the enclosure (it can be down wirelessly) and see whether you can correlate it to the noise.  Even within the enclosure you have natural thermal convection, because the size of your chamber is such that you are never going to eliminate natural thermal convection (unless you use a vacuum chamber).

I'm chiming in from the microscopy world for the laser displacement measurements. For optical trapping experiments, Steven Block mentioned that he had to replace air in his setup with helium, which has an index of refraction 10x closer to vacuum than air. Helium eliminated a lot of the thermal convection noise.

Columns of air heat up, and that changes the index of refraction significantly enough to modify laser deflection measurements! Think of a heat mirage on a hot day, or hot microwave-powered device in an enclosed space. Now try to perform a displacement measurement through that shifting mirage. In contrast, the n of helium changes much less with temperature than does air.

To quote from a paper:
 https://jila.colorado.edu/perkins/sites/default/files/pdf/Perkins%202014%20Angstrom%20Precision%20Optical%20traps.pdf (https://jila.colorado.edu/perkins/sites/default/files/pdf/Perkins%202014%20Angstrom%20Precision%20Optical%20traps.pdf)
Quote
The final hurdle to measuring 1-bp [base-pair] steps of RNAP [RNA polymerase] was further suppression of low-frequency (<0.3 Hz) noise. This suppression was achieved by replacing the air surrounding the optics with helium to minimize beam pointing fluctuations caused by air currents (1). The tenfold reduction in the difference between the index of refraction of the gas and that of a vacuum led to a more than tenfold reduction in the integrated positional noise at 0.1 Hz. With this improved performance, Abbondanzieri et al. (1) resolved 1-A˚ steps of a trapped bead that stayed in register over approximately eight steps (Figure 5c).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: jay343 on 10/17/2017 06:16 pm
Quote
Rayleigh waves
period is typically ~ 20s, with wavelength of ~100km

I'd recommend reviewing some of Seeshell's (and Dr.Rodal's) earlier posts about building vibration isolation for your stand (i.e. desk) as the next step before attempting a switch to flexure bearings.  The larger mass of your desk/enclosure should help with tuning the vibration isolation (if I recall the details correctly).  I'd recommend losing the wheels on the desk/enclosure (at least temporarily) if one were to pursue vibration isolation options.

-James
[/quote]

If there is a source of common mode noise like this, another thing you can do is to record it separately, then scale it and subtract it from your data.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 10/18/2017 01:07 am
I removed the sorbothane pads from beneath the torsional pendulum supports and that seems to have eliminated most of the noise. We will see if it is repeatable tomorrow, but this looks promising.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 10/18/2017 04:57 am
Time is gravity?
Almost Kenjee,
gravity is time dilation, to be more specific. Problem is we don't really know how time dilation acts to engender gravitational acceleration, do we...  Ideas anyone?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 10/18/2017 07:19 am
Time is gravity?
Almost Kenjee,
gravity is time dilation, to be more specific. Problem is we don't really know how time dilation acts to engender gravitational acceleration, do we...  Ideas anyone?
Gravity is more than just time dilation, and time dilation is caused by any acceleration (or just by having a relative velocity) so it doesn't make sense to say that time dilation causes gravity.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 10/18/2017 07:25 am
I removed the sorbothane pads from beneath the torsional pendulum supports and that seems to have eliminated most of the noise. We will see if it is repeatable tomorrow, but this looks promising.

Way to go, Jamie !!!

I wonder if, placing some marble "bricks" under the supports may further improve things; as for the whole bench wheels, here's an idea; you may remove them and replace them with fixed supports and then, when needed, use something like these (https://www.amazon.com/4pc-Furniture-Mover-Rollers-Appliances/dp/B00FA5MANU) to move the stand around, this way you'll be able to have a (possibly) more stable bench

HTH

[edit]

Quote
placing some marble "bricks" under the supports

I meant using marble slabs (possibly somewhat thick) between the bolt and the table (in place of the sorbothane pads)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: DusanC on 10/18/2017 07:41 am
I removed the sorbothane pads from beneath the torsional pendulum supports and that seems to have eliminated most of the noise. We will see if it is repeatable tomorrow, but this looks promising.
There is always a gap between screw and nut so I propose you reconstruct that support like in attached pic to stop possible oscillations of whole setup around its center of gravity.
You adjust height with lower nut and lock the support position with upper one.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Eusa on 10/18/2017 10:02 am
In fact, when supporting setup with flexible material you can make use of the upwards acceleration of the surface of the Earth little similarly to the setup with LIGO instruments make use of intential horizontal acceleration for masses with mirrors.

Way up, Jamie!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 10/18/2017 10:31 am
Can someone please explain why the sorbothane pads used by Jamie, which are intended to absorb and diminish vibrations transmitted to the setup, seem to conversely do the opposite? Is there an effect of resonance, relative to their size, thickness, and the size of the setup? Or may it be just a bad junction between bolt and screw as DusanC supposed?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Ricvil on 10/18/2017 10:50 am
Hi guys
Look at this article, fig 3

https://www.osapublishing.org/oe/abstract.cfm?uri=oe-25-15-17249

The blue and red lines are the probabilty to find a foton at left and right cavity respectly.
Then, if a cavity mode is a huge numbers of fotons acting in collectivity, and the energy density of electromagnetic modes in cavities has a "center of mass", then this system presents a oscilating center of mass?
A fast oscilation of a center of mass can produce a gravitational wave?

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: DusanC on 10/18/2017 11:24 am
Can someone please explain why the sorbothane pads used by Jamie, which are intended to absorb and diminish vibrations transmitted to the setup, seem to conversely do the opposite? Is there an effect of resonance, relative to their size, thickness, and the size of the setup? Or may it be just a bad junction between bolt and screw as DusanC supposed?
There's also a gap between screw and hole in Monomorphics supports so his supports are only axially fixed but radially, especially with a point contact between screws head and pads, they're loose so whole frame can have small displacement in horizontal plane.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Eusa on 10/18/2017 11:26 am
Can someone please explain why the sorbothane pads used by Jamie, which are intended to absorb and diminish vibrations transmitted to the setup, seem to conversely do the opposite? Is there an effect of resonance, relative to their size, thickness, and the size of the setup? Or may it be just a bad junction between bolt and screw as DusanC supposed?
I think there must be a "counter-press" to keep vibrations between standard strength scale. In other cases there are arbitary interferences...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 10/18/2017 11:43 am
I removed the sorbothane pads from beneath the torsional pendulum supports and that seems to have eliminated most of the noise. We will see if it is repeatable tomorrow, but this looks promising.
Now that's weird, although your setup in the way the screw attaches to the beam support might lead to  non-uniform loading on your legs that might cause issues. I'd recommend a simpler fix by using Elevator Screws and get rid of all the other hardware by using two nuts to set height and still use the sorbathane pads.
Shell
(https://media.qcsupply.com/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/4/0/40442_1.jpg)
 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 10/18/2017 01:27 pm
I removed the sorbothane pads from beneath the torsional pendulum supports and that seems to have eliminated most of the noise. We will see if it is repeatable tomorrow, but this looks promising.

The flexible pads with the mass of your setup made up a resonance frequency that (almost) matched up the swinging freq of your balance?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sghill on 10/18/2017 01:40 pm
As we talk about new chamber designs, this may prove useful.

Complete Solutions of the “Webster” Horn Equation

http://asa.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1121/1.1910444

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 10/18/2017 02:05 pm
Time is gravity?
Almost Kenjee,
gravity is time dilation, to be more specific. Problem is we don't really know how time dilation acts to engender gravitational acceleration, do we...  Ideas anyone?
Gravity is more than just time dilation, and time dilation is caused by any acceleration (or just by having a relative velocity) so it doesn't make sense to say that time dilation causes gravity.

That seems to me to be in question because we don't really know the source of what causes the time gradient.  It is really just because of relative velocity (or existing under acceleration) or something more fundamental that causes time to change?

For instance what if the vacuum is made up of positive matter that runs forward in time and negative energy matter that run backwards in time.  The negative energy matter appearing in our universe as positive energy matter because it runs backwards in time but then it annihilates with positive energy matter their time cancels out between them and suddenly they annihilate.  While separation because of the time aspect allows them to have what appears as positive energy. 

Maybe for some reason this negative energy matter in the vacuum is attracted to large masses of positive energy matter.  As a result this polarization causes a time gradient in the vacuum and maybe even phase shifts in the vacuums equilibrium with matter causing what appears to be gravity. 

Maybe these backward time particles also are responsible for the Wheeler-Feynman effect? 

Maybe having a large velocity in the vacuum also polarizes these particles causing Lorentz contraction and the time effects. 

One of my own hypothesis I have been toying with for a while.   
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 10/18/2017 02:14 pm
Can someone please explain why the sorbothane pads used by Jamie, which are intended to absorb and diminish vibrations transmitted to the setup, seem to conversely do the opposite? Is there an effect of resonance, relative to their size, thickness, and the size of the setup? Or may it be just a bad junction between bolt and screw as DusanC supposed?
These pads are just a polyurethane "hockey puck" (a solid disc), that has a stiffness much smaller than the stiffness of the legs and the foundation.  (Sorbothane is just a tradename for a particular thermoset polyether-based polyurethane. ) They artificially introduce a compliance element [a spring with much lower stiffness] that will result in significantly lower natural frequencies (mainly due to the table rocking, with the pads under shear ).  The dissipation of energy they introduce is only a fraction of the energy of vibration (the dissipation is governed by the material property tan delta, which ranges from ~0.2 to ~0.5 for this polyurethane compound).  If they (due to their much lower stiffness) introduce a natural frequency that can be easily excited by excitations in the environment, one may be better off eliminating these compliant elements all together.  Alternatively, one could change the natural frequency artificially introduced by the Sorbothane pads by changing the stiffness of the pad by decreasing their thickness, (hence increasing the stiffness and hence increasing the natural frequency of the table), changing the material (Sorbothane comes in several durometer hardness) or by increasing the mass in the table (thereby decreasing the natural frequency of the table).

In other words, the answer to your question << Is there an effect of resonance, relative to their size, thickness, and the size of the setup?>> is definitely YES, of course.  The present Sorbothane pads do not seem to be well-matched to the mass of the table and the excitation frequencies present in the environment. (Which is no surprise since nobody conducted a vibration analysis of this setup with this Sorbothane pads ;) , they were just put there hoping -rather than calculating whether they would introduce additional natural frequencies - that they would absorb energy).

Concerning the ability of the Sorbothane pads to shear (they have unconstrained lateral cylindrical surface of course) this is intended: without deformation they will have no ability to dampen anything.

Solid thermoset polyurethane has a Poisson's ratio practically equal to 1/2: it is practically incompressible, like rubber.  Hence if you were to constrain the cylindrical surface, their stiffness would increase by orders of magnitude and they would not serve their intended purpose [since the bulk modulus of this material is many orders of magnitude greater than the shear modulus, and since the quoted tan delta dissipation value is for shear deformation mode and not for bulk modulus deformation mode  ;)]

These Sorbothane pads come in at least 3 different hardnesses: 30, 50 and 70 durometer [Shore scale "OO": spring force 1.11 N with a probe's spherical radius 1.2 mm].   The properties depend on the particular hardness that Monomorphic used.  What durometer hardness are the pads that Monomorphic used?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 10/18/2017 03:25 pm
Time is gravity?
Almost Kenjee,
gravity is time dilation, to be more specific. Problem is we don't really know how time dilation acts to engender gravitational acceleration, do we...  Ideas anyone?
Gravity is more than just time dilation, and time dilation is caused by any acceleration (or just by having a relative velocity) so it doesn't make sense to say that time dilation causes gravity.

That seems to me to be in question because we don't really know the source of what causes the time gradient.  It is really just because of relative velocity (or existing under acceleration) or something more fundamental that causes time to change?

For instance what if the vacuum is made up of positive matter that runs forward in time and negative energy matter that run backwards in time.  The negative energy matter appearing in our universe as positive energy matter because it runs backwards in time but then it annihilates with positive energy matter their time cancels out between them and suddenly they annihilate.  While separation because of the time aspect allows them to have what appears as positive energy. 

Maybe for some reason this negative energy matter in the vacuum is attracted to large masses of positive energy matter.
You mean for some reason like gravity? You are just going in a big circle here adding a bunch of unnecessary steps to then write down the original conclusion. Even if your explanation actually involved time dilation in any way (you can't jump from particles with negative mass travelling backwards in time -> time dilation), your explanation still does not account for time dilation from non-gravity based accelerations

Maybe having a large velocity in the vacuum also polarizes these particles causing Lorentz contraction and the time effects. 
"Large velocity in the vacuum" does not make any sense and contradicts the essence of special relativity, that there is no vacuum rest frame.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 10/18/2017 03:38 pm
Time is gravity?
Almost Kenjee,
gravity is time dilation, to be more specific. Problem is we don't really know how time dilation acts to engender gravitational acceleration, do we...  Ideas anyone?
Gravity is more than just time dilation, and time dilation is caused by any acceleration (or just by having a relative velocity) so it doesn't make sense to say that time dilation causes gravity.

That seems to me to be in question because we don't really know the source of what causes the time gradient.  It is really just because of relative velocity (or existing under acceleration) or something more fundamental that causes time to change?

For instance what if the vacuum is made up of positive matter that runs forward in time and negative energy matter that run backwards in time.  The negative energy matter appearing in our universe as positive energy matter because it runs backwards in time but then it annihilates with positive energy matter their time cancels out between them and suddenly they annihilate.  While separation because of the time aspect allows them to have what appears as positive energy. 

Maybe for some reason this negative energy matter in the vacuum is attracted to large masses of positive energy matter.
You mean for some reason like gravity? You are just going in a big circle here adding a bunch of unnecessary steps to then write down the original conclusion. Even if your explanation actually involved time dilation in any way (you can't jump from particles with negative mass travelling backwards in time -> time dilation), your explanation still does not account for time dilation from non-gravity based accelerations

Maybe having a large velocity in the vacuum also polarizes these particles causing Lorentz contraction and the time effects. 
"Large velocity in the vacuum" does not make any sense and contradicts the essence of special relativity, that there is no vacuum rest frame.

This sure looks like an acceleration to me. A constantly changing acceleration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35K2JFYhXco

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5MBno0PZjE
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sanman on 10/18/2017 04:30 pm
I appreciate the offer, but for now I think this is better worked out in public. For one thing, as was stated above by Mulletron, one of the benefits of the emDrive is getting people to think, but thinking based on falsehoods is unhelpful, so I want to correct the repeated false statements you have made.

Sir, as I've nothing to hide, I will try to create another thread for us to discuss/debate.  :)
(I simply wanted to avoid cluttering this thread where other nice discussions are taking place)



Quote
No, it is not a straw man, I am giving it as an example, and you just now have described what you think happens in this situation. What you just described is wrong. You start off fine with "agree with you that entropy of the component objects of the universe affect the total entropy of the universe"

But then you contradict this with the claim that the total entropy of the universe does not increase faster when the log is on fire. This claim is simply wrong. If I were to write your claim mathematically, it would be equivalent to 1+2 = 1 (base rate of universal entropy increase + additional rate of increase due to log burning = base rate of universal entropy increase.)

No, what I was saying was that the Total Change of the Entropy of the Universe (and also the Total Rate of Change) is NOT EQUAL to the Change of Entropy from the log (or Rate of Change of it), since obviously the universe also has other things going on beyond what is happening to just that log.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Completely false. Time is physical. You cannot write the laws of physics without time. You cannot use entropy to fully describe an elastic collision between 2 balls, but you do need to use time to do so.

Sure you can, because the person observing the collision (or the universe inside which the collision is occurring) is undergoing entropy progression which you call passage of Time. Time is a representation of Entropy (with Entropy being the more meaningful property)
This is all wrong. You cannot do what you claim. Go ahead and try. (Here is a hint to get you started: entropy is constant in the system. There is no external observer required for 2 balls to collide. If you want to bring in an external observer, you are going to then have to describe a mechanism where the balls magically start moving faster when entropy starts increasing faster elsewhere, such as by someone lighting a log on fire)

I apologize - I thought you were saying something else about kinematics against the wider universe, but you were simply just talking about isentropic elastic collision between balls. In that case, you're referring to hypothetical no-entropy universe, which is just as unreal as if I'd offered the situation of a static universe which is not undergoing change in time. In the real world, when 2 balls collide, there will always be an entropy change - your hypothetical situation does not describe the real world.


Quote
You seem to be under some kind of mistaken assumption where you think entropy must always be increasing. There is no such rule in physics, the only rule is that it cannot decrease globally. It can stay constant.

Entropy of the universe (the real universe, and not some idealized one) is always increasing.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics

https://www.calpoly.edu/~rbrown/entropy.html

Quote
Any process either increases the entropy of the universe - or leaves it unchanged. Entropy is constant only in reversible processes which occur in equilibrium. All natural processes are irreversible.
All natural processes tend toward increasing disorder.


Quote
Any process either increases the entropy of the universe - or leaves it unchanged. Entropy is constant only in reversible processes which occur in equilibrium. ... All natural processes tend toward increasing disorder. And although energy is conserved, its availability is decreased.

Quote
All natural processes occur in such a way that the total entropy of the universe increases.

Please note the word "natural".
Reversible processes in our macroscopic world are idealized ones, and not real ones.

Quote
No, forgetting something would entail a local entropy increase, but storing a memory would by definition be a local increase. Chemical reactions can occur that locally decrease entropy, as long as the cost is simultaneously paid (metabolic processes).

As per what you've just said - an increase (forgetting) and an increase (storing) - it's once again consistent with the fact that entropy is always increasing.

From the Physics Review:

https://physics.aps.org/articles/v7/47

Quote
How we actually perceive the flow of time is another matter. Theorists have argued that recording information always involves erasing—for example, initializing a computer memory at the start [1]. Since erasure always increases entropy [2], the psychological arrow of time aligns with the thermodynamic one.
...
You can, in principle, get rid of any need for erasure and initialization just by remembering everything—which means that recording information in the memory is then fully reversible in time. But even in that case the arrows of time must align because, says Brun, “there is a broader principle at work.”

The researchers argue that this extra ingredient is something they call generality.
... (read the rest, too long, phew!  :) )


Once again, I apologize to you and everyone else for cluttering this thread with my argumentativeness.
I'll try to create a separate thread - as soon as I can pick a suitable title - Phew!  :)

But once again, I remind that reversible no-entropy processes are idealized ones, and are not real-world. In the real world, entropy always increases. There is no natural process that can occur without increasing entropy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy#The_arrow_of_time

Quote
The arrow of time

Entropy is the only quantity in the physical sciences that seems to imply a particular direction of progress, sometimes called an arrow of time. As time progresses, the second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases. Hence, from this perspective, entropy measurement is thought of as a kind of clock.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Tcarey on 10/18/2017 04:44 pm

Just subtracting the blue and orange traces eliminates the slow noise. The question would be, when the Frustum is powered, does the reaction happen fast enough to cause a differential in the two sensors? But I don't think that's what Bob012345 had in mind. Connecting an Op-amp to the signal to drive the Electromagnet in opposition to the noise, could be used as a feedback loop to stabilize the arm.

Still, since the noise has a period of 30 to 60 seconds, and the Frustum can charge to full power, Max Q in what, microseconds (??), I don't see the problem. The low frequency noise would only be an issue if the thrust is due to thermal heating, not "something else", I think. What you need to determine is if the signal is significant compared to the noise.

Since the red and blue lines represent the opposite end of the beam, would subtracting them from each other negate any signal at all?  Also the theory of placing the measuring system on a foam pad would not likely diminish any vibration that has a such a long time period. I would like to see a test of the system with the suspended arm rigidly fixed to the supporting frame. That would indicate whether the signal is actual movement or some sort of artifact of the measuring system as a whole.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Subocaji on 10/18/2017 05:03 pm
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't rfmwguy hand his matterials of to Northrop Grumman and now they have a semi hush,hush launch on a SpaceX rocket this November.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 10/18/2017 05:49 pm
This sure looks like an acceleration to me. A constantly changing acceleration.

...
How is this in any way relevant?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 10/18/2017 05:50 pm
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't rfmwguy hand his matterials of to Northrop Grumman and now they have a semi hush,hush launch on a SpaceX rocket this November.
I don't believe he ever said who he handed it off to, almost certainly not Northrop, and he certainly didn't hand it off to them years ago when Northrop contracted SpaceX.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Subocaji on 10/18/2017 05:56 pm
This was posted under his reddit handle 6 months ago>

rarely post nowadays, but I want to announce to the reddit crew that my EmDrive was delivered more than 90 days ago to a division of Northrop Grumman. I chose to announce this as I have not been updated, nor expect to be in the near future. This could be caused by many reasons and I am really not interested in pushing the issue. I have no ill-will towards my contacts and wish them all the best. If they chose not to pursue, it would have been nice to get a confirmation of that, but alas, its a giant corporation and they have the right to proceed as they see fit.

Some may find this strange that I simply turned over the prototype without locking down a firm contract, but my intention was never to monetize the emdrive project. I have no interest in the fame nor the $$. I started it as an open project and finished it as such, staying true to myself and I hope to the followers that came with me along the way.

So, my retirement from this project continues...However, there are always new possibilities. Peace - out.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 10/18/2017 06:31 pm
Time is gravity?
Almost Kenjee,
gravity is time dilation, to be more specific. Problem is we don't really know how time dilation acts to engender gravitational acceleration, do we...  Ideas anyone?
Gravity is more than just time dilation, and time dilation is caused by any acceleration (or just by having a relative velocity) so it doesn't make sense to say that time dilation causes gravity.

That seems to me to be in question because we don't really know the source of what causes the time gradient.  It is really just because of relative velocity (or existing under acceleration) or something more fundamental that causes time to change?

For instance what if the vacuum is made up of positive matter that runs forward in time and negative energy matter that run backwards in time.  The negative energy matter appearing in our universe as positive energy matter because it runs backwards in time but then it annihilates with positive energy matter their time cancels out between them and suddenly they annihilate.  While separation because of the time aspect allows them to have what appears as positive energy. 

Maybe for some reason this negative energy matter in the vacuum is attracted to large masses of positive energy matter.
You mean for some reason like gravity? You are just going in a big circle here adding a bunch of unnecessary steps to then write down the original conclusion. Even if your explanation actually involved time dilation in any way (you can't jump from particles with negative mass travelling backwards in time -> time dilation), your explanation still does not account for time dilation from non-gravity based accelerations

Maybe having a large velocity in the vacuum also polarizes these particles causing Lorentz contraction and the time effects. 
"Large velocity in the vacuum" does not make any sense and contradicts the essence of special relativity, that there is no vacuum rest frame.

Supposing anti-matter is this other component it would have to be attracted for some other reason than gravity for it to work.  It is attracted to its counterpart so maybe it is feasible for it to be attracted to other large quantities of positive time matter, hypothetically speaking.  It could polarize at some equilibrium between its positive time partner and the other positive time particle with out a partner.  Maybe for electric field reasons or some other reason.   The polarization of this negative time aspect in the vacuum would then induce gravity.  It's an incomplete work but something I have mulled over from time to time. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 10/18/2017 06:42 pm
Supposing anti-matter is this other component
Are you trying to describe the universe we live in, or some other fictional universe?

This is simply a non-starter of a proposition. If there was large quantities of antimatter to cause these effects, it would be impossible to not see them.

Also, consensus is that anti-matter has the same interaction with gravity as normal matter, meaning it would be attracted to regular matter by gravity, though it hasn't been conclusively measured yet.

You also did not actually address what I said.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 10/18/2017 06:51 pm
This sure looks like an acceleration to me. A constantly changing acceleration.

...
How is this in any way relevant?

I'm sorry, I thought it was obvious. It's an acceleration isn't it? You said any acceleration, so I replied with the wave behavior of the superposition of two waves of different amplitude. This is analogous to what's happening in a resonator with asymmetric losses.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 10/18/2017 08:04 pm
This sure looks like an acceleration to me. A constantly changing acceleration.

...
How is this in any way relevant?

I'm sorry, I thought it was obvious. It's an acceleration isn't it? You said any acceleration, so I replied with the wave behavior of the superposition of two waves of different amplitude. This is analogous to what's happening in a resonator with asymmetric losses.
It is an acceleration if you are talking about a physical resonator, such as waves on a string, but not if you are talking about one where it is something like electromagnetic fields that are doing the oscillating.

Going with the waves on a string, so that you are talking about something where acceleration applies, then yes, there is acceleration, so as I said, there will be relativistic time dilation from the accelerations, but they obviously would be miniscule for most physical systems.  (And yes oscillating EM fields would originate from oscillating charges, and those charges therefore accelerate and would experience time dilation)

Again, what relevance does this example of an acceleration have to the point that spupeng7's and dustinthewind's descriptions are not compatible with known effects?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 10/18/2017 08:26 pm
This sure looks like an acceleration to me. A constantly changing acceleration.

...
How is this in any way relevant?

I'm sorry, I thought it was obvious. It's an acceleration isn't it? You said any acceleration, so I replied with the wave behavior of the superposition of two waves of different amplitude. This is analogous to what's happening in a resonator with asymmetric losses.
It is an acceleration if you are talking about a physical resonator, such as waves on a string, but not if you are talking about one where it is something like electromagnetic fields that are doing the oscillating.

Going with the waves on a string, so that you are talking about something where acceleration applies, then yes, there is acceleration, so as I said, there will be relativistic time dilation from the accelerations, but they obviously would be miniscule for most physical systems.  (And yes oscillating EM fields would originate from oscillating charges, and those charges therefore accelerate and would experience time dilation)

Again, what relevance does this example of an acceleration have to the point that spupeng7's and dustinthewind's descriptions are not compatible with known effects?

I see you expanded your question. I'm not supporting spupeng7 or dusty's descriptions, I'm supporting and developing my own. I disagree with your first sentence. Why do you think this only applies to things like waves on a string? Why the arbitrary line? Are you drawing the line because of mass? Thanks.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 10/18/2017 08:47 pm
I see you expanded your question. I'm not supporting spupeng7 or dusty's descriptions, I'm supporting and developing my own. I disagree with your first sentence. Why do you think this only applies to things like waves on a string? Why the arbitrary line? Are you drawing the line because of mass? Thanks.
To start with the answer your last question, yes. The physics concept of "acceleration" simply only applies to massive particles.

Massless particles like photons have relativistic effects applied to them, but you can't sensibly discuss accelerations of them, since they only move at the speed of light.

Fields themselves can have a "rate of change" and a "rate of rate of change" associated with them, but these have units such as "field strength per time" rather than "distance per time", so while the informal term "acceleration" could apply, none of the physics related to accelerating particles does. To avoid confusion, it is best not to call this "acceleration of the field" but "second time derivative of the field."
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 10/18/2017 08:49 pm
Nice write up Dr. Rodal. It's also important to make sure the attached hardware is also stable with a uniform load distribution. The bolt on the bottom touching the washer isn't a uniform load bearing surface and where the bolt goes through the aluminum frame can wiggle.
Shell
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1455128;image)

Can someone please explain why the sorbothane pads used by Jamie, which are intended to absorb and diminish vibrations transmitted to the setup, seem to conversely do the opposite? Is there an effect of resonance, relative to their size, thickness, and the size of the setup? Or may it be just a bad junction between bolt and screw as DusanC supposed?
These pads are just a polyurethane "hockey puck" (a solid disc), that has a stiffness much smaller than the stiffness of the legs and the foundation.  (Sorbothane is just a tradename for a particular thermoset polyether-based polyurethane. ) They artificially introduce a compliance element [a spring with much lower stiffness] that will result in significantly lower natural frequencies (mainly due to the table rocking, with the pads under shear ).  The dissipation of energy they introduce is only a fraction of the energy of vibration (the dissipation is governed by the material property tan delta, which ranges from ~0.2 to ~0.5 for this polyurethane compound).  If they (due to their much lower stiffness) introduce a natural frequency that can be easily excited by excitations in the environment, one may be better off eliminating these compliant elements all together.  Alternatively, one could change the natural frequency artificially introduced by the Sorbothane pads by changing the stiffness of the pad by decreasing their thickness, (hence increasing the stiffness and hence increasing the natural frequency of the table), changing the material (Sorbothane comes in several durometer hardness) or by increasing the mass in the table (thereby decreasing the natural frequency of the table).

In other words, the answer to your question << Is there an effect of resonance, relative to their size, thickness, and the size of the setup?>> is definitely YES, of course.  The present Sorbothane pads do not seem to be well-matched to the mass of the table and the excitation frequencies present in the environment. (Which is no surprise since nobody conducted a vibration analysis of this setup with this Sorbothane pads ;) , they were just put there hoping -rather than calculating whether they would introduce additional natural frequencies - that they would absorb energy).

Concerning the ability of the Sorbothane pads to shear (they have unconstrained lateral cylindrical surface of course) this is intended: without deformation they will have no ability to dampen anything.

Polyurethane has a Poisson's ratio practically equal to 1/2: it is practically incompressible, like rubber.  Hence if you were to constrain the cylindrical surface, their stiffness would increase by orders of magnitude and they would not serve their intended purpose [since the bulk modulus of this material is many orders of magnitude greater than the shear modulus, and since the quoted tan delta dissipation value is for shear deformation mode and not for bulk modulus deformation mode  ;)]

These Sorbothane pads come in at least 3 different hardnesses: 30, 50 and 70 durometer [Shore scale "OO": spring force 1.11 N with a probe's spherical radius 1.2 mm].   The properties depend on the particular hardness that Monomorphic used.  What durometer hardness are the pads that Monomorphic used?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star One on 10/18/2017 09:05 pm
New article.

Quote
A new study from the University of Lisbon claims that a particularly overlooked theory in quantum mechanics called the pilot wave could explain a working EM Drive. However, there's much to be discussed about the viability of this assumption.

https://futurism.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-latest-physics-breaking-em-drive-research/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 10/18/2017 09:58 pm
We do know how time dilation induces gravitational effects. In the presence of a variable 'rate of time' the geodesic paths are accelerated - like gravity. Newtonian gravity can be accounted for by only varying the rate of time. GR requires changes in the space dimensions as well.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 10/18/2017 10:08 pm
We do know how time dilation induces gravitational effects.
We do not know that it does. In fact to the contrary, gravitational effects cause time dilation, not the other way around. Saying that we know how something happens that does not happen is 2 levels of wrong.

In the presence of a variable 'rate of time' the geodesic paths are accelerated - like gravity. Newtonian gravity can be accounted for by only varying the rate of time. GR requires changes in the space dimensions as well.
Newtonian gravity does not have any time dilation. also, "rate of time" is not a defined physics term, so I am just assuming you mean "time dilation."
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 10/18/2017 11:12 pm
I see you expanded your question. I'm not supporting spupeng7 or dusty's descriptions, I'm supporting and developing my own. I disagree with your first sentence. Why do you think this only applies to things like waves on a string? Why the arbitrary line? Are you drawing the line because of mass? Thanks.
To start with the answer your last question, yes. The physics concept of "acceleration" simply only applies to massive particles.

Massless particles like photons have relativistic effects applied to them, but you can't sensibly discuss accelerations of them, since they only move at the speed of light.

Fields themselves can have a "rate of change" and a "rate of rate of change" associated with them, but these have units such as "field strength per time" rather than "distance per time", so while the informal term "acceleration" could apply, none of the physics related to accelerating particles does. To avoid confusion, it is best not to call this "acceleration of the field" but "second time derivative of the field."

Thank you for your response. When I occasionally change perspective from the classical behavior of waves to that of the quantum mechanical massless photon (which I've learned isn't useful for reasons I'll get to in a bit further down in the paragraph) I invoke the understanding that a system of two or more counterpropagating photons is massive, and that mass can be accelerated. It's turning into a complicated mess for me to be able to understand using this approach.

I find it more appealing to stick to classical wave behavior, and deal with the flow of energy and momentum in one particular direction vice another. I know this from the stress energy tensor. Newtonian physics was all about mass, but Einstein taught us that energy is (and momentum) are more fundamental. All this started with trying to find the "missing Poynting vector" over the years of this thread. I'm gathering my observables to make a calculation. I may just make a toy model instead. I share Rodal's concerns with how this satisfies E field boundary conditions. These animations I've been showing about superposition of waves aren't taking into respect boundary conditions so I get that. I understand that half of the energy is in the magnetic field and half is in the electric field.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 10/18/2017 11:53 pm
...quantum mechanical ...
It's turning into a complicated mess for me to be able to understand using this approach.
Forgive the butchering of your quote, but I have found that quantum mechanics usually results turning attempts at understanding into a "complicated mess." Unfortunately necessary sometimes, but best to avoid when possible.

I understand that half of the energy is in the magnetic field and half is in the electric field.
I generally agree with what you wrote, but one fine point here.  I am not sure how accurately you can say the split is 50-50. That might be a valid perspective, but at the same time, it is probably better to just think of the fields as a single "electromagnetic field," and all of the energy belongs to the fields. This is particularly apparent in relativity, where the fields transform together as a single tensor object.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 10/19/2017 12:47 am
Time is gravity?
Almost Kenjee,
gravity is time dilation, to be more specific. Problem is we don't really know how time dilation acts to engender gravitational acceleration, do we...  Ideas anyone?
Gravity is more than just time dilation, and time dilation is caused by any acceleration (or just by having a relative velocity) so it doesn't make sense to say that time dilation causes gravity.

That seems to me to be in question because we don't really know the source of what causes the time gradient.  It is really just because of relative velocity (or existing under acceleration) or something more fundamental that causes time to change?

For instance what if the vacuum is made up of positive matter that runs forward in time and negative energy matter that run backwards in time.  The negative energy matter appearing in our universe as positive energy matter because it runs backwards in time but then it annihilates with positive energy matter their time cancels out between them and suddenly they annihilate.  While separation because of the time aspect allows them to have what appears as positive energy. 

Maybe for some reason this negative energy matter in the vacuum is attracted to large masses of positive energy matter.
You mean for some reason like gravity? You are just going in a big circle here adding a bunch of unnecessary steps to then write down the original conclusion. Even if your explanation actually involved time dilation in any way (you can't jump from particles with negative mass travelling backwards in time -> time dilation), your explanation still does not account for time dilation from non-gravity based accelerations

Maybe having a large velocity in the vacuum also polarizes these particles causing Lorentz contraction and the time effects. 
"Large velocity in the vacuum" does not make any sense and contradicts the essence of special relativity, that there is no vacuum rest frame.

Supposing anti-matter is this other component it would have to be attracted for some other reason than gravity for it to work.  It is attracted to its counterpart so maybe it is feasible for it to be attracted to other large quantities of positive time matter, hypothetically speaking.  It could polarize at some equilibrium between its positive time partner and the other positive time particle with out a partner.  Maybe for electric field reasons or some other reason.   The polarization of this negative time aspect in the vacuum would then induce gravity.  It's an incomplete work but something I have mulled over from time to time.

Supposing anti-matter is this other component
Are you trying to describe the universe we live in, or some other fictional universe?

This is simply a non-starter of a proposition. If there was large quantities of antimatter to cause these effects, it would be impossible to not see them.
There is large amounts everywhere.  enough energy converges and suddenly e-p pairs start popping in and out of existence.  Its been observed already. 

Quote
Also, consensus is that anti-matter has the same interaction with gravity as normal matter, meaning it would be attracted to regular matter by gravity, though it hasn't been conclusively measured yet.

You also did not actually address what I said.

Yes positrons are attracted to gravity because they appear to be positive energy.  If you invert negative energy by inverting time you get positive energy.  Not saying this is a fact, this is a speculation on the nature of gravity.  I am sure some of us have wondered why gravity and Lorentz contractions even exist in the first place.  Until we know for a fact, it may be worth while to speculate as to how it exists, not just that it exists.  Do we even know how a Wheeler-Feynman propagator might propagate backwards in time?  Maybe a particle that behaves similarly might be key. 

The gravitational force is much weaker than the electric and the vacuum is stiff.  To polarize it you would need something more effective.  Take an electron-positron pair alone and insert a lone electron.  Could the new position be the positron some where between the two electrons?  We don't know because when they annihilate they become invisible but are they truly gone?  (And if they are not, their rest energy is not zero as we know the vacuum can not reach zero rest energy).  Now take a lone electron in a cloud of these pairs.  Might the position of the lone electron be some function of the energy level of the vacuum giving us some uncertainty about its actual position?  Might this lone electron induce some minor polarization of this e-p pair cloud because of its existence? 

Might a very fast object moving through a vacuum, that is polarized by matter, induce some accumulated polarization wave with a time gradient that is responsible for Lorentz contraction and time travel?  We know gravitational waves do exist and they do Lorentz contract. 

We argue for the non-existence of a rest frame yet ignore the existence of the CMB and the Twin paradox where one twin, who does not reach near c speed, does not slow in aging, while the one who does remains young.  The Lorentz contraction exist because of time travel via the tilting of the space axis into time and time in to space.  In the case of the twin paradox there appears to be only one time traveler.  Acceleration only changes the tilting of the axis of the light cone, determining how one travels through time, but its how long you stay at that relative velocity with respect to what defines that light cone that determines how long you travel through time.  So what determines the tilting of our axis with respect to the light cone such that the stationary twin ages faster? 

Regardless, it is just my speculation.  I am just reluctant to dismiss that a gradient in time may some how be responsible for gravity instead of gravity being responsible for the time gradient. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 10/19/2017 01:17 am
...quantum mechanical ...
It's turning into a complicated mess for me to be able to understand using this approach.
Forgive the butchering of your quote, but I have found that quantum mechanics usually results turning attempts at understanding into a "complicated mess." Unfortunately necessary sometimes, but best to avoid when possible.

I understand that half of the energy is in the magnetic field and half is in the electric field.
I generally agree with what you wrote, but one fine point here.  I am not sure how accurately you can say the split is 50-50. That might be a valid perspective, but at the same time, it is probably better to just think of the fields as a single "electromagnetic field," and all of the energy belongs to the fields. This is particularly apparent in relativity, where the fields transform together as a single tensor object.

https://physics.info/em-waves/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 10/19/2017 02:43 am

(...)

Nothing (whether anisotropic, inhomogeneous, etc.) that one can do solely with internal fields, internal forces, or internal particles can result in acceleration of the center of mass by itself without the involvement of external fields, as this would be a violation of Noether's theorem.  Acceleration of the center of mass can only take place either by ejection of mass/energy or by involvement of an external field.

In my opinion, we must continue to investigate the possibility that gravity is an electromagnetic effect, as Faraday suggested. Gravity, and pressure through contact, are the only forces that can act through the walls of the frustum, while everything that we are inducing inside it must be electromagnetic.

This may appear to be tenuous evidence upon which to ask such a big question but the argument can be made that this question should be asked anyway because the models we have all lead to paradox. Maybe we need to answer this bigger question before we can objectively assess the mechanism of action of the emdrive.

Gravity may simply be an imbalance of em forces due to the displacement of the electron from the nucleus, causing an imbalance between the sum of attractions and repulsions between all mass composed of charges, whether or not those masses have a neutral balance of opposite charges. I see this in the action of a bar magnet which can be explained as a stable longitudinal displacement of charge within the bar.

This requires a different mechanism for gravity and inertia (which must be interaction between all charges which falls in intensity with the inverse of the square of their separation) and the mechanism of interaction between pairs of charges in resonance exchanging quanta of energy, which we currently describe as photons. This is not an attempt to outrage, just an attempt to think outside the box, which is what circumstance now requires of us.

Without cynicism I fear we could waste a century more in attempts to explain emdrive thrust by classical or quantum mechanics. There is an alternative, to accept the possibility that Special Relativity is correct when it describes traverse at the speed of light as having no progress through clock time from its own perspective. That leaves only one option; the veracity of complex time and the absence of any extension in time for a photon from its own perspective as well as from the covariant perspective.

Folks, General Relativity is a translation from the covariant back into the Euclidian, is it not, and the Euclidian is a broken model full with paradox. It is time to focus on logic. Out of my depth I may be, but so are all who attempt to force resolution of this modern puzzle into the Euclidian box of quantum paradox.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 10/19/2017 03:02 am

(...)

 IMO- Many laws and theorem describe what happens naturally and spontaneously in the universe. But we have seen many cases where we have done, by twisting nature’s arm, things that do not happen by themselves in the universe. If we intend, once more, to twist nature’s arm into doing something that is not spontaneously happening out there, we should be cautious about the apparent limitations imposed by these laws and theorems. Because by leaving the realm of spontaneous processes, “intervention” may bring about new rules and new possibilities.
Maxwell Vindicated, blogpost by John Newell.. 6/2/2014

James Clerk Maxwell is credited with the unification of electricity and magnetism just as Albert Einstein is credited with unification of space and time. Formal physical analysis has a nasty habit of  separating them out again in order to reveal magnetic field behavior. The great benefit of their unification is that our understanding of electromagnetism is simplified by being a consequence of charge distribution alone.

If we need a reminder of this there is none better than the paper by Oleg D. Jefimenko titled ‘A neglected topic in relativistic electrodynamics : transformation of electromagnetic integrals’ but not dated. Available at arXiv:0509159, this understated but deeply elegant work provides the simplification required to open the door to dunderheads like myself, so that we may comprehend the universe of electrodynamics without being intimidated by the appalling complexity of the magneto-hydrodynamics which usually comes with it.

Then gravity can be considered to see if it fits within a purely electrodynamic explanation and electric force can be considered to see if it fits within a purely relativistic explanation, requiring nothing more than a mind open enough to try time dilation as a mechanism of action for electric force. If you can bring yourself this far then it may be possible, if your math is better than mine, to resolve gravity without limiting it to a monopole. The rest looks easy from there because unification will have realized its ultimate expression.

Thank you Oleg D, it is a shame you’re not around to finish the job for us…
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 10/19/2017 03:20 am
...quantum mechanical ...
It's turning into a complicated mess for me to be able to understand using this approach.
Forgive the butchering of your quote, but I have found that quantum mechanics usually results turning attempts at understanding into a "complicated mess." Unfortunately necessary sometimes, but best to avoid when possible.

I understand that half of the energy is in the magnetic field and half is in the electric field.
I generally agree with what you wrote, but one fine point here.  I am not sure how accurately you can say the split is 50-50. That might be a valid perspective, but at the same time, it is probably better to just think of the fields as a single "electromagnetic field," and all of the energy belongs to the fields. This is particularly apparent in relativity, where the fields transform together as a single tensor object.

https://physics.info/em-waves/
The exactly half applies to electromagnetic waves in free space. I am fairly certain that it does not apply in general, such as inside a resonator where you have nearby (temporary) charge distributions on the metal walls. It certainly is not true for the region of space near a point charge, with no other fields present. It could be true inside a resonator, but I wouldn't trust that unless someone could work out the proof.

I mostly just wanted to express my suggestion (just a suggestion) to treat the electric and magnetic fields as a single "electromagnetic field" instead.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 10/19/2017 04:14 am
...quantum mechanical ...
It's turning into a complicated mess for me to be able to understand using this approach.
Forgive the butchering of your quote, but I have found that quantum mechanics usually results turning attempts at understanding into a "complicated mess." Unfortunately necessary sometimes, but best to avoid when possible.

I understand that half of the energy is in the magnetic field and half is in the electric field.
I generally agree with what you wrote, but one fine point here.  I am not sure how accurately you can say the split is 50-50. That might be a valid perspective, but at the same time, it is probably better to just think of the fields as a single "electromagnetic field," and all of the energy belongs to the fields. This is particularly apparent in relativity, where the fields transform together as a single tensor object.

https://physics.info/em-waves/
The exactly half applies to electromagnetic waves in free space. I am fairly certain that it does not apply in general, such as inside a resonator where you have nearby (temporary) charge distributions on the metal walls. It certainly is not true for the region of space near a point charge, with no other fields present. It could be true inside a resonator, but I wouldn't trust that unless someone could work out the proof.

I mostly just wanted to express my suggestion (just a suggestion) to treat the electric and magnetic fields as a single "electromagnetic field" instead.

It's actually much easier to do QM using the gauge potentials (Phi, A), than the fields, E & B. The effects of a gravitational potential is equivalent to a gauge transformation of the EM gauge potentials. The gravitational field has no effect on the Lorentz force, despite its affect on the gauge potentials. So gravity has no "locally" observable affect on experiments that measure the force of the EM field.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 10/19/2017 04:39 am
We do know how time dilation induces gravitational effects.
We do not know that it does. In fact to the contrary, gravitational effects cause time dilation, not the other way around. Saying that we know how something happens that does not happen is 2 levels of wrong.

Actually, there is nothing wrong with RERT's statement. There is no experiment or theory that has predicted or determined which came first, gravity or time dilation. The effects are indistinguishable under all observations that I am aware of. In addition, "ANY" process which puts matter in an accelerated reference frame, is equivalent to a gravitational field. Unless you want to disprove the EEP.

In the presence of a variable 'rate of time' the geodesic paths are accelerated - like gravity. Newtonian gravity can be accounted for by only varying the rate of time. GR requires changes in the space dimensions as well.
Newtonian gravity does not have any time dilation. also, "rate of time" is not a defined physics term, so I am just assuming you mean "time dilation."

It is well known that Newton's gravitational potential and acceleration may be derived from the g00 Schwarzschild metric coefficient, which is also responsible for time dilation. Newton may not have theorized or written about it, but it was there none the less. Also, "rate of time" is understood to mean be the relative rate of a clock at two different altitudes in a gravitational field. IMO, there is nothing wrong with anything that was said. It's common sense to anyone willing to understand rather than look for reasons to nitpick.
 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: DusanC on 10/19/2017 07:57 am
30W amplifier successfully mounted to the torsional pendulum.  ;D  I'm showing images from both sides below. I think this is the first time I've shown the back side of the pendulum.

The two temperature sensors for the draft enclosure will be added tomorrow.
@Monomorphic:

With your pendulum layout you'll get settling oscillations because you induce torque T=FxL around the axis of your beam where F is EM drive force. As your damper is also displaced from the axis of the beam you'll get oscillations around axis of the beam but because that displacement is different from EMdrive displacement you'll see settling oscillations in other directions also. Your laser point will make elliptical movement.
OFC this doesn't inhibit you from measuring the EM drive force, you'll just have some noise afterwards.
I can assist you in redesigning your pendulum in 3D CAD by you specs, if you want to do it OFC.


PS. In the lower sketch I drew torque in wrong direction but you get the idea :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 10/19/2017 10:15 am
If you invert negative energy by inverting time you get positive energy.  Not saying this is a fact, this is a speculation on the nature of gravity.

Again, this has been proven since 1970. An important milestone of symplectic geometry is the Kirillov-Kostant-Souriau symplectic form on the coadjoint orbit, after the work of the three mathematicians Alexandre Kirillov (now 81 years old), Bertram Kostant (1928–2017) and Jean-Marie Souriau (1922–2012).
 
Within this trio, Souriau was the one who connected these mathematics with reality, with a true mathematical physics. His speciality was group theory, especially dynamical group theory. Groups are extremely important in physics, as they rule geometry, which fathers differential equations. Souriau showed that the coadjoint action of a group on its moment map describes the geometrical nature of all fundamental quantities (mass, energy, momentum, etc.) of particles. Thereby, he produced the first geometrical interpretation of the spin.

More importantly Souriau showed in 1970, using the coadjoint action of the complete Poincaré group on its moment map, that the signification of time reversal for a particle is nothing but the inversion of its energy.
For a particle with nonzero mass, a negative energy implies a negative mass, due to Einstein's equivalence principle between matter and energy E=mc².

See:
Souriau, J.-M. (1997). "Structure of Dynamical Systems". Progress in Mathematics. Boston: Birkhäuser. doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-0281-3.

And more exactly Part III–Mechanics, Chapter 14. A mechanistic description of elementary particles, Section Inversions of space and time, pp. 189–193. Attached again below.

If you want to deal with T-symmetry and its implications in particle physics I urge you to read this book.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 10/19/2017 10:40 am
May I add to better illustrate this, that fundamental symmetries for a particle are:

• C-symmetry or charge conjugation, which reverses the electric charge. A particle becomes an antiparticle, this is the antimatter according to Paul Dirac.
• P-symmetry or Parity, which is enantiomorphy, i.e. spatial symmetry (an object becomes its image in a mirror).
• T-symmetry or (the arrow of) time reversal.

Richard Feynman said a particle in a mirror (P-symmetry) that would run backward in time (T-symmetry) would be undistinguishable from its antiparticle. So PT symmetry would be like C-symmetry. PT-symmetry is antimatter according to Feynman.

You see there the foundations of the CPT theorem, which states the complete CPT symmetry of a particle would be the same particle.

Yes, but if you consider, as Souriau showed, that T-symmetry inverses the energy of the particle, then the CPT symmetry of a particle is the same particle but with an opposite (negative) energy. Therefore two kinds of antimatter should exist:

• C-symmetry, the antimatter after Dirac, of positive mass.
• PT-symmetry, the antimatter after Feynman, of negative mass.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sanman on 10/19/2017 11:00 am
There's a theory out there that when our universe was born, another anti-universe (filled with anti-matter) was also simultaneously born. So even as our universe is expanding, the anti-universe filled with anti-matter is also doing the same thing in its mirrored way. So that's claimed as an explanation of why we have lots of matter and little anti-matter, because meanwhile the other universe would have lots of anti-matter and little matter.

I've no idea as to the soundness of that conjecture, but I'd wonder if the tiny Quantum Vacuum fluctuations might possibly be oscillating between our universe and the (conjectured) anti-universe. So if you think of it as jitter, then a jitter peak in our universe would correspond to a jitter trough in the anti-universe and vice-versa.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Eusa on 10/19/2017 11:16 am
There's a theory out there that when our universe was born, another anti-universe (filled with anti-matter) was also simultaneously born. So even as our universe is expanding, the anti-universe filled with anti-matter is also doing the same thing in its mirrored way. So that's claimed as an explanation of why we have lots of matter and little anti-matter, because meanwhile the other universe would have lots of anti-matter and little matter.

I've no idea as to the soundness of that conjecture, but I'd wonder if the tiny Quantum Vacuum fluctuations might possibly be oscillating between our universe and the (conjectured) anti-universe. So if you think of it as jitter, then a jitter peak in our universe would correspond to a jitter trough in the anti-universe and vice-versa.
My theory is that we oscillate continuously between normal- and anti-universe at the rate of Planck scale. Hence Higgs field (or whatever mass mechanism) is basis for inertia/gravity and oscillates also and gives at the same time ability for both electromagnetism and nuclear forces as resonances. Handedness is only an agreement.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 10/19/2017 11:22 am
There's a theory out there that when our universe was born, another anti-universe (filled with anti-matter) was also simultaneously born. So even as our universe is expanding, the anti-universe filled with anti-matter is also doing the same thing in its mirrored way. So that's claimed as an explanation of why we have lots of matter and little anti-matter, because meanwhile the other universe would have lots of anti-matter and little matter.

I've no idea as to the soundness of that conjecture, but I'd wonder if the tiny Quantum Vacuum fluctuations might possibly be oscillating between our universe and the (conjectured) anti-universe. So if you think of it as jitter, then a jitter peak in our universe would correspond to a jitter trough in the anti-universe and vice-versa.

Yes, that was Andrei Sakharov's original conjecture in 1967, to resolve the puzzling missing cosmological antimatter problem and the associated violation of CP symmetry during baryogenesis.

Quote from: A. D. Sakharov
We can visualize that neutral spinless maximons (or photons) are produced at t < 0 from contracting matter having an excess of antiquarks, that they pass "one through the other" at the instant t = 0 when the density is infinite, and decay with an excess of quarks when t > 0, realizing total CPT symmetry of the universe. All the phenomena at t < 0 are assumed in this hypothesis to be CPT reflections of the phenomena at t > 0.

Although Sakharov did not introduce any (anti)gravitational interaction between his two sheets (that would be caused by the relative inversion of the arrow of time) this has been continued as J.P. Petit's Janus cosmological model (which can be summed up by "Petit = Sakharov + Souriau")

The theme of the reversal of time's arrow and its effect on gravity and entropy has made a comeback in the media recently (https://www.google.com/search?q=mirror+universe+%2Btime+%2Bbackward+%2Bguth+%2Bbarbour), after the work of British physicit Julian Barbour and the unpublished ideas of American physicists Alan Guth and Sean Carroll on a "mirror universe" where time would run backward.

The Big Bang as the origin where the arrow of time reverses is known as the Janus Point. This is a good picked name since Janus is the two-faced god of the Romanian mythology who "looks simultaneously to the future and to the past" ;)

I illustrated Sakharov's baryogenesis in the figure below, with the addition of positive and negative energies. You see that Sakharov's universe looks a bit like a hourglass.

Quarks and antiquarks of positive energy (at t > 0) and negative energy (at t < 0) are in pale green-yellow.
An excess of quarks at t > 0 led to a remainder of matter (red) after matter-antimatter primitive annihilation, and photons of positive energy in the orthochronous sector.
Due to complete CPT reflection at t < 0 (hence opposite CP violation) the excess of positive energy quarks in the positive sector flowing through the Janus Point gives an excess of negative energy antiquarks in the negative sector, which led to a remainder of negative energy antimatter (purple) after negative energy matter-antimatter annihilation (as well as negative energy photons) in the antichronous sector.

(http://ayuba.fr/janus/sakharov-jpp/sakharov-souriau-petit.png)

This is how Sakharov restored CP symmetry as a whole and eliminated the apparent violation in this twin universe model.

So matter dominates in our sector, and negative mass antimatter dominates in the antichronous sector.

One more thing: The Janus point does not have to be an "initial singularity" at all. The singularity can be cancelled, as shown in this didactic 2D figure above, replaced by a throat (like that of a hourglass). In higher dimensions and more precise terms, it would be a throat surface acting as a bridge joining the two sheets together at t = 0. This geometric object is not a manifold in the classical sense of the term, but an orbifold, containing a singular region Σ2(0) where the object is locally non-orientable. This is not a sphere but a projective P2 (so similar to Boy's surface). Crossing its boundary inverses coordinates, hence makes "any object its own image in the mirror of time".
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sanman on 10/19/2017 12:01 pm
Yes, thank you for those posts. I too have been thinking about Arrows of Time and Entropy a lot (Dammit, I really need to make another thread specifically for this!  :) )

The Quantum World does not experience the Arrows of Time or Entropy -- it's the Macroscopic World which does (whether it's made of matter of anti-matter)

When it comes to sending some small particle to the other side of the universe quickly, it can be sent by Quantum Teleportation. But you can't do it for large objects like you and me - we're macroscopic, and are subject to the limits of Time, velocity, etc - limits in rates of change. We'd like to go faster, but the limits in rates of change prevent us.

If we measure change in Entropy, then we are limited in how much change in position we can undergo macroscopically relative to the entropy change in the universe. Maybe we have to figure out how to trade entropy to get what we want? Is it possible? Can we even somehow trade it with the anti-universe that we are joined at the hip with?

Somehow it makes me picture space as a thin membrane, and the other anti-universe is on the other side of it. Space is the interface between the two.
Can EMdrive help us to "borrow" something from the other side?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 10/19/2017 12:28 pm
In this dual space model with positive and negative energies (orthochronous and antichronous) on both "sides" of the same universe, I really don't know about QVF and quantum interactions between the two sheets (i.e. what could be the link with the EmDrive) since no author I cited ever worked about such quantum interactions.

However, besides the "original singularity" Sakharov talked about a continuity of geodesics beyond the Schwarzschild radius with no singularity in a charged sphere (thus a macroscopic example) allowing an exchange of matter between the two sheets. Igor Dmitriyevich Novikov called such singularities a "collapse" and an "anticollapse", which are an alternative to the couple "black hole + white hole" in the wormhole model. You see, as Novikov's initial work on this was circa 1965, that these ideas are not at all coming from the "modern era" of physics…

When I refer to this, it is to emphasis that it may involve tremendous amounts of energy (like that inside a neutron star) to trigger a junction between these two opposite sheets at a macroscopic level. Could it be done at a microscopic quantum level at a lower cost, with considerably less energies? Maybe involving some kind of resonance or tunneling effect? Very speculative ideas.

You're right we'd need a dedicated thread for all these ideas, but if you create such a topic besides the EM Drive thread, you will be disappointed by the lack of interest and answers to these questions. C'est la vie.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sanman on 10/19/2017 01:31 pm
In this dual space model with positive and negative energies (orthochronous and antichronous) on both "sides" of the same universe, I really don't know about QVF and quantum interactions between the two sheets (i.e. what could be the link with the EmDrive) since no author I cited ever worked about such quantum interactions.

However, besides the "original singularity" Sakharov talked about a continuity of geodesics beyond the Schwarzschild radius with no singularity in a charged sphere (thus a macroscopic example) allowing an exchange of matter between the two sheets. Igor Dmitriyevich Novikov called such singularities a "collapse" and an "anticollapse", which are an alternative to the couple "black hole + white hole" in the wormhole model. You see, as Novikov's initial work on this was circa 1965, that these ideas are not at all coming from the "modern era" of physics…

When I refer to this, it is to emphasis that it may involve tremendous amounts of energy (like that inside a neutron star) to trigger a junction between these two opposite sheets at a macroscopic level. Could it be done at a microscopic quantum level at a lower cost, with considerably less energies? Maybe involving some kind of resonance or tunneling effect? Very speculative ideas.


Yes, that's sort of what I was thinking about. We want some way to help ourselves in our macroscopic existence, but due to our Macroscopic world's limitations, we may need to look for a Quantum loophole.
We might like to borrow/steal/scavenge something like Negentropy (negative entropy) from the anti-universe, to make use of it for ourselves here, by using a Quantum loophole for this purpose. The Quantum Vacuum fluctuations straddling both universes could be the key - each vacuum fluctuation peak on our side is a trough on the other side, and vice versa.

The photons resonating within EMdrive operate at a Quantum level where there is Time and Entropy symmetry, but those photons are interfacing with the macroscopic frustrum to contribute to its macroscopic momentum.

Are the Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations in empty space the means by which to scavenge momentum for our use, at the expense of one or both universes? If Voyager can steal momentum from Jupiter for gravitational slingshot, can EMdrive steal from one or both universes?

It was Sakharov who said that the mysteries of the Vacuum would be the great challenge for 21st century physics.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0112031.pdf


Quote
You're right we'd need a dedicated thread for all these ideas, but if you create such a topic besides the EM Drive thread, you will be disappointed by the lack of interest and answers to these questions. C'est la vie.

Yeah, I was thinking that too - that's why I haven't made one so far.  :(
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 10/19/2017 02:48 pm
We do know how time dilation induces gravitational effects.
We do not know that it does. In fact to the contrary, gravitational effects cause time dilation, not the other way around. Saying that we know how something happens that does not happen is 2 levels of wrong.

Actually, there is nothing wrong with RERT's statement. There is no experiment or theory that has predicted or determined which came first, gravity or time dilation. The effects are indistinguishable under all observations that I am aware of. In addition, "ANY" process which puts matter in an accelerated reference frame, is equivalent to a gravitational field. Unless you want to disprove the EEP.
Inside a closed box you cannot distinguish uniform gravity from some sort of rocket propulsion (to break it down to a fundamental force, it would be electromagnetic, from repulsion between atoms).

However, someone sitting outside the box can easily tell the difference, and does not see a gravitational potential appear out of nowhere. They do see time dilation happen to the accelerated object, so time dilation cannot cause gravity, since we observe time dilation does not cause it.

Even if your statement was right, you would still be contradicting RERT, because you are saying that we don't know which causes which, while he is not only stating that time dilation is the cause, but that we know how (exactly what mechanism) it causes it.

In the presence of a variable 'rate of time' the geodesic paths are accelerated - like gravity. Newtonian gravity can be accounted for by only varying the rate of time. GR requires changes in the space dimensions as well.
Newtonian gravity does not have any time dilation. also, "rate of time" is not a defined physics term, so I am just assuming you mean "time dilation."

It is well known that Newton's gravitational potential and acceleration may be derived from the g00 Schwarzschild metric coefficient, which is also responsible for time dilation. Newton may not have theorized or written about it, but it was there none the less. Also, "rate of time" is understood to mean be the relative rate of a clock at two different altitudes in a gravitational field. IMO, there is nothing wrong with anything that was said. It's common sense to anyone willing to understand rather than look for reasons to nitpick.

g00  would be responsible for time dilation in general relativity. General relativity is not Newtonian gravity. Time dilation is not a consequence of Newtonian gravity that Newton didn't realize (like for example the Alcubierre drive is a consequence of GR not discovered until well after Einstein). There is no way to get time dilation out of Newtonian gravity, you need to use general relativity for that. And no, you can't say special relativity plus Newtonian gravity equals time dilation, because Newtonian gravity is not compatible with special relativity, and general relativity is the modifications to Newtonian gravity needed to make it compatible.

RERT did not define "rate of time" and it is not something I have seen a common definition for either, in fact where I have seen it is a poster here who repeatedly insists on a nonsensical theory where he claims that space is not real and only time exists. You provided a definition, but that does not retroactively make it OK for RERT to use an undefined term, or explain why the common term "time dilation" was not used.

My statements were not nitpicks,  they were pointing out major factual inaccuracies, and the use of undefined terms, which in particular is necessary for understanding. Your dismissal of this as a nitpick indicates that you are the one not interested in understanding.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 10/19/2017 03:11 pm
Both critical thinking (rigor) and creative thinking are necessary in order to understand the universe. 

Critical thinking is not nitpicking. 

Excessive rigor needs to be balanced by creative out of the box thinking.

Excessive formal rigor can lead to rigor mortis.

Both sides of our brains are necessary !

 :)

(https://vigornotrigor.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/kindsofthinking.jpg?w=570&h=353&zoom=2)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 10/19/2017 03:36 pm
It was Sakharov who said that the mysteries of the Vacuum would be the great challenge for 21st century physics.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0112031.pdf

Thank you for this paper, especially for parts 5 and 8, and although many related and unrelated concepts are showed together. The following discussion between Okun and Sakharov made me smile ;D

Quote from: Lev Borisovich Okun
The spontaneous decay of a false vacuum starts by formation through quantum tunneling of the smallest bubble […] After that the bubble expands classically, destroying the universe. When I first thought that the creation of a bubble could be catalyzed at a collider, my back shivered. Then I reassured myself: all possible collisions have already occurred in the early universe. A few months later I told Andrei Sakharov about the bubble. His reaction was: “Such theoretical work should be forbidden”. My argument about collisions in the early universe was rejected by him: “Nobody had collided two nuclei of lead”.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sanman on 10/19/2017 03:55 pm
It was Sakharov who said that the mysteries of the Vacuum would be the great challenge for 21st century physics.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0112031.pdf

Thank you for this paper, especially for parts 5 and 8, and although many related and unrelated concepts are showed together. The following discussion between Okun and Sakharov made me smile ;D

Quote from: Lev Borisovich Okun
The spontaneous decay of a false vacuum starts by formation through quantum tunneling of the smallest bubble […] After that the bubble expands classically, destroying the universe. When I first thought that the creation of a bubble could be catalyzed at a collider, my back shivered. Then I reassured myself: all possible collisions have already occurred in the early universe. A few months later I told Andrei Sakharov about the bubble. His reaction was: “Such theoretical work should be forbidden”. My argument about collisions in the early universe was rejected by him: “Nobody had collided two nuclei of lead”.

Yeah, I noticed that paragraph too. LHC has been operating for awhile, and no mini-black-holes were created to swallow the Earth, as some doomsayers predicted. When stars explode or crash into each other, etc, it doesn't result in the destruction of our universe.

But rather than directly destroying a universe, I'm wondering if there's some way to leech off it?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 10/19/2017 05:03 pm
Yeah, I noticed that paragraph too. LHC has been operating for awhile, and no mini-black-holes were created to swallow the Earth, as some doomsayers predicted. When stars explode or crash into each other, etc, it doesn't result in the destruction of our universe.

Yes, but although colliders reach high energies, they lack the high density states that one can find in neutron stars, not to say the Big Bang itself. So fortunately nobody recreated a black hole in a lab, even with the LHC.

But Sakharov talked about practical high density devices.

In 1951, he made various experiments with MK-2 magnetocumulative devices (an explosively pumped flux compression generator (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_pumped_flux_compression_generator) of the second type, producing pulses up to one hundred millions amperes and magnetic fields growing from an initial steady state value of 2.5 teslas to a pulse over 250 teslas, a technology unknown to the West until the publication of Sakharov's memories (https://www.amazon.com/D-Sakharov-Collected-Scientific-Works/dp/0824717147/) in English in the 1980s):

(http://a405.idata.over-blog.com/600x450/0/31/61/40/image4/MK2.jpg)

Sakharov diverted the MK-2 generator, not for the production of ultra high intensity electric currents, but as a pulsed particle accelerator, literally a "plasma gun". His device was firing a 2-gram aluminum ring at speeds over 100 km/s. Under the violent induced eddy currents flowing through the ring, the aluminum was instantly vaporized in a stable self-confined plasma toroid that was accelerated by Lorentz forces up to tremendous speeds.

However in his memories, Sakharov pointed to a stunning although possibly frightening solution. He suggested to scale this experiment using superconducting electromagnets instead of the primitive copper coils they used in the 1951 experiment, and to replace the chemical explosive by a thermonuclear one (!) and more exactly not one but two devices facing each other. Electromagnets would be vaporized due to the atomic explosion but currents would continue to flow in the nuclear plasma for enough time to focus the explosion as magnetic lenses. He said:

Quote from: A. D. Sakharov
By means of large pulsed magnetic lenses (the energy of the magnetic field representing the equivalent of several hundred kilotons) it is possible to focus a beam with an intensity of 1018 / 10-5 = 1023 protons/sec on a surface area of 1 mm2. It would then be possible to obtain, under good conditions of reliability, the recording of phenomena involving the collision of the beams of two accelerators, with an effective cross-section of the order of 10-30 cm2. In order to carry out such experiments, it would of course be necessary to have automatic systems (servo-controls) to compensate for the space charge and to correct the magnetic field.
Apart from the quite grandiose projects of which we have just spoken, it seems to us that MK generators can be useful in many fields of scientific research.

We do not know if this kind of experiment has been conducted in the USSR or in the USA (for example as underground nuclear tests in Nevada in the 1980s). However I cannot help but think of inverting the mass of particles, creating large quantities of antimatter, or bringing about even stranger things in spacetime.

About ten years ago I typed the whole chapter of Sakharov's Collected Scientific work in a searchable PDF, attached. Sorry this is in French but you can also buy Sakharov's book in English (copies are still available on Amazon) or translate my PDF with Google Translate. Third way: learn French.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 10/19/2017 06:27 pm
Meberbs -

If you set up a metric space which simply displays nothing but variable time dilation, you will see particles move on accelerated geodesics. If you set the time dilation correctly, you can recover the geodesics of Newtonian Gravitation. The full equations of GR require space to be distorted as well, in eg the Schwarzschild metric.

This isn’t wrong at all, just looking at things from a different perspective.

If you think GR is correct, and you can engineer a spatially varying time dilation, you will expect to see accelerated particles subject to gravity-like forces. Just write out the equations in a simple case, you will see it. I think this idea is mainstream, not left field.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 10/19/2017 06:42 pm
...and fwiw, in the Earth environment, the corrections of GR are infinitesimal: about 8mm in 6000km, about 1 in 10^9 if I did the sum right.

So time dilation does almost all the job...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 10/19/2017 07:27 pm
Meberbs -

If you set up a metric space which simply displays nothing but variable time dilation, you will see particles move on accelerated geodesics. If you set the time dilation correctly, you can recover the geodesics of Newtonian Gravitation. The full equations of GR require space to be distorted as well, in eg the Schwarzschild metric.

This isn’t wrong at all, just looking at things from a different perspective.

If you think GR is correct, and you can engineer a spatially varying time dilation, you will expect to see accelerated particles subject to gravity-like forces. Just write out the equations in a simple case, you will see it. I think this idea is mainstream, not left field.
Please read my previous posts and address what I said. To reiterate: Time dilation exists in situations that do not involve gravity. If time dilation caused gravity, then gravity should appear during other accelerations.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 10/19/2017 11:14 pm
...
Even if your statement was right, you would still be contradicting RERT, because you are saying that we don't know which causes which, while he is not only stating that time dilation is the cause, but that we know how (exactly what mechanism) it causes it.

I said there is no experiment that has proven it. As far as "exactly what mechanism" causes it, I actually do know. Anyone who has read my QG paper from the Estes Park proceedings would know this too.


RERT did not define "rate of time" and it is not something I have seen a common definition for either, in fact where I have seen it is a poster here who repeatedly insists on a nonsensical theory where he claims that space is not real and only time exists. You provided a definition, but that does not retroactively make it OK for RERT to use an undefined term, or explain why the common term "time dilation" was not used.

My statements were not nitpicks,  they were pointing out major factual inaccuracies, and the use of undefined terms, which in particular is necessary for understanding. Your dismissal of this as a nitpick indicates that you are the one not interested in understanding.

Maybe I'm just more in-tune with how people think, or maybe all those years I've spent on Usenet forums has given me the upper hand at deciphering meaning from non-rigorous text. I had no difficulty understanding what he meant and I felt no need to correct him. You on the other hand, did not even try to  understand the meaning of what was said. You dismissed it as gibberish because it didn't fit inside your box.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 10/19/2017 11:17 pm
Meberbs -

If you set up a metric space which simply displays nothing but variable time dilation, you will see particles move on accelerated geodesics. If you set the time dilation correctly, you can recover the geodesics of Newtonian Gravitation. The full equations of GR require space to be distorted as well, in eg the Schwarzschild metric.

This isn’t wrong at all, just looking at things from a different perspective.

If you think GR is correct, and you can engineer a spatially varying time dilation, you will expect to see accelerated particles subject to gravity-like forces. Just write out the equations in a simple case, you will see it. I think this idea is mainstream, not left field.
Please read my previous posts and address what I said. To reiterate: Time dilation exists in situations that do not involve gravity. If time dilation caused gravity, then gravity should appear during other accelerations.

Example of a case where acceleration is present and gravity is not? How could you determine that there are no gravitational effects?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 10/19/2017 11:22 pm
The noise returned the next day after removing the sorbothane pads with the same vigor as before. And after tearing down and rebuilding the torsional pendulum again that same day, the noise was still present. That is when I was reminded of PotomacNeuron saying something like, "remove the source of the noise and the experiment is good to go."

With all electronics not powered, the most likely sources of noise are convection, acoustic, and seismic. I live in a seismically stable area, far away from major roads or major sources of ground vibrations. That leaves us with convection and acoustic sources of noise. I pulled out all of my drop cloths and furniture blankets to help better insulate the draft enclosure. This seems to have done the trick. As of writing this, the pendulum has been stable for hours.

It seems at these <3uN resolution levels, convection and acoustic insulation/damping becomes most important. I plan on incorporating acoustic damping inside the enclosure as well as beefing up on the exterior layers.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 10/20/2017 02:20 am
...
Even if your statement was right, you would still be contradicting RERT, because you are saying that we don't know which causes which, while he is not only stating that time dilation is the cause, but that we know how (exactly what mechanism) it causes it.

I said there is no experiment that has proven it. As far as "exactly what mechanism" causes it, I actually do know. Anyone who has read my QG paper from the Estes Park proceedings would know this too.

You said (emphasis mine):
There is no experiment or theory that has predicted or determined which came first, gravity or time dilation. The effects are indistinguishable under all observations that I am aware of.
You are contradicting yourself completely here by now claiming that you have a theory that does something you claim that no theory does.

Also, have you revised your paper since I demonstrated for you that your understanding of one of the simplest examples of acceleration in relativity (the "twin paradox") was wrong?


RERT did not define "rate of time" and it is not something I have seen a common definition for either, in fact where I have seen it is a poster here who repeatedly insists on a nonsensical theory where he claims that space is not real and only time exists. You provided a definition, but that does not retroactively make it OK for RERT to use an undefined term, or explain why the common term "time dilation" was not used.

My statements were not nitpicks,  they were pointing out major factual inaccuracies, and the use of undefined terms, which in particular is necessary for understanding. Your dismissal of this as a nitpick indicates that you are the one not interested in understanding.

Maybe I'm just more in-tune with how people think, or maybe all those years I've spent on Usenet forums has given me the upper hand at deciphering meaning from non-rigorous text. I had no difficulty understanding what he meant and I felt no need to correct him. You on the other hand, did not even try to  understand the meaning of what was said. You dismissed it as gibberish because it didn't fit inside your box.
So your reaction to being proven wrong on technical grounds is to make up lies about the person you are talking with?

I said:
Newtonian gravity does not have any time dilation. also, "rate of time" is not a defined physics term, so I am just assuming you mean "time dilation."
I did not dismiss it as gibberish, I specifically stated my assumption of what he meant, which is the same as what you said.  I clearly not only tried to understand him, but if what you said is the correct interpretation of what he meant, then I did understand him, but unlike you I do not find it wise just to assume that I am correct about someone's meaning when they use a non-standard term.

Example of a case where acceleration is present and gravity is not? How could you determine that there are no gravitational effects?
I hope this was intended as some kind of bad joke, because it is trivial to come up with examples, and if you actually read my recent posts on this thread, I already mentioned one.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 10/20/2017 02:22 am
Feeling gravity act on us means we "are not" accelerating with in this well and resisting our inertia, while a rockets force acting on us means we "are" accelerating.  What they probably have in common is the object is resisting what ever is responsible for inertia.
What they have in common is more than that. You should research the equivalence principle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: JonathanD on 10/20/2017 02:59 am
The noise returned the next day after removing the sorbothane pads with the same vigor as before. And after tearing down and rebuilding the torsional pendulum again that same day, the noise was still present. That is when I was reminded of PotomacNeuron saying something like, "remove the source of the noise and the experiment is good to go."

With all electronics not powered, the most likely sources of noise are convection, acoustic, and seismic. I live in a seismically stable area, far away from major roads or major sources of ground vibrations. That leaves us with convection and acoustic sources of noise. I pulled out all of my drop cloths and furniture blankets to help better insulate the draft enclosure. This seems to have done the trick. As of writing this, the pendulum has been stable for hours.

It seems at these <3uN resolution levels, convection and acoustic insulation/damping becomes most important. I plan on incorporating acoustic damping inside the enclosure as well as beefing up on the exterior layers.

1) You are awesomely dedicated

2) If only we had access.... http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/health/sns-tns-bc-health-anechoic-chamber-20171013-story.html
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 10/20/2017 03:35 am
The noise returned the next day after removing the sorbothane pads with the same vigor as before. And after tearing down and rebuilding the torsional pendulum again that same day, the noise was still present. That is when I was reminded of PotomacNeuron saying something like, "remove the source of the noise and the experiment is good to go."

With all electronics not powered, the most likely sources of noise are convection, acoustic, and seismic. I live in a seismically stable area, far away from major roads or major sources of ground vibrations. That leaves us with convection and acoustic sources of noise. I pulled out all of my drop cloths and furniture blankets to help better insulate the draft enclosure. This seems to have done the trick. As of writing this, the pendulum has been stable for hours.

It seems at these <3uN resolution levels, convection and acoustic insulation/damping becomes most important. I plan on incorporating acoustic damping inside the enclosure as well as beefing up on the exterior layers.

You reminded me of an issue of our basement. We had large AC current running through our water main copper pipe.  The current came from the front side of the house where the water main entered the basement, followed the water main to the back of the house, ran into heater and AC, followed the AC copper refrigerant pipe, and went out of the house into where the AC out door unit was grounded. It was present even if I shut down all power from the electric box. The current was likely running from neighbor's house grounding to the transformer grounding near the pole, and it found an easy route through my basement. 

My wife worried about EM 'contamination'. I finally got rid of it by breaking the water main, inserted half a foot of hard plastic pipe (not PVC, but another safer type). The voltage across the gap is not high. I forgot the number, but it may be half a volt. What I remember was that it was much lower than pb's or cu's reduction voltage (to be safe).

I mentioned this because sometimes it is not easy to identify the noise source. Maybe it is from something that are not convection, acoustic or seismic.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/20/2017 04:07 am
The noise returned the next day after removing the sorbothane pads with the same vigor as before. And after tearing down and rebuilding the torsional pendulum again that same day, the noise was still present. That is when I was reminded of PotomacNeuron saying something like, "remove the source of the noise and the experiment is good to go."

With all electronics not powered, the most likely sources of noise are convection, acoustic, and seismic. I live in a seismically stable area, far away from major roads or major sources of ground vibrations. That leaves us with convection and acoustic sources of noise. I pulled out all of my drop cloths and furniture blankets to help better insulate the draft enclosure. This seems to have done the trick. As of writing this, the pendulum has been stable for hours.

It seems at these <3uN resolution levels, convection and acoustic insulation/damping becomes most important. I plan on incorporating acoustic damping inside the enclosure as well as beefing up on the exterior layers.

Jamie:

You reminded me about how much more quiet the EW torque pendulum trace became when we pulled a vacuum on the vacuum tank and came to the conclusion that the trace noise had more to do with acoustic noise and lower frequency sonic waves impinging on the vacuum tank than anything else.  You really do need to think about getting a vacuum chamber with at least a roughing pump that can bring your tank pressures below 1x10^-3 Torr for the best solution to this problem.  However adding a vacuum system to your test rig would also mean you would have to vacuum proof all your equipment that would be in the vacuum environment and that can be a real pain in its own right, and that process took us over a year to master and pay for.  In the meantime good luck with your acoustical shielding.

Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 10/20/2017 04:22 am
[quote author=Star-Drive link=topic=42978.msg1739800#msg1739800 "...  In the meantime good luck with your acoustical shielding."

Best, Paul M.

Paul, Jamie is a very impressive young man.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 10/20/2017 09:18 am
Meberbs -

Here is a simple model metric to describe a spatially varying rate of  flow of time/time dilation/g00:

                   ds²=-c²(1-f)dt²+dx²+dy²+dz²

Where f = f(x). Go through the algebra and the geodesic equations are:

                   (d²t/dτ²)-(∂f/∂x)(dt/dτ)(dx/dτ)/(1-f) =0
                   (d²x/dτ²)-½c²(∂f/∂x)(dt/dτ)²=0

These integrate to give

                   dt/dτ=1/(1-f)
                   d²x/dt²=½c²(∂f/∂x)

The two equations in x mean that particles are accelerated, both with respect to proper time and distant observers.

It doesn't matter at all what other cases of acceleration with or without gravity exist. (Notice that time dilation that is not spatially variable is irrelevant.) I'm not discussing those. I'm discussing the above case, where it is manifest that a spatially varying g00 causes accelerations. If you can engineer that (big ask) things will start to move, according to accepted physics.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 10/20/2017 10:48 am
The noise returned the next day after removing the sorbothane pads with the same vigor as before. And after tearing down and rebuilding the torsional pendulum again that same day, the noise was still present. That is when I was reminded of PotomacNeuron saying something like, "remove the source of the noise and the experiment is good to go."

With all electronics not powered, the most likely sources of noise are convection, acoustic, and seismic. I live in a seismically stable area, far away from major roads or major sources of ground vibrations. That leaves us with convection and acoustic sources of noise. I pulled out all of my drop cloths and furniture blankets to help better insulate the draft enclosure. This seems to have done the trick. As of writing this, the pendulum has been stable for hours.

It seems at these <3uN resolution levels, convection and acoustic insulation/damping becomes most important.

WOW !!!

Now you'll need a webcam to see what's going on inside the test rig  ;D

As for seismic noise, are there pipes or in any case ducts running under the floor ? If so, maybe moving the rig to another position may help further reducing the noise; at any rate, since we're at acoustics, what about these (https://www.amazon.com/ATS-Wedge-Acoustic-Panels-Charcoal/dp/B00QH2RJW2) ?

I plan on incorporating acoustic damping inside the enclosure as well as beefing up on the exterior layers.

I'm not sure it incorporating the damping would work, I suspect that building an external "acoustic dampening enclosure" (some kind of box containing the rig) placed outside the rig and not touching it may work better
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star-Drive on 10/20/2017 11:46 am
[quote author=Star-Drive link=topic=42978.msg1739800#msg1739800 "...  In the meantime good luck with your acoustical shielding."

Best, Paul M.

Paul, Jamie is a very impressive young man.

Bob:

Agreed.  See attached picture of Jamie I took of him in front of the Eagleworks Lab's vacuum chamber when Jamie visited the lab back in January 2017.  He will go far...

Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 10/20/2017 12:30 pm
The noise returned the next day after removing the sorbothane pads with the same vigor as before. And after tearing down and rebuilding the torsional pendulum again that same day, the noise was still present. That is when I was reminded of PotomacNeuron saying something like, "remove the source of the noise and the experiment is good to go."

With all electronics not powered, the most likely sources of noise are convection, acoustic, and seismic. I live in a seismically stable area, far away from major roads or major sources of ground vibrations. That leaves us with convection and acoustic sources of noise. I pulled out all of my drop cloths and furniture blankets to help better insulate the draft enclosure. This seems to have done the trick. As of writing this, the pendulum has been stable for hours.

It seems at these <3uN resolution levels, convection and acoustic insulation/damping becomes most important. I plan on incorporating acoustic damping inside the enclosure as well as beefing up on the exterior layers.

Jamie:

You reminded me about how much more quiet the EW torque pendulum trace became when we pulled a vacuum on the vacuum tank and came to the conclusion that the trace noise had more to do with acoustic noise and lower frequency sonic waves impinging on the vacuum tank than anything else.  ....
The blankets and insulation help remove internal convection currents, as it thermally insulates the chamber.
It is not clear why you think the noise was
Quote
more to do with acoustic noise
(sound waves, many of which Monomorphic should be able to hear if they are within the audible range frequencies) instead of just thermal convection.   Thermal convection is excited by differences in temperature between the wall surfaces (and floor and ceiling surfaces) of the test chamber: those are the thermal boundary conditions.  When you insulate the surfaces, you remove a great deal of the excitation of thermal convection.

Typical thermal convection currents (imparted by natural thermal convection) should be able to impart forces that are orders of magnitude larger than the forces imparted by acoustic waves in a typical office environment. Or was Monomorphic playing very loud music during the experiments and had big woofers directed at the experiment? [in which case the solution is simply to stop playing the music]
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 10/20/2017 12:47 pm
Was Monomorphic playing very loud music during the experiments and had big woofers directed at the experiment?

I was not playing loud music. If it is mostly convection, what are other ways to reduce it?  I wonder if it would help if I filled some of the interior of the draft enclosure with foam blocks to help break up the larger volumes of air. 

A vacuum chamber is probably out of the question for the time being. Not only is there a large cost with building the chamber, but as Paul pointed out, the electronics and batteries would need to be vacuum hardened or otherwise protected from the vacuum. There is vacuum rated 3D printer filament available, but the PLA I used would out-gas in a vacuum.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 10/20/2017 01:15 pm
The noise returned the next day after removing the sorbothane pads with the same vigor as before. And after tearing down and rebuilding the torsional pendulum again that same day, the noise was still present. That is when I was reminded of PotomacNeuron saying something like, "remove the source of the noise and the experiment is good to go."

With all electronics not powered, the most likely sources of noise are convection, acoustic, and seismic. I live in a seismically stable area, far away from major roads or major sources of ground vibrations. That leaves us with convection and acoustic sources of noise. I pulled out all of my drop cloths and furniture blankets to help better insulate the draft enclosure. This seems to have done the trick. As of writing this, the pendulum has been stable for hours.

It seems at these <3uN resolution levels, convection and acoustic insulation/damping becomes most important. I plan on incorporating acoustic damping inside the enclosure as well as beefing up on the exterior layers.

Jamie:

You reminded me about how much more quiet the EW torque pendulum trace became when we pulled a vacuum on the vacuum tank and came to the conclusion that the trace noise had more to do with acoustic noise and lower frequency sonic waves impinging on the vacuum tank than anything else.  ....
The blankets and insulation help remove internal convection currents, as it thermally insulates the chamber.
It is not clear why you think the noise was
Quote
more to do with acoustic noise
(sound waves, many of which Monomorphic should be able to hear if they are within the audible range frequencies) instead of just thermal convection.   Thermal convection is excited by differences in temperature between the wall surfaces (and floor and ceiling surfaces) of the test chamber: those are the thermal boundary conditions.  When you insulate the surfaces, you remove a great deal of the excitation of thermal convection.

Typical thermal convection currents (imparted by natural thermal convection) should be able to impart forces that are orders of magnitude larger than the forces imparted by acoustic waves in a typical office environment. Or was Monomorphic playing very loud music during the experiments and had big woofers directed at the experiment? [in which case the solution is simply to stop playing the music]

If he used just glass would that be a shield enough from convection currents allowing him to still see what is going on with his experiment?  If not glass what about glass with a layer of aerogel.  Not sure that is an easy thing to come by. 

The aerogel-glass process T Woignier, J Phalippou - Clays and Hydrosilicate Gels in …, 1992 - books.google.com (https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=7xZP-KC_ZLUC&oi=fnd&pg=PA3&ots=d_iy1AnyQy&sig=x15Tjee0ooY5h_0vwzRj1FuhUmA#v=onepage&q&f=false)

Plexiglass? 

Clear plastic stretched over, maybe saran wrap or something thicker?

There is just something a bit more satisfying about being able to look at and analyze your set up in a glance.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 10/20/2017 01:38 pm
....

If he used just glass would that be a shield enough from convection currents allowing him to still see what is going on with his experiment?  ...

...

No, the insulation is not there to shield from forced convection currents.

The issue is not insulating from forced convection in the room (as for example a fan or drafts in his room), in which case all you would need would be to have glass, or transparent plastic, or whatever non-permeable surface, to prevent the forced convection.

The issue is to minimize natural (also called "free") convection, not forced convection.  (We suppose that Monomorphic has no fans, air conditioning or heating vents with forced convection and other sources of forced convection  impinging on the enclosure and in any case the present transparent enclosure prevents such forced convection)

Natural convection is the result of difference in temperature between surfaces of the chamber. 

The purpose is to minimize the temperature gradient within the chamber.

To minimize natural convection he needs to insulate the chamber, so that the temperature gradients are minimized.

He needs to have all the internal surfaces of the chamber at the same temperature.  (Single pane) glass will not do that.  He needs to minimize the coefficient of heat transfer, he needs to have surfaces with low thermal conductivity.  He needs lots of insulation

It is also a good idea to minimize internal sources of heat.


(https://image.slidesharecdn.com/siheat4echap01lecture-140312030457-phpapp01/95/si-heat-4echap01lecture-31-638.jpg?cb=1394593564)

(https://image.slidesharecdn.com/radiantcoolingforresidentialandcommercialapplicationsver13-160508212911/95/radiant-cooling-for-residential-and-commercial-applications-messana-radiant-cooling-23-638.jpg?cb=1462743892)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 10/20/2017 01:50 pm
Meaning it would be fruitful to heat the container to predicted outside surface temperature i.e. ~55C0.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 10/20/2017 01:52 pm
Meaning it would be fruitful to heat the container to predicted outside surface temperature i.e. ~55C0.
It looks to me that heating/cooling (temperature control of) all surfaces to the same temperature is more complicated than using insulation.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 10/20/2017 02:35 pm
Meberbs -

Here is a simple model metric to describe a spatially varying rate of  flow of time/time dilation/g00:

...

It doesn't matter at all what other cases of acceleration with or without gravity exist. (Notice that time dilation that is not spatially variable is irrelevant.) I'm not discussing those. I'm discussing the above case, where it is manifest that a spatially varying g00 causes accelerations. If you can engineer that (big ask) things will start to move, according to accepted physics.
What you showed here is correlation, not causation, and I never disputed correlation.

This in no way supports your previous statements that: Newtonian gravity has time dilation, and that we know how time dilation causes gravity.

The second statement requires 2 pieces, first that time dilation is the cause, and second the specific mechanism that produces this.

To give an example of what these 2 mean, throwing hot gasses out the back of a rocket causes it to accelerate. Knowing how this happens requires discussion of things like converging-diverging nozzles.

The equations you wrote do not say anything about causation themselves. They can just as easily read that matter creates a gravitational field that attracts other matter, and that the gravitational field bends space time causing time dilation. I am not claiming we know the "how" here, in fact I am pretty sure we don't as that is a matter of quantum gravity and whether or not there is a such thing as a graviton.

Your description of "spatially varying time dilation" does exclude the example of other forms of acceleration that cause time dilation, but this still is some conceptual strangeness that time dilation is a cause in one case, and an effect in the other. Also worth noting is the description I just provided included the presence of matter as the ultimate "cause" in the situation which is easy to arrange to then see the effects, while in your attempt to explain that time dilation is the cause, you got stuck on the how to engineer this time dilation to exist.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 10/20/2017 04:58 pm
Meaning it would be fruitful to heat the container to predicted outside surface temperature i.e. ~55C0.

DANG

If you can't beat them, join them; now this is an interesting idea IMVHO
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 10/20/2017 06:08 pm
This time of year ambient outside temperatures are rapidly cooling in the Northern Hemisphere. Yet there appears to be a concrete slab resting on the earth underneath it, which is more slowly cooling down from the summertime high temperatures that warmed both the slab and the earth. That radiated heat may also be absorbed by the test bed itself, and a precision surface thermometer may show a temperature differential from the bottom of the test stand, closest to the floor, than at the top.


Mono wrapped the chamber and the presumed convection noise stopped. If you put an area rug underneath the test stand and measure the amount noise, if the amount of the noise decreases from prior runs you may have identified the source.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 10/20/2017 07:45 pm
Was Monomorphic playing very loud music during the experiments and had big woofers directed at the experiment?

I was not playing loud music. If it is mostly convection, what are other ways to reduce it?  I wonder if it would help if I filled some of the interior of the draft enclosure with foam blocks to help break up the larger volumes of air. 

A vacuum chamber is probably out of the question for the time being. Not only is there a large cost with building the chamber, but as Paul pointed out, the electronics and batteries would need to be vacuum hardened or otherwise protected from the vacuum. There is vacuum rated 3D printer filament available, but the PLA I used would out-gas in a vacuum.

Foam, as in "styrofoam" insulation, as well as other fiber based insulators, are also electrical insulators. They tend to accumulate large surface charges that are very difficult to shunt to ground. If you filled the interior with foam, you would probably need to cover the foam in copper foil, in order to remove all the static charge that would affect your thrust measurements. I think the blankets on the outside are a great idea. Just add a lighted webcam to see what is going on inside, or trust your instruments.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 10/20/2017 08:40 pm
I noticed the noise had returned this morning with the colder temperatures so I used the infrared camera and there was a 1.5 degree difference between the thin walls and the interior surfaces. Fortunately I designed the draft enclosure so that insulation could be added later. The insulation used is 3/4 inch thick with a rating of 3.8. The entire inside surface area of the draft enclosure is now covered with overlapping insulation so that all those surfaces remain the same temperature. Another important aspect is to make sure the exterior room temperature remains constant.  Having it several degrees hotter or colder outside the enclosure is not good for natural convection.  I will be using a space heater for that.

I've never seen the pendulum this steady. If static charges become a problem, I would gladly cover the foam with foil.    :D

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: rq3 on 10/20/2017 09:39 pm
I noticed the noise had returned this morning with the colder temperatures so I used the infrared camera and noticed a 1.5 degree difference between the thin walls and the interior surfaces. Fortunately I designed the draft enclosure so that insulation could be added later. The insulation used is 3/4 inch thick with a rating of 3.8. The entire inside surface area of the draft enclosure is now covered with overlapping insulation so that all those surfaces remain the same temperature. Another important aspect is to make sure the exterior room temperature remains constant.  Having it several degrees hotter or colder outside the enclosure is not good for natural convection.  I will be using a space heater for that.

I've never seen the pendulum this steady. If static charges become a problem, I would gladly cover the foam with foil.    :D

By the 18th century, pendulum clocks had been corrected for temperature, atmospheric pressure, humidity, friction, isochronism, pendulum drag, sustainance, and various other factors to the point that they could be used to detect the gravitational attraction due to the phases of the moon, and had rates so stable that the effect of the sun's gravitational attraction could (just) be detected as the earth rotated through the annual seasons.

Flip the switch already!!! If your torsion pendulum gets any better, you'll be obsessing about microbaroms from oceanic tidal action, or the decades long magnetic shift of the earth's poles!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mr. Peter on 10/20/2017 10:27 pm
Flip the switch already!!!

I second that.
 :D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 10/21/2017 12:08 am
Meberbs -

Here is a simple model metric to describe a spatially varying rate of  flow of time/time dilation/g00:

...

It doesn't matter at all what other cases of acceleration with or without gravity exist. (Notice that time dilation that is not spatially variable is irrelevant.) I'm not discussing those. I'm discussing the above case, where it is manifest that a spatially varying g00 causes accelerations. If you can engineer that (big ask) things will start to move, according to accepted physics.
What you showed here is correlation, not causation, and I never disputed correlation.

This in no way supports your previous statements that: Newtonian gravity has time dilation, and that we know how time dilation causes gravity.

The second statement requires 2 pieces, first that time dilation is the cause, and second the specific mechanism that produces this.

To give an example of what these 2 mean, throwing hot gasses out the back of a rocket causes it to accelerate. Knowing how this happens requires discussion of things like converging-diverging nozzles.

The equations you wrote do not say anything about causation themselves. They can just as easily read that matter creates a gravitational field that attracts other matter, and that the gravitational field bends space time causing time dilation. I am not claiming we know the "how" here, in fact I am pretty sure we don't as that is a matter of quantum gravity and whether or not there is a such thing as a graviton.

Your description of "spatially varying time dilation" does exclude the example of other forms of acceleration that cause time dilation, but this still is some conceptual strangeness that time dilation is a cause in one case, and an effect in the other. Also worth noting is the description I just provided included the presence of matter as the ultimate "cause" in the situation which is easy to arrange to then see the effects, while in your attempt to explain that time dilation is the cause, you got stuck on the how to engineer this time dilation to exist.

Many physical systems are reversible.  A sterling engine can run off a temperature gradient but if you use energy to run the sterling engine you can induce a temperature gradient. 

Possibly similar is that the presence of matter induces a gravitational field which could be claimed to induce a time gradient.  Running this in reverse if we claim the presence of matter induces the time gradient then inducing such a time gradient by some, as of yet unknown means, may emulate the gravitational field of matter. 

It may not matter which comes first. 

Just because we don't know how to engineer a time gradient yet doesn't mean its impossible.  Maybe something as simple as this experiment below could be some how polarizing the vacuum in some unknown way or maybe their experiment is flawed. 

Davids video at 34 minutes states that either negative or positive charges may be associated with an exotic matter solution.  Makes me think of the anti-matter in the vacuum being time reverse negative energy.  Or that is while being annihilated, and the time reversal cancels out, so that it exists in the vacuum as negative energy, while outside the vacuum as positive energy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGN65lse5yE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UOQbqk2Z0g
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 10/21/2017 01:27 am
OK, another question. Let me see if I have this correct:


In a frustum in resonance with a TE mode, the visualization of meep runs, in general, show the electric field contained transversely (L/R), while the magnetic field is axial (Top/Bottom). There can be multiple lobes of the TE field. Those lobes do not "travel", but stay fixed until the energy dissipates.


Does the magnetic field also stay "fixed" along the copper skin, or does it actually travel along the skin? Is there an actively moving magnetic field within the skin, and does that field cross transversely to create the confined electric force lobes?


 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 10/21/2017 02:16 am
OK, another question. Let me see if I have this correct:


In a frustum in resonance with a TE mode, the visualization of meep runs, in general, show the electric field contained transversely (L/R), while the magnetic field is axial (Top/Bottom). There can be multiple lobes of the TE field. Those lobes do not "travel", but stay fixed until the energy dissipates.

Yes there should be a magnetic component which runs up the axis or down and vertical along the metal skin.  There is another magnetic component which is not vertical but horizontal while remaining perpendicular to the electric field.  This horizontal magnetic component exist between the two electric fields as a lobe or it can reside near the top or bottom along the skin of the metal. 

They exist as "semi standing waves" so both standing and traveling.  Because energy is being lost there is a traveling component.  This traveling component represents the energy traveling to the location where it is being dissipated as thermal heat.  The traveling component should be smaller in magnitude compared to the stored energy amplified by the quality effect Q. 

Quote
Does the magnetic field also stay "fixed" along the copper skin, or does it actually travel along the skin? Is there an actively moving magnetic field within the skin, and does that field cross transversely to create the confined electric force lobes?

The traveling component should travel from the site of injection, the antenna, to the skin where it is dissipated.  Considering that heat travels through metal to escape the cavity there should be some component which travels through the metal to escape the cavity as thermal radiation. 

I some what doubt that once the radiation enters deep inside the copper as heat that it retains its nice lobe shapes, as the standing wave in the cavity.  Thermal randomness likely eliminates this.  There should be an exponentially decaying component of the magnetic field that enters the copper and retains its field shape. 

I suspect it is the coppers inability to perfectly cancel out the lights electric field to make the magnetic field along the metal skin (non-superconductor has resistance) that allows thermal induction.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  This should be the (Electric and Magnetic) component that enters the metal to disturb the lattice. 

What you will observe in the field simulations are the standing field, and not the traveling field.  That is unless the standing field is subtracted out, and the solution is for a restive metal that is not static in time.  Or by having a Q close to 1.

P.S. a big congratulations to the LIGO–Virgo collaboration on their detection event combined with visual observations.  physicsworld.com spectacular-collision-of-two-neutron-stars-observed-for-first-time (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2017/oct/16/spectacular-collision-of-two-neutron-stars-observed-for-first-time)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: JonathanD on 10/21/2017 05:05 am
I've never seen the pendulum this steady....

I'm entirely unqualified to participate in any technical or theoretical aspect of the discussion, but I had just one layman question.  If the ambient acoustic/thermal environment is sufficient to cause measurement noise significant enough to potentially obscure results, once you really start pumping photons in there isn't it going to be bonkers in terms of noise?  The frustum has to get pretty toasty pretty fast.  The little burbles of ambient noise or seismic activity should pale in comparison, no?  At the end of the day is the only way to really prove or disprove this thing is to have it in orbit?

Woops, that was more than one layman question, apologies.  Irrespective of that, it doesn't take away from what so many of you have you have done for years now, both in theory and in actual testing.  I know there is much more to come.  Please don't quit!  I think it's a rabbit hole worthy of getting to the bottom of.  Tremendous respect for all of you.

Don't mind me, back to lurking :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 10/21/2017 05:56 am
I've never seen the pendulum this steady....

I'm entirely unqualified to participate in any technical or theoretical aspect of the discussion, but I had just one layman question.  If the ambient acoustic/thermal environment is sufficient to cause measurement noise significant enough to potentially obscure results, once you really start pumping photons in there isn't it going to be bonkers in terms of noise?  The frustum has to get pretty toasty pretty fast.  The little burbles of ambient noise or seismic activity should pale in comparison, no?  At the end of the day is the only way to really prove or disprove this thing is to have it in orbit?

Woops, that was more than one layman question, apologies.  Irrespective of that, it doesn't take away from what so many of you have you have done for years now, both in theory and in actual testing.  I know there is much more to come.  Please don't quit!  I think it's a rabbit hole worthy of getting to the bottom of.  Tremendous respect for all of you.

Don't mind me, back to lurking :)

One can imagine that effects caused by EM field strength will be fast, and effects caused by heating will be slow. This is what happened in EW's 2014 experiment (Their 2015 experiment, however, has almost only slow effects.). By separating fast and slow effects, I think Monomorphic will be able to control for heating problem.


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 10/21/2017 09:53 am
I noticed the noise had returned this morning with the colder temperatures so I used the infrared camera and there was a 1.5 degree difference between the thin walls and the interior surfaces. Fortunately I designed the draft enclosure so that insulation could be added later. The insulation used is 3/4 inch thick with a rating of 3.8. The entire inside surface area of the draft enclosure is now covered with overlapping insulation so that all those surfaces remain the same temperature. Another important aspect is to make sure the exterior room temperature remains constant.  Having it several degrees hotter or colder outside the enclosure is not good for natural convection.  I will be using a space heater for that.

I've never seen the pendulum this steady. If static charges become a problem, I would gladly cover the foam with foil.    :D

Hi Jamie. I also had this in the past. With a cage made out of 2 inch styropor sheets, covered with Al on the inside, turbulence started when the inside temp was ~1°C higher than the outside.
It would stop then if the lab was heated a bit.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 10/21/2017 04:37 pm
...quantum mechanical ...
It's turning into a complicated mess for me to be able to understand using this approach.
Forgive the butchering of your quote, but I have found that quantum mechanics usually results turning attempts at understanding into a "complicated mess." Unfortunately necessary sometimes, but best to avoid when possible.

I understand that half of the energy is in the magnetic field and half is in the electric field.
I generally agree with what you wrote, but one fine point here.  I am not sure how accurately you can say the split is 50-50. That might be a valid perspective, but at the same time, it is probably better to just think of the fields as a single "electromagnetic field," and all of the energy belongs to the fields. This is particularly apparent in relativity, where the fields transform together as a single tensor object.

https://physics.info/em-waves/
The exactly half applies to electromagnetic waves in free space. I am fairly certain that it does not apply in general, such as inside a resonator where you have nearby (temporary) charge distributions on the metal walls. It certainly is not true for the region of space near a point charge, with no other fields present. It could be true inside a resonator, but I wouldn't trust that unless someone could work out the proof.

I mostly just wanted to express my suggestion (just a suggestion) to treat the electric and magnetic fields as a single "electromagnetic field" instead.

In case it wasn't immediately obvious why I'm choosing to speak of electric and magnetic field separately in a cavity, it's because they're 90 degrees out of phase in a cavity.

The energy goes back and forth between electric and magnetic energy. I'm interested in the losses that incur from each component interaction with the cavity walls.

See 1.29 below

https://books.google.com/books?id=6BhWMXBf3JYC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=cavity+electromagnetic+out+of+phase&source=bl&ots=Ksbiw_7m-k&sig=3cTZFSSfEOWPFQehPx2LHhRbbzw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiOn7an54HXAhUGRCYKHSt1DrcQ6AEIHTAH#v=onepage&q=cavity%20electromagnetic%20out%20of%20phase&f=false

In the pdf attachment, specifically between equations 33-56 further illustrates the need to separate the electric and magnetic fields in a cavity. Take note that this example shows a perfectly standing wave because they assumed perfectly conducting walls. In reality, there's losses. Just because the electric and magnetic fields are unified under electromagnetism, that doesn't mean one should neglect either component, especially if one is interested in understanding how each separately contributes to losses.

So yes it appears to be an equal 50-50 energy split. The losses aren't necessarily 50-50 even though loss of energy from one (like eddy currents from the magnetic component) would result in loss of total energy of both.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Tcarey on 10/21/2017 05:44 pm
At the risk of being a simpleton, I'm going to speculate that the error induced by these convection currents is going to be swamped out as soon as he turns on the power and the various heat sources from the electronics start to induce convection currents inside the cabinet.  Obviously characterizing and eliminating as many sources of noise is a good thing.

Clearly convection currents inside the cabinet once power is applied are going to be an issue that needs to be understood.

The obvious solution is to engineer an EM drive that has enough force to make these effects small in comparison.  ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 10/21/2017 06:36 pm
...
The obvious solution is to engineer an EM drive that has enough force to make these effects small in comparison.  ;)

Gee, Tcarey, that we didn't think of this. The solution was staring us right in the face.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 10/21/2017 07:13 pm
...
The obvious solution is to engineer an EM drive that has enough force to make these effects small in comparison.  ;)

Gee, Tcarey, that we didn't think of this. The solution was staring us right in the face.

LOL !
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sanman on 10/21/2017 07:39 pm
The obvious solution is to engineer an EM drive that has enough force to make these effects small in comparison.  ;)

Paging Mr Musk! Paging Mr Musk! It's time for the BF-EMdrive™!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 10/21/2017 09:05 pm
I was informed earlier that Jakub Jedrezejewski's emdrive group from Poland has won the E(x)plory competition yesterday. In May next year they will go to Intel Isef in Pittsburgh.  I'm not sure exactly of their results but he tells me he will be posting to NSF soon. I have been advising them on their RF equipment, so they are using the same amplifier, circulator, attenuator, and signal generator I use. Here is a picture of their experiment.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mr. Peter on 10/21/2017 10:00 pm
Oh yeah, Jakub Jędrzejewski and Michał Zwierz. Very talented young guys from Poland.
I was curious how they're going. Here's a quick video in which they're talking about their inventions (fluency in Polish's required). You can see the Em-drive in the background  Glad they've won the competition and I guess they'll have an opportunity to share their findings at Poland 2.0 Summit at Imperial College London. Can't wait to see what they've got.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEtCmrwE9QE
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 10/21/2017 11:24 pm
Oh yeah, Jakub Jędrzejewski and Michał Zwierz. Very talented young guys from Poland.
I was curious how they're going. Here's a quick video in which they're talking about their inventions (fluency in Polish's required). You can see the Em-drive in the background  Glad they've won the competition and I guess they'll have an opportunity to share their findings at Poland 2.0 Summit at Imperial College London. Can't wait to see what they've got.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEtCmrwE9QE

Definitely see the cavity right between them and behind them. Took a minute to spot. It's the same as the image two posts above but rotated. What the hell are they saying?

Got this much from the Google translation of the video description.

Quote
Microwave Resonant Cavity Thruster (MRCT), 18-year-old microwave engine, Technical College in Ostrow Wielkopolski Scientific Supervisor: Paweł Sobczak, PhD Our motto: "Motivation for our work together are dreams and fascinations with physics, mechanics and everything I associate with broadly understood By Paulo Coelho The construction of our microwave engine is similar to the construction of a motor. EmerRive's Roger Shawyer is an innovative motor that can operate in a vacuum, powered solely by electric power. Dimensions are designed to make a difference The engine will produce a string of hundreds of milliseconds (mN), which on Earth is not a significant value, but in space can be successfully used to correct the motion of the satellites. Who or what inspired you to implement an innovative project? We have created many amazing projects before, now we have decided to raise the bar. We have stopped working on our projects and have joined forces to build an engine whose principle of operation has been a mystery for scientists since 2000. We want to continue to develop our own passions and skills, it would be impossible if we did not start a project that is completely alien to us, with every project we make we want to know more and be better at what we do. Describe your plans for the future. Michał graduated with a degree in automatics and robotics at the University of Mining and Metallurgy in Cracow, and Jakub is in 3rd class of the Technical School in Ostrów Wielkopolski and thinks about studying abroad. On the occasion of this project we noticed that our cooperation is very well and we would like to continue it in the future, we think about our own company that would combine mechanical, automation and physics. We are fascinated by science and we want to combine our own passions with business. Why is the title of "Innovator of Tomorrow" right for you? Our projects are very high quality. Moreover, we create them from scratch themselves, of course we use the funding of various companies or engineers, but each of our projects was our idea and from the beginning to the end made according to our projects. Each of our projects has something new, innovative, we do not copy anyone else's solutions - we create better solutions. Our common dream is to shape the environment in which we live, so we want our projects to be applied in practice: from wheelchairs, through automation elements to microwave motors, we do everything in our own discretion, according to our own ideas. You can say that we are insolent because we face those who look at us say that what we do is impossible.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 10/21/2017 11:42 pm
....What the hell are they saying?


I think it ends with "Let's go out for a few tankards of Żywiec Porter."  Congratulations on the win!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/22/2017 12:26 am
Looks to be based on Roger's Demonstrator EmDrive.

Even has the short constant diameter section at the big end, which in the Demonstrator is 1/4 guide wave long. Not knowing the freq, it also seems the small end constant diameter section is 1/4 the guide wave length at that end. This tuned constant diameter section allows the use of flat end plates to form high Q cavities.

This technique was also used by Prof Yang.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 10/22/2017 12:53 am
https://www.crazynauka.pl/explory-2017-znamy-juz-zwyciezcow-tego-konkursu-naukowego/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/22/2017 12:53 am
I was informed earlier that Jakub Jedrezejewski's emdrive group from Poland has won the E(x)plory competition yesterday. In May next year they will go to Intel Isef in Pittsburgh.  I'm not sure exactly of their results but he tells me he will be posting to NSF soon. I have been advising them on their RF equipment, so they are using the same amplifier, circulator, attenuator, and signal generator I use. Here is a picture of their experiment.

(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1456055;sess=47641)


Nice and simply balance beam test rig, as Roger used in the Experimental EmDrive tests.

Battery powered plus the EmDrive appears to have the ability to be tuned to desired resonance freq via an adjuster at the small end. Which Roger did as well.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/22/2017 01:10 am
https://www.crazynauka.pl/explory-2017-znamy-juz-zwyciezcow-tego-konkursu-naukowego/

Quote
Jakub Jędrzejewski and Michał Zwierz , pupils from the Technical School Complex in Ostrów Wielkopolski, who built a microwave powered electric motor, won this year's E (x) competition.

This innovative machine can operate in a vacuum and is powered exclusively by electricity.

The engine is supposed to produce a string of hundreds of millinewtons mN), which on Earth is not a significant value, but in space can be successfully used to correct the motion of the satellites.

If the measured thrust was +100mN, this is going to be very interesting.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 10/22/2017 02:46 am
If the measured thrust was +100mN, this is going to be very interesting.

Definitely. If it is 100mN, it is not Lorentz Force. I will be interested in reading their report. I wish their force was not the slow type.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Amit on 10/22/2017 05:16 am
this site seems to have been updated

any views on what Richard Banduric proposes?

http://electricspacecraft.org/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 10/22/2017 05:57 am
This article has an interesting derivation of a relativistic, constant acceleration rocket using SR. I didn't find any over-unity paradoxes, but I did find a typo on eq. (12b), "D should be C". It doesn't cause any issues.

http://www.jbis.org.uk/paper.php?p=2017.70.213 (http://www.jbis.org.uk/paper.php?p=2017.70.213)

Performance Predictions for Interstellar Missions Using the Special Theory of Relativity
B. Cassenti et al. (2017), JBIS, 70, pp.213-218

Refcode: 2017.70.213
Keywords: Relativistic flight, velocity parameter

Abstract:
Interstellar missions that use exotic propulsion systems, including for example, antimatter propulsion, photon propulsion, and the interstellar ramjet can require the consideration of highly relativistic speeds. Obtaining estimates for performance requirements then becomes complex. There are though methods that can greatly simplify the mathematics. For example, replacing the velocity with an abstract parameter, the velocity parameter, can greatly simplify the calculations. This paper derives the appropriate equations directly from Special Relativity and shows that only Special Relativity is needed. The calculations are not difficult to preform and produce exact results. Examples examined include: constant acceleration rocket and variable thrust rocket.

I don't have a PDF to share, I have a hard copy journal.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/22/2017 07:49 am
Found 3 more images of Jakub's EmDrive, which originally used an end plate mounted magnetron, as Dave had done.

Doing that is hard hard on the magnetron as all the reflected Rf energy from a high Q cavity is feed back into the magnetron, resulting in overheating and a quick death.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/22/2017 08:32 am
Google translate error:

According to Google translate miliniutonów = miliseconds. However niutonów is Polish for Newtons, so miliniutonów = milinewtons and not miliseconds

Corrected translation:

Quote
The construction of our microwave engine is similar to Roger Shawyer's EmDrive engine.

It is an innovative engine that can operate in a vacuum.

Powered solely by electricity.

The main part of the engine is a fringed conical cavity made of aluminum sheet to which microwaves are fed.

It is characterized by high quality, its dimensions are designed to provide resonance.

The engine will produce a sequence of hundreds of milinewtons (mN), which on Earth is not a significant value, but in space can be successfully used to correct the motion of the satellites.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Flyby on 10/22/2017 08:35 am
The last image also shows the interior of the EM drive. The internal alu surface doesn't look to be highly polished...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/22/2017 08:41 am
The last image also shows the interior of the EM drive. The internal alu surface doesn't look to be highly polished...

Claim is the cavity has a high quality or high Q. The measured Q, forward power and thrust will help to tell the tale.

Have emailed Jakub asking for more info.

Suggest what we can see of the inside is not the inside wall but the outside of some sort of adapter that is sitting in the end of the small end constant diameter wave guide.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Flyby on 10/22/2017 10:32 am
The main body of their EM drive seems to be an existing , commercial available piece. The surface of the element looks smooth, but not polished.
So, it doesn't look like it is a "simple" sand molded casting, as then the surface would be more granulated.

It looks to be made as a high pressure injection mold piece, a typical high volume industrial process....

But I could be wrong ofc... :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/22/2017 11:29 am
The main body of their EM drive seems to be an existing , commercial available piece.

Link?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mr. Peter on 10/22/2017 04:41 pm
https://www.crazynauka.pl/explory-2017-znamy-juz-zwyciezcow-tego-konkursu-naukowego/

Quote
Jakub Jędrzejewski and Michał Zwierz , pupils from the Technical School Complex in Ostrów Wielkopolski, who built a microwave powered electric motor, won this year's E (x) competition.

This innovative machine can operate in a vacuum and is powered exclusively by electricity.

The engine is supposed to produce a string of hundreds of millinewtons mN), which on Earth is not a significant value, but in space can be successfully used to correct the motion of the satellites.

If the measured thrust was +100mN, this is going to be very interesting.

Unfortunately we don't even know whether they got any thrust or no thrust whatsoever. What the video description reads is "The thruster will generate a thrust of the order of hundreds of millinewtons"  Maybe they got something, but that's not what description implies.
edit:
and BTW
Quote
18-year-old microwave engine
No, this is not about 18-year-old engine, it's actually about 18 y.o. GUYS, which is kind of amazing
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mark7777777 on 10/22/2017 08:26 pm
The main body of their EM drive seems to be an existing , commercial available piece.

Link?

Hi TheTraveller. I think I recall someone or Roger himself saying Roger thinks that before the end of 2017 he expects to have a superconducting Emdrive to demonstrate. If that recollection was right, have you heard any news relating to it?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mr. Peter on 10/22/2017 10:15 pm
Wow! That's interesting...
An emdrive prototype from Ukraine. Does anybody know this guy?
http://spaceukraine.com/2017/10/09/maxim-tkachenko-dnipro-is-a-city-of-space-startups/
(http://spaceukraine.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/22228181_10208736462369441_8558852937341966799_n.jpg)
(http://spaceukraine.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/rsz_dsc_0108.jpg)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/23/2017 12:39 am
Hi TheTraveller. I think I recall someone or Roger himself saying Roger thinks that before the end of 2017 he expects to have a superconducting Emdrive to demonstrate. If that recollection was right, have you heard any news relating to it?

Hi Mark,

I know Roger is working with Gilo Industries on a wingless and propless drone. Have confirmed with Gilo Cardozo that Roger is working with Gilo Industries. Gilo Industries now owns a controlling shareholding in Universal Propulsion, the JV created by Roger and Gilo. Roger has been working with Gilo Industries since 2015. Plus there is a world patent application on the cryo thruster with Gilo Cardozo as the co-inventor.

So there is movement at the station.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/23/2017 12:41 am
https://www.crazynauka.pl/explory-2017-znamy-juz-zwyciezcow-tego-konkursu-naukowego/

Quote
Jakub Jędrzejewski and Michał Zwierz , pupils from the Technical School Complex in Ostrów Wielkopolski, who built a microwave powered electric motor, won this year's E (x) competition.

This innovative machine can operate in a vacuum and is powered exclusively by electricity.

The engine is supposed to produce a string of hundreds of millinewtons mN), which on Earth is not a significant value, but in space can be successfully used to correct the motion of the satellites.

If the measured thrust was +100mN, this is going to be very interesting.

Unfortunately we don't even know whether they got any thrust or no thrust whatsoever. What the video description reads is "The thruster will generate a thrust of the order of hundreds of millinewtons"  Maybe they got something, but that's not what description implies.
edit:
and BTW
Quote
18-year-old microwave engine
No, this is not about 18-year-old engine, it's actually about 18 y.o. GUYS, which is kind of amazing

Hi Peter,

Have made contact with Jakub.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mr. Peter on 10/23/2017 12:52 am
https://www.crazynauka.pl/explory-2017-znamy-juz-zwyciezcow-tego-konkursu-naukowego/

Quote
Jakub Jędrzejewski and Michał Zwierz , pupils from the Technical School Complex in Ostrów Wielkopolski, who built a microwave powered electric motor, won this year's E (x) competition.

This innovative machine can operate in a vacuum and is powered exclusively by electricity.

The engine is supposed to produce a string of hundreds of millinewtons mN), which on Earth is not a significant value, but in space can be successfully used to correct the motion of the satellites.

If the measured thrust was +100mN, this is going to be very interesting.

Unfortunately we don't even know whether they got any thrust or no thrust whatsoever. What the video description reads is "The thruster will generate a thrust of the order of hundreds of millinewtons"  Maybe they got something, but that's not what description implies.
edit:
and BTW
Quote
18-year-old microwave engine
No, this is not about 18-year-old engine, it's actually about 18 y.o. GUYS, which is kind of amazing

Hi Peter,

Have made contact with Jakub.
That's great!
Please let me know of any updates.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sanman on 10/23/2017 12:54 am
Hi,

Regarding the Bell-shaped cavities - their geometry should be producing a diffractive effect - is there any way to plot the 3D interference pattern from that diffraction?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/23/2017 04:30 am
Some info to share and consider.

Work done by EmDrive to accelerate mass does not depend on frame dependent initial velocity. Ie work done during the say 1st second of acceleration is the same.

Work done by EmDrive to accelerate mass can be frame invarient by using dV to calc KE change and via work/energy equivalence, the work done to cause the dV.

Work done by EmDrive to accelerate mass increases by the square of the time of acceleration. Work = (N^2 * t^2) / (2 * m).

EmDrive generated force decreases as acceleration continues. Generated force returns to initial value after acceleration stops and restarts.

Nothing new to physics here. Just a viewpoint based on the accelerating mass, which has no idea of it's velocity.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 10/23/2017 07:04 am
I was informed earlier that Jakub Jedrezejewski's emdrive group from Poland has won the E(x)plory competition yesterday. In May next year they will go to Intel Isef in Pittsburgh.  I'm not sure exactly of their results but he tells me he will be posting to NSF soon. I have been advising them on their RF equipment, so they are using the same amplifier, circulator, attenuator, and signal generator I use. Here is a picture of their experiment.

If that "generate a thrust of the order of hundreds of millinewtons" is true, then given that they're using your same stuff, the thrust was obtained with a cavity input power around 30W (probably less); now this may be very interesting although, at the moment, it's just speculation since apparently there are no official papers nor data related to their tests

Getting back to your rig, Jamie; sounds like you successfully dealt with noise, so... what's the plan now :) ?

[edit]

@SeeShells

First of all, hope you're ok now, then ... what about your lab setup :) ?

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/23/2017 07:15 am
I was informed earlier that Jakub Jedrezejewski's emdrive group from Poland has won the E(x)plory competition yesterday. In May next year they will go to Intel Isef in Pittsburgh.  I'm not sure exactly of their results but he tells me he will be posting to NSF soon. I have been advising them on their RF equipment, so they are using the same amplifier, circulator, attenuator, and signal generator I use. Here is a picture of their experiment.

If that "generate a thrust of the order of hundreds of millinewtons" is true, then given that they're using your same stuff, the thrust was obtained with a cavity input power around 30W (probably less); now this may be very interesting although, at the moment, it's just speculation since apparently there are no official papers nor data related to their tests

Getting back to your rig, Jamie; sounds like you successfully dealt with noise, so... what's the plan now :) ?

Hi TOG,

Assuming their Ql is 10,000 and cavity Df is 0.6, thrust would be (2 * 20,000 * 0.6 * 30) / c = 2.4mN. So no way is 100mN possible other than as specific force, which based on the above is 80mN/kW.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 10/23/2017 09:16 am
Meberbs - questions of how and why are tough, and can border on the metaphysical. I have to agree that the suggestion that if you mess with the rate of time, you can generate forces produces an immediate reaction of 'Whut?!'.

However, it's right, not just correlation. That's how GR says that things move under those conditions. And if all you know is the 'time dilation gradient' in a gravity field, then you know the Newtonian gravitational force exactly.

The only contribution I'm really making here is to point out that the usual inferences also run backwards. You can use GR to create models of central field gravity and then see that you have created varying time dilation. But you can also turn it on its head and observe that any variable time dilation/g00 will produce gravity like forces. I think that observation is useful. I'm afraid I don't have anything useful to add on the why or how.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 10/23/2017 10:07 am
I was informed earlier that Jakub Jedrezejewski's emdrive group from Poland has won the E(x)plory competition yesterday. In May next year they will go to Intel Isef in Pittsburgh.  I'm not sure exactly of their results but he tells me he will be posting to NSF soon. I have been advising them on their RF equipment, so they are using the same amplifier, circulator, attenuator, and signal generator I use. Here is a picture of their experiment.

Looks like an impressive setup at first sight. But we haven't seen any results yet. It doesn't seem that they have been measuring yet and there are no specifications, drawings etc. from which we can judge how good their setup is. Only that they expect to measure '100's of millinewtons'. Sure.
With the setup in the picture, they have to come with a decent report of cleverly performed experiments, will I believe anything of it.
Until now, the only decent (published) work is that by White et al. (2016) and Tajmar & Fiedler (2015). All the rest is vague, wishful thinking, amateuristic.

Peter
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/23/2017 10:53 am
I was informed earlier that Jakub Jedrezejewski's emdrive group from Poland has won the E(x)plory competition yesterday. In May next year they will go to Intel Isef in Pittsburgh.  I'm not sure exactly of their results but he tells me he will be posting to NSF soon. I have been advising them on their RF equipment, so they are using the same amplifier, circulator, attenuator, and signal generator I use. Here is a picture of their experiment.

Looks like an impressive setup at first sight. But we haven't seen any results yet. It doesn't seem that they have been measuring yet and there are no specifications, drawings etc. from which we can judge how good their setup is. Only that they expect to measure '100's of milinewtons'. Sure.
With the setup in the picture, they have to come with a decent report of cleverly performed experiments, will I believe anything of it.
Until now, the only decent (published) work is that by White et al. (2016) and Tajmar & Fiedler (2015). All the rest is vague, wishful thinking, amateuristic.

Peter

Hi Peter,

I'm told there is data. But yes it needs to be presented to a very tough crowd. I suggest the 100mN is specific force and not 10g of thrust. My calc, presented above, suggests around 2mN as they used the same 30W rf amp as Jamie is using.

Why do you reject Roger's very detailed reports and independent reviews on his Experimental and Demonstrator EmDrives?

Feasibility study technical report. Issue 2
http://www.emdrive.com/FeasibilityStudytechnicalreportissue2.pdf

Review of experimental thruster report
http://www.emdrive.com/reviewofexperimentalthrusterreport.pdf

Demonstrator technical report. Issue 2
http://www.emdrive.com/DemonstratorTechnicalReportIssue2.pdf

Review of DM tech report
http://www.emdrive.com/ReviewofDMtechreport.pdf

BTW Tajmar's results have not been subjected to any independent review. Review here suggests his EmDrive build was about a bad as it can get.

So far the only EmDrive engineering reports, AFAIK. that were subjected to hands on review are those of SPR.  While the NASA vac report was peer reviewed, AFAIK the peer reviewers did not do hands on verification.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 10/23/2017 11:29 am
I was informed earlier that Jakub Jedrezejewski's emdrive group from Poland has won the E(x)plory competition yesterday. In May next year they will go to Intel Isef in Pittsburgh.  I'm not sure exactly of their results but he tells me he will be posting to NSF soon. I have been advising them on their RF equipment, so they are using the same amplifier, circulator, attenuator, and signal generator I use. Here is a picture of their experiment.

Looks like an impressive setup at first sight. But we haven't seen any results yet. It doesn't seem that they have been measuring yet and there are no specifications, drawings etc. from which we can judge how good their setup is. Only that they expect to measure '100's of milinewtons'. Sure.
With the setup in the picture, they have to come with a decent report of cleverly performed experiments, will I believe anything of it.
Until now, the only decent (published) work is that by White et al. (2016) and Tajmar & Fiedler (2015). All the rest is vague, wishful thinking, amateuristic.

Peter

Hi Peter,

I'm told there is data. But yes it needs to be presented to a very tough crowd. I suggest the 100mN is specific force and not 10g of thrust. My calc, presented above, suggests around 2mN as they used the same 30W rf amp as Jamie is using.

Why do you reject Roger's very detailed reports and independent reviews on his Experimental and Demonstrator EmDrives?

Feasibility study technical report. Issue 2
http://www.emdrive.com/FeasibilityStudytechnicalreportissue2.pdf
Hi Phil,
You are right. These reports by Shawyer, at least the one above,which I just browsed through again, is of sufficient quality and detail to be taken seriously. I can not judge completely the influence of heath and electrical currents (measuring B-fields and simultaneously displaying them with measured thrust would be interesting, e.g.). I have to study them again. Later.

...
...

So far the only EmDrive engineering reports, AFAIK. that were subjected to hands on review are those of SPR.  While the NASA vac report was peer reviewed, AFAIK the peer reviewers did not do hands on verification.

One can also have critique on the White et al. (2016) study. I think it would not have been published in a physics journal. Still, it is the best we have now, I think.

Cheers, Peter
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 10/23/2017 11:47 am
EmDrive in major Dutch newspaper

Last Saturday, an extensive article (1400 words + 4 pics) was published in a major newspaper (NRC) in the Netherlands. It was titled (my translation): 'Mysterious spacedrive raises hope for Star Trek-like travel'.

https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2017/10/20/naar-de-final-frontier-en-verder-13593597-a1578054
[yes, paywall, sorry]

Marc Millis was interviewed and Martin Tajmar (Mike Mcculloch as well, but everything about possible theoretical background has been skipped) and a Dutch aerospace engineer (Erik Laan).
Marc Millis admitted: 'I have a negative prejudice against the EmDrive.'
For the rest, the usual stuff: Shawyer, the Eagleworks study (White et al, 2016), conflict with conservation of momentum, ...

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 10/23/2017 12:15 pm
Assuming their Ql is 10,000 and cavity Df is 0.6, thrust would be (2 * 20,000 * 0.6 * 30) / c = 2.4mN. So no way is 100mN possible other than as specific force, which based on the above is 80mN/kW.

Their Ql was measured at ~2000 with the windfreak signal generator VNA using the -3dB method. With the good return loss of -41dB, that could be doubled to 4,000. As a comparison, Ql for my cavity is 6,000 and 12,000 respectively with the -40dB boost. Here is the RL trace Jakub shared with me.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Dagger on 10/23/2017 12:19 pm
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2017/10/20/naar-de-final-frontier-en-verder-13593597-a1578054
[yes, paywall, sorry]
There is no paywall there as far as I can see. Here is the google translated link:
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=nl&u=https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2017/10/20/naar-de-final-frontier-en-verder-13593597-a1578054&prev=search
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/23/2017 01:14 pm
Assuming their Ql is 10,000 and cavity Df is 0.6, thrust would be (2 * 20,000 * 0.6 * 30) / c = 2.4mN. So no way is 100mN possible other than as specific force, which based on the above is 80mN/kW.

Their Ql was measured at ~2000 with the windfreak signal generator VNA using the -3dB method. With the good return loss of -41dB, that could be doubled to 4,000. As a comparison, Ql for my cavity is 6,000 and 12,000 respectively with the -40dB boost. Here is the RL trace Jakub shared with me.

Hi Jamie,

Thanks for the data.

A rtn loss of -41dB is very difficult to believe. It implies an almost perfect coupler match with a VSWR of 1.018:1.

Likewise the resolution of the VNA at +-1dB is very rough and probably not very accurate. So the measured loaded Q could be higher than indicated.

While these low cost VNAs are useful to find resonance, I would not trust them much further.

This is where a proper in line forward and reflected power sensor is highly valuable as from the 2 values you can obtain VSWR, rtn loss and reflection coefficient, which can be used to tune the coupler design & position plus tune freq for lowest rtn loss, lowest VSWR, lowest reflected power.

If you can share the thruster internal dimensions, plus the effective length of the tuned constant diameter section I can do an analysis of the Df and potential Q. Plus the effective length of the tuned constant diameter section will assist the excited mode analysis.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 10/23/2017 01:37 pm
While these low cost VNAs are useful to find resonance, I would not trust them much further.

True, but then, given the absence of further informations we don't and can't know if they ONLY used that VNA or if they used other instruments too; I think that drawing conclusions without having enough data isn't exactly a good idea :)

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/23/2017 02:00 pm
While these low cost VNAs are useful to find resonance, I would not trust them much further.

True, but then, given the absence of further informations we don't and can't know if they ONLY used that VNA or if they used other instruments too; I think that drawing conclusions without having enough data isn't exactly a good idea :)

Hi TOG,

My statement was based on the data Jamie supplied, which was from a Wintech VNA, indicating a -41dB rtn loss plus the indicated Ql of 2k.

I did suggest to not give the indicated data a lot of credibility.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 10/23/2017 02:05 pm
While these low cost VNAs are useful to find resonance, I would not trust them much further.

True, but then, given the absence of further informations we don't and can't know if they ONLY used that VNA or if they used other instruments too; I think that drawing conclusions without having enough data isn't exactly a good idea :)

I observed only ~10% differences in the Q determined with the -3 dB method between the Windfreak SynthNV and a professional Agilent VNA.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 10/23/2017 02:07 pm
Hi TheTraveller. I think I recall someone or Roger himself saying Roger thinks that before the end of 2017 he expects to have a superconducting Emdrive to demonstrate. If that recollection was right, have you heard any news relating to it?

Hi Mark,

I know Roger is working with Gilo Industries on a wingless and propless drone. Have confirmed with Gilo Cardozo that Roger is working with Gilo Industries. Gilo Industries now owns a controlling shareholding in Universal Propulsion, the JV created by Roger and Gilo. Roger has been working with Gilo Industries since 2015. Plus there is a world patent application on the cryo thruster with Gilo Cardozo as the co-inventor.

So there is movement at the station.

Uh, now I'm wondering how, a document dating back to February 2017 (I mean THIS (http://www.emdrive.com/ShrivenhampresentationV.3.pdf) document) may indicate that as of today there's "movement at the station"
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/23/2017 02:08 pm
Have done a sizing study based on the images.

External:
BD: 255mm
SD: 151mm
Frustum length: 159mm
Constant diam length: 181mm

Internal:
BD: 253mm
SD: 147mm
Frustum length: 159mm
Constant diam length: 181mm

Freq: 2.4097GHz
Mode: TE213 resonance
 Frustum: TE212 or 2 x 1/2 guide waves
 Constant diam: TE211 or 1 x 1/2 guide wave at 109mm effective length
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/23/2017 02:21 pm
Hi TheTraveller. I think I recall someone or Roger himself saying Roger thinks that before the end of 2017 he expects to have a superconducting Emdrive to demonstrate. If that recollection was right, have you heard any news relating to it?

Hi Mark,

I know Roger is working with Gilo Industries on a wingless and propless drone. Have confirmed with Gilo Cardozo that Roger is working with Gilo Industries. Gilo Industries now owns a controlling shareholding in Universal Propulsion, the JV created by Roger and Gilo. Roger has been working with Gilo Industries since 2015. Plus there is a world patent application on the cryo thruster with Gilo Cardozo as the co-inventor.

So there is movement at the station.

Uh, now I'm wondering how, a document dating back to February 2017 (I mean THIS (http://www.emdrive.com/ShrivenhampresentationV.3.pdf) document) may indicate that as of today there's "movement at the station"


Hi TOG,

What I shared clearly shows there is activity occurring, based on SPR statements and changes in the effective ownership of the Universal Propulsion JV. I mean why would Gilo Industries Group acquire the controlling shares in the JV, if there was not value in doing so?

Likewise why would Gilo Cardozo be listed as the co-inventor on the world patent application?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 10/23/2017 02:22 pm
Have done a sizing study based on the images.

External:
BD: 255mm
SD: 151mm
Frustum length: 159mm
Constant diam length: 181mm

Internal:
BD: 253mm
SD: 147mm
Frustum length: 159mm
Constant diam length: 181mm

Freq: 2.4097GHz
Mode: TE213 resonance
 Frustum: TE212 or 2 x 1/2 guide waves
 Constant diam: TE211 or 1 x 1/2 guide wave at 109mm effective length

It took me a while to find, but I think this image contains the correct dimensions. Only problem is we do not know where the constant diameter tuning section is tuned to. This will have a big influence on resonant frequency.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/23/2017 02:23 pm
While these low cost VNAs are useful to find resonance, I would not trust them much further.

True, but then, given the absence of further informations we don't and can't know if they ONLY used that VNA or if they used other instruments too; I think that drawing conclusions without having enough data isn't exactly a good idea :)

I observed only ~10% differences in the Q determined with the -3 dB method between the Windfreak SynthNV and a professional Agilent NVA.

Hi Peter,

You accept the -41dB rtn loss, indicating an almost perfect VSWR of 1.018:1?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/23/2017 02:25 pm
Have done a sizing study based on the images.

External:
BD: 255mm
SD: 151mm
Frustum length: 159mm
Constant diam length: 181mm

Internal:
BD: 253mm
SD: 147mm
Frustum length: 159mm
Constant diam length: 181mm

Freq: 2.4097GHz
Mode: TE213 resonance
 Frustum: TE212 or 2 x 1/2 guide waves
 Constant diam: TE211 or 1 x 1/2 guide wave at 109mm effective length

It took me a while to find, but I think this image contains the correct dimensions. Only problem is we do not know where the constant diameter tuning section is tuned to. This will have a big influence on resonant frequency.

Jamie,

The main frustum section still needs to resonate with 2 x 1/2 guide waves and then another 1/2 guide wave in the constant diameter section. Knowing the main frustum resonance, provides the small end guide wavelength and from that the approx tuned length can be calculated.

Will check your table.

Checked it.

Using the table dimensions with TE01x mode at 2.4097GHz, the small end is below cutoff diameter. 2.4496GHz is the lower cutoff freq.

However as we know the VNA will still see a resonance via reflections from the side walls. Which means any force generation will be small.

The tuned cylinder length will help to ident the mode as it will be 1/2 the guide wavelength inside the cylinder.
 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 10/23/2017 02:52 pm
Using the table dimensions with TE01x mode at 2.4097GHz, the small end is below cutoff diameter. 2.4496GHz is the lower cutoff freq.

It doesn't appear to be below cutoff in FEKO.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/23/2017 02:59 pm
Using the table dimensions with TE01x mode at 2.4097GHz, the small end is below cutoff diameter. 2.4496GHz is the lower cutoff freq.

It doesn't appear to be below cutoff in FEKO.

That is NOT TE01x mode. Look at the end plate and side wall eddy current patterns.

It looks like TE21x mode in which the cavity is not cutoff.

Best of luck getting any useful thrust in TE21x mode.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 10/23/2017 03:00 pm
Using the table dimensions with TE01x mode at 2.4097GHz, the small end is below cutoff diameter. 2.4496GHz is the lower cutoff freq.

It doesn't appear to be below cutoff in FEKO.

That is NOT TE01x mode. Look at the end plate pattern.

It looks like TE21x mode in which the cavity is not cutoff.

It all depends on their antenna shape. Last I heard they were trying to model a monopole antenna 1/4 wavelength away from big end against the side wall. That is what I have modeled here. But if their antenna is oriented differently or a loop, the mode may be different.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 10/23/2017 03:06 pm
Hi TheTraveller. I think I recall someone or Roger himself saying Roger thinks that before the end of 2017 he expects to have a superconducting Emdrive to demonstrate. If that recollection was right, have you heard any news relating to it?

Hi Mark,

I know Roger is working with Gilo Industries on a wingless and propless drone. Have confirmed with Gilo Cardozo that Roger is working with Gilo Industries. Gilo Industries now owns a controlling shareholding in Universal Propulsion, the JV created by Roger and Gilo. Roger has been working with Gilo Industries since 2015. Plus there is a world patent application on the cryo thruster with Gilo Cardozo as the co-inventor.

So there is movement at the station.

Uh, now I'm wondering how, a document dating back to February 2017 (I mean THIS (http://www.emdrive.com/ShrivenhampresentationV.3.pdf) document) may indicate that as of today there's "movement at the station"


Hi TOG,

What I shared clearly shows there is activity occurring, based on SPR statements and changes in the effective ownership of the Universal Propulsion JV. I mean why would Gilo Industries Group acquire the controlling shares in the JV, if there was not value in doing so?

Likewise why would Gilo Cardozo be listed as the co-inventor on the world patent application?

What I mean is that, citing a paper dating back to last February, doesn't mean that there's some current change in whatever activity GILO may be carrying on (or not, for what we know); to me it sounds just like nonsense, but then, maybe it's just me

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/23/2017 03:08 pm
Using the table dimensions with TE01x mode at 2.4097GHz, the small end is below cutoff diameter. 2.4496GHz is the lower cutoff freq.

It doesn't appear to be below cutoff in FEKO.

That is NOT TE01x mode. Look at the end plate pattern.

It looks like TE21x mode in which the cavity is not cutoff.

It all depends on their antenna shape. Last I heard they were trying to model a monopole antenna 1/4 wavelength away from big end against the side wall. That is what I have modeled here. But if their antenna is oriented differently or a loop, the mode may be different.

Jamie,


The cutoff freq changes as the mode changes. That cavity may show a VNA resonance at a TE01x mode freq but it will not generate any significant thrust as the small end is cutoff and all the VNA is seeing are reflections from the side walls.

They need to ident the mode. If I knew the tuned length of the cylinder, that would help to ident the mode.

Exciting the desired mode is NOT EASY. There can be many modes close by. Cavity geometry needs to be analysed to obtain the best geometry with the widest separation away from undesired modes. Plus coupler design and placement can be used to excite desired modes vs non desired modes.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 10/23/2017 03:48 pm
Meberbs - questions of how and why are tough, and can border on the metaphysical. I have to agree that the suggestion that if you mess with the rate of time, you can generate forces produces an immediate reaction of 'Whut?!'.
I generally agree, although I would say that how is usually not metaphysical, and why usually is. (Some theories such as some interpretations of quantum have no known different predictions, so without a way to differentiate them, the "how" becomes metaphysical)

However, it's right, not just correlation.
If you stated this as a possibility, then I would probably concede that point because we don't know the "how" yet as I previously stated. Instead you are stating this as an absolute fact, when it is not. Just go back to my previous post where I provided a description contrary to the "time dilation is the cause."

And if all you know is the 'time dilation gradient' in a gravity field, then you know the Newtonian gravitational force exactly.
You keep talking about time dilation and Newtonian gravity in the same sentence, when Newtonian gravity does not have time dilation. I think you might understand this, and are trying to say something along the lines of "The component of general relativity defined as time dilation can on its own mimic Newtonian gravity in the appropriate limit." I am not sure the relevance of such a statement, but it makes some sense. Please clarify whether you understand that time dilation is not present in Newtonian gravity, and if my alternative interpretation of your statement is what you are trying to communicate.

The only contribution I'm really making here is to point out that the usual inferences also run backwards. You can use GR to create models of central field gravity and then see that you have created varying time dilation. But you can also turn it on its head and observe that any variable time dilation/g00 will produce gravity like forces. I think that observation is useful. I'm afraid I don't have anything useful to add on the why or how.
If this is what you are trying to communicate, then why are you stating the second one as an absolute fact, which implies that the first one is wrong? Otherwise I'd agree with this paragraph if instead of "any variable time dilation" you specify "any spatially variable time dilation", which I think eliminates time dilation due to non-gravitational based accelerations, since accelerations from other forces like electromagnetism can't be written as a pure function of space, and depend on other properties of a particle like charge. I still think the first description is the more useful one and provides a more general understanding, but I recognize that "which is more useful" is an arbitrary metric and can vary person to person.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 10/23/2017 04:20 pm
Work done by EmDrive to accelerate mass does not depend on frame dependent initial velocity. Ie work done during the say 1st second of acceleration is the same.

Work done by EmDrive to accelerate mass can be frame invarient by using dV to calc KE change and via work/energy equivalence, the work done to cause the dV.
Kinetic energy gain of the emDrive after a change in velocity is frame dependent though, so there will always be a frame where more energy is gained than was input. Also, it is a problem that energy apparently disappears in some other frames.

EmDrive generated force decreases as acceleration continues. Generated force returns to initial value after acceleration stops and restarts.
And this creates a way to have a very obvious example of overunity. You spend a fixed amount of energy to run the drive for a fixed amount of time and gain a fixed velocity. Then you turn it off and repeat, using using the same amount of energy to get the same amount of delta V. The problem is then that the energy you spend is linearly proportional to the total velocity, but the kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the velocity. Repeat the cycle enough times and you have free energy.

EmDrive Nothing new to physics here. Just a viewpoint based on the accelerating mass, which has no idea of it's velocity.
Yes, nothing new, just more clear proofs that the emDrive as described would violate conservation of energy, and can be used as a free energy machine. We have had this conversation before, and last time you repeatedly did not answer simple questions about a solid numeric example.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 10/23/2017 06:13 pm
Work done by EmDrive to accelerate mass does not depend on frame dependent initial velocity. Ie work done during the say 1st second of acceleration is the same.

Work done by EmDrive to accelerate mass can be frame invarient by using dV to calc KE change and via work/energy equivalence, the work done to cause the dV.
Kinetic energy gain of the emDrive after a change in velocity is frame dependent though, so there will always be a frame where more energy is gained than was input. Also, it is a problem that energy apparently disappears in some other frames.

EmDrive generated force decreases as acceleration continues. Generated force returns to initial value after acceleration stops and restarts.
And this creates a way to have a very obvious example of overunity. You spend a fixed amount of energy to run the drive for a fixed amount of time and gain a fixed velocity. Then you turn it off and repeat, using using the same amount of energy to get the same amount of delta V. The problem is then that the energy you spend is linearly proportional to the total velocity, but the kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the velocity. Repeat the cycle enough times and you have free energy.

EmDrive Nothing new to physics here. Just a viewpoint based on the accelerating mass, which has no idea of it's velocity.
Yes, nothing new, just more clear proofs that the emDrive as described would violate conservation of energy, and can be used as a free energy machine. We have had this conversation before, and last time you repeatedly did not answer simple questions about a solid numeric example.

I agree with all your points but instead of calling it a 'problem', I think it's a feature. It's just a fact of nature that kinetic energy generated in a moving reference frame will appear as greater in some other reference frames (and lesser in others). If any form of propellentless propulsion is possible at all, then you can amplify kinetic energy by judiciously creating it from within moving or rotating reference frames and harvesting it in another. It's no more 'free energy' that needs to be explained any more than a higher relative velocity due to relative motion has to be explained as 'free velocity'. The only thing that needs to be explained is the 'problem' of how and why nature would allow any form of PP to exist which of course many folks are busy working on. To me it just like a planetary flyby maneuver whereby the universe acts as a virtual planet.

Is your actual beef with the EMDrive in general or with the EMDrive as described by TT?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 10/23/2017 06:31 pm
I agree with all your points but instead of calling it a 'problem', I think it's a feature. It's just a fact of nature that kinetic energy generated in a moving reference frame will appear as greater in some other reference frames (and lesser in others). If any form of propellentless propulsion is possible at all, then you can amplify kinetic energy by judiciously creating it from within moving or rotating reference frames and harvesting it in another. It's no more 'free energy' that needs to be explained any more than a higher relative velocity due to relative motion has to be explained as 'free velocity'. The only thing that needs to be explained is the 'problem' of how and why nature would allow any form of PP to exist which of course many folks are busy working on. To me it just like a planetary flyby maneuver whereby the universe acts as a virtual planet.

Is your actual beef with the EMDrive in general or with the EMDrive as described by TT?
The emDrive in general could operate relative to something otherwise undetectable that it uses as propellant, so it would not be true propellantless propulsion, and any issues with such explanations would have to be handled case by case (some could allow extraction of energy from whatever the drive is pushing against, which is fine).

TT has repeatedly denied the basic fact that propellantless propulsion like he is describing enables the extraction of energy. He also claims that no new physics is required to explain it even though his explanation breaks both conservation of momentum and conservation of energy, and therefore is inconsistent with the most basic principles of physics.

I agree that the energy generation is a useful feature, but I called it a problem because it raises the issue of how to rewrite all of physics to allow for this.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: wicoe on 10/23/2017 06:31 pm
It's just a fact of nature that kinetic energy generated in a moving reference frame will appear as greater in some other reference frames (and lesser in others). If any form of propellentless propulsion is possible at all, then you can amplify kinetic energy by judiciously creating it from within moving or rotating reference frames and harvesting it in another. It's no more 'free energy' that needs to be explained any more than a higher relative velocity due to relative motion has to be explained as 'free velocity'.

This is not about KE being different in different frames (it obviously is), but about the total change of KE as a result of some interaction in a system, which must be the same in ANY inertial frame to satisfy CoE.  When you switch frames, KE of all participating objects changes, but this does not give you free energy.  However, when some physical interaction causes the total KE to change in a way that is frame dependent (i.e. the difference is frame dependent), it becomes a problem since it allows free energy.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 10/23/2017 06:52 pm
It's just a fact of nature that kinetic energy generated in a moving reference frame will appear as greater in some other reference frames (and lesser in others). If any form of propellentless propulsion is possible at all, then you can amplify kinetic energy by judiciously creating it from within moving or rotating reference frames and harvesting it in another. It's no more 'free energy' that needs to be explained any more than a higher relative velocity due to relative motion has to be explained as 'free velocity'.

This is not about KE being different in different frames (it obviously is), but about the total change of KE as a result of some interaction in a system, which must be the same in ANY inertial frame to satisfy CoE.  When you switch frames, KE of all participating objects changes, but this does not give you free energy.  However, when some physical interaction causes the total KE to change in a way that is frame dependent (i.e. the difference is frame dependent), it becomes a problem since it allows free energy.

Can you relate what you said to the parameters of the proposed Proxima Centauri probe? How would that satisfy or not satisfy COE in your view. I know that if an object was falling through an infinite uniform gravitational field the kinetic energy it gained would be different to different observers but each would also calculate a different amount of work the field does on the accelerating mass because the constant force acts through different distances to each observer. The work done would identically match the gain in KE from each perspective. Some say the EMDrive as well as the MEGA drive essentially create an artificial gravity field that the device falls through which amount to the same effect. I think any form of PP would essentially act the same.

I have to think more about what you said but I believe what I said was true regardless but only useful for energy extraction if you have a true form of PP to actually put energy into a moving or rotating frame. In that case it acts similar to gravity. Otherwise it just becomes a classical energy/momentum conservation problem which implies that you never truly have a stable reference frame to work with. For the purposes of this discussion, my definition of a valid reference frame is a platform which doesn't have to locally conserve momentum as an object is accelerated within it or at least it's a frame, like an almost infinite planet in which you don't have to supply the energy and momentum to maintain the integrity of that frame. A working EMDrive or MEGA drive appears to allow this as it isn't reacting against anything in the local environment to accelerate (if it really works!!!).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: wicoe on 10/23/2017 07:09 pm
Can you relate what you said to the parameters of the proposed Proxima Centauri probe? How would that satisfy or not satisfy COE in your view.

If you are talking about the Starshot project, the lasers will feel recoil, which will push the Earth in the opposite direction (however miniscule, but it is enough).  As a result, the energy of the total system (sails + Earth) will be properly conserved (i.e. the difference will be the same in any inertial ref. frame, taking into account the initial KE of the Earth and its change).

Quote
I know that if an object was falling through an infinite uniform gravitational field the kinetic energy it gained would be different to different observers but each would also calculate a different amount of work the field does on the accelerating mass because the constant force acts through different distances to each observer. The work done would identically match the gain in KE from each perspective.

Again, you need to take into account all interacting bodies, including the source(s) of the field, which will also gain (or lose, depending on ref frame) KE as a result of this interaction.  The total KE change will be frame-invariant, which is required to satisfy CoE.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 10/23/2017 07:17 pm
Can you relate what you said to the parameters of the proposed Proxima Centauri probe? How would that satisfy or not satisfy COE in your view.

If you are talking about the Starshot project, the lasers will feel recoil, which will push the Earth in the opposite direction (however miniscule, but it is enough).  As a result, the energy of the total system (sails + Earth) will be properly conserved (i.e. the difference will be the same in any inertial ref. frame, taking into account the initial KE of the Earth and its change).

Quote
I know that if an object was falling through an infinite uniform gravitational field the kinetic energy it gained would be different to different observers but each would also calculate a different amount of work the field does on the accelerating mass because the constant force acts through different distances to each observer. The work done would identically match the gain in KE from each perspective.

Again, you need to take into account all interacting bodies, including the source(s) of the field, which will also gain (or lose, depending on ref frame) KE as a result of this interaction.  The total KE change will be frame-invariant, which is required to satisfy CoE.

I mean the recent NIAC proposal by the Woodward/Fearn team which has members in this very group. Again, if you gave me a true PP device, regardless of how it worked, I could in principle make a rotational based energy generation device and while the distant universe, fluctuating quanta or some other effect was at the root of it, from my perspective, I'm just applying energy in one frame and extracting more energy in another. So, regardless of how or why, if you can accelerate inside any frame, you can extract more in another. That's seems to me independent of how or why the effect is generated. I think that is basic.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 10/23/2017 07:36 pm
...

I mean the recent NIAC proposal by the Woodward/Fearn team which has members in this very group. Again, if you gave me a true PP device, regardless of how it worked, I could in principle make a rotational based energy generation device and while the distant universe, fluctuating quanta or some other effect was at the root of it, from my perspective, I'm just applying energy in one frame and extracting more energy in another. So, regardless of how or why, if you can accelerate inside any frame, you can extract more in another. That's seems to me independent of how or why the effect is generated. I think that is basic.
This thread is about the EM Drive.

You wrote (addressed to meberbs)
Quote
Is your actual beef with the EMDrive in general or with the EMDrive as described by TT?

It is Roger Shawyer, the inventor of the EM Drive that still claims, to this date that all that is required to explain the EM Drive is Maxwell's equations and Newton's laws.  Both of them (Maxwell's equations and Newton's laws) satisfy conservation of momentum, therefore Shawyer's explanation is what is being questioned, for very good reasons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hTdSg47h3k

Shawer says repeatedly that there is no need for anything else than classical physics and no need for New Physics to explain it.  This is what is being questioned!


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 10/23/2017 07:53 pm
...

I mean the recent NIAC proposal by the Woodward/Fearn team which has members in this very group. Again, if you gave me a true PP device, regardless of how it worked, I could in principle make a rotational based energy generation device and while the distant universe, fluctuating quanta or some other effect was at the root of it, from my perspective, I'm just applying energy in one frame and extracting more energy in another. So, regardless of how or why, if you can accelerate inside any frame, you can extract more in another. That's seems to me independent of how or why the effect is generated. I think that is basic.
This thread is about the EM Drive.

You wrote (addressed to meberbs)
Quote
Is your actual beef with the EMDrive in general or with the EMDrive as described by TT?

It is Roger Shawyer, the inventor of the EM Drive that still claims, to this date that all that is required to explain the EM Drive is Maxwell's equations and Newton's laws.  Both of them (Maxwell's equations and Newton's laws) satisfy conservation of momentum, therefore Shawyer's explanation is what is being questioned.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hTdSg47h3k

I'm really trying to discuss the energy issue, not TT's or Shawyer's particular explanations. Regarding bringing up the NIAC proposal, which I think is really great, was in context of the discussion regarding energy and COE which equally applies to both concepts and it seems to me a valid data point to the issue and it informs the discussion of EMDrive in my opinion. Also, in the end it's a lot more interesting for me to see what Shawyer does as compared to what he says.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sanman on 10/23/2017 07:54 pm
It is Roger Shawyer, the inventor of the EM Drive that still claims, to this date that all that is required to explain the EM Drive is Maxwell's equations and Newton's laws.  Both of them (Maxwell's equations and Newton's laws) satisfy conservation of momentum, therefore Shawyer's explanation is what is being questioned, for very good reasons.

Shawer says repeatedly that there is no need for anything else than classical physics and no need for New Physics to explain it.  This is what is being questioned!

Regarding sidewall interactions, I remember that Shawyer particularly made some distinction about traveling waves vs standing waves. What's the significance of that? Is that where some cleverness happens? (because I'm not clever enough to see it)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 10/23/2017 08:07 pm
It is Roger Shawyer, the inventor of the EM Drive that still claims, to this date that all that is required to explain the EM Drive is Maxwell's equations and Newton's laws.  Both of them (Maxwell's equations and Newton's laws) satisfy conservation of momentum, therefore Shawyer's explanation is what is being questioned, for very good reasons.

Shawer says repeatedly that there is no need for anything else than classical physics and no need for New Physics to explain it.  This is what is being questioned!

Regarding sidewall interactions, I remember that Shawyer particularly made some distinction about traveling waves vs standing waves. What's the significance of that? Is that where some cleverness happens? (because I'm not clever enough to see it)
Whether they are standing waves, travelling waves, or for that matter any kind of electromagnetic waves internally generated and wholly analyzable with Maxwell's equations (as purported by Shawyer) it does not make any difference whatsoever to the conservation of momentum and conservation of energy arguments because Maxwell's equations satisfy both.  Thus, for the thing to accelerate at an acceleration greater than the one of a photon rocket one needs an external field (which Shawyer still denies)!  [or for the EM Drive to be ejecting particles with mass greater than zero, which he also denies.  For example, none of Shawyer's experiments have been reported to be in a vacuum, and hence it is easy to create the reported forces just by heating of surrounding air ]
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: wicoe on 10/23/2017 08:16 pm

I'm really trying to discuss the energy issue, not TT's or Shawyer's particular explanations. Regarding bringing up the NIAC proposal, which I think is really great, was in context of the discussion regarding energy and COE which equally applies to both concepts and it seems to me a valid data point to the issue and it informs the discussion of EMDrive in my opinion. Also, in the end it's a lot more interesting for me to see what Shawyer does as compared to what he says.

Again, this is probably not the right thread to discuss this, but as I understand it, the Woodward's hypothesis deals with CoE by getting the "rest of the universe" involved in the interaction.  I.e. the change in KE of an object is offset by the change in KE of the other objects in the universe, so when you consider them as a whole, CoE is satisfied.  I'm not saying I accept the Woodward's model, but at least it is much more consistent than what Shawyer is claiming.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sanman on 10/23/2017 08:31 pm
Whether they are standing waves, travelling waves, or for that matter any kind of waves internally generated and wholly analyzable with Maxwell's equations (as purported by Shawyer) it does not make any difference whatsoever to the conservation of momentum and conservation of energy arguments because Maxwell's equations satisfy both.  Thus, for the thing to accelerate one needs an external field (which Shawyer still denies)!

Do you remember this?

https://www.google.com/patents/US20080197238

It was invented by Young Bae

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photonic_laser_thruster

Quote
The concept, initially developed by Young Bae, differs from other solar sail and laser propulsion concepts in that an amplification process is used, in which the incident beam is re-used by being reflected by a stationary mirror, with an amplification stage at each reflection. Because of the recycling of energy, the photonic laser thruster is claimed to be more energy efficient than other laser-pushed sail concepts.

When this came out, I thought it had some similarities to Shawyer's concept - except that the photon source was not onboard the same spacecraft. Of course Bae's version has a satellite pushing off another satellite (no external field required). But the resonant amplification part was what seemed novel and special (ie. more efficiently pushing off the other satellite)

So could EMdrive analogously then somehow be a more efficient Photon Rocket? (ie. more than just collimated, but somehow incorporating amplification similar to what Bae's concept does)
The efficiency of a conventional rocket having a bell is greater than one without a bell. But perhaps the bell for EMdrive is using up photon energy that would otherwise be wasted, rather than spitting it out plainly like a Photon Rocket does.
What do Maxwell's Equations say about the Casimir Effect?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 10/23/2017 08:45 pm
Meberbs -

The reverse implication time dilation gradient -> gravity-like force is just straight from the maths. I don't know how to address a suggestion that it isn't just fact, since we are generally quite happy to allow mathematics to do our deductions for us.

Correct, there is no time dilation in Newtonian gravity. But if you replace Newtonian gravity with a very simplified form of GR where particles move on geodesics in a metric space where the only feature is a spatially varying 'time dilation field' you can recover the forces of Newtonian gravity. Plus, you have a theory with no 'action at a distance', which I believe is preferable.

These ideas are useful because, in the context of desperately seeking a theory for the EM drive, it is not inconceivable that the 'time dilation field' could be influenced and hence gravity-like forces generated. I have no evidence for that, but the fact that the avenue is open is valuable.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 10/23/2017 08:58 pm
Whether they are standing waves, travelling waves, or for that matter any kind of waves internally generated and wholly analyzable with Maxwell's equations (as purported by Shawyer) it does not make any difference whatsoever to the conservation of momentum and conservation of energy arguments because Maxwell's equations satisfy both.  Thus, for the thing to accelerate one needs an external field (which Shawyer still denies)!

...So could EMdrive analogously then somehow be a more efficient Photon Rocket? (ie. more than just collimated, but somehow incorporating amplification similar to what Bae's concept does)...
No, it cannot be purely on the basis on internally generated electromagnetic fields and Maxwell's equations, and without external fields and  without any New Physics, as previously stated.

In Bae's concept one of the spaceships is propelled backwards.  In Bae's concept the acceleration of the center of mass of the two spaceships is NOT more efficient than a normal photon rocket.

(https://www.photonics.com/images/Web/Articles/2013/10/8/photonicthruster.jpg)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sanman on 10/23/2017 09:10 pm
No, it cannot be purely on the basis on internally generated electromagnetic fields and Maxwell's equations, and without external fields and  without any New Physics, as previously stated.

In Bae's concept one of the spaceships is propelled backwards.  In Bae's concept the acceleration of the center of mass of the two spaceships is NOT more efficient than a normal photon rocket.

Okay, fair enuf, I recognize that one satellite is pushing of the other in Bae's idea.

But what do Maxwell's Equations say about the Casimir Effect? (whether attractive or repulsive geometries)
We know we can't extract work from the sink - but we can do work in relation to the sink (eg. heat pump)

Could EMdrive be some kind of "Vacuum Pump"?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 10/23/2017 09:13 pm
No, it cannot be purely on the basis on internally generated electromagnetic fields and Maxwell's equations, and without external fields and  without any New Physics, as previously stated.

In Bae's concept one of the spaceships is propelled backwards.  In Bae's concept the acceleration of the center of mass of the two spaceships is NOT more efficient than a normal photon rocket.

Okay, fair enuf, I recognize that one satellite is pushing of the other in Bae's idea.

But what do Maxwell's Equations say about the Casimir Effect? (whether attractive or repulsive geometries)
We know we can't extract work from the sink - but we can do work in relation to the sink (eg. heat pump)

Could EMdrive be some kind of "Vacuum Pump"?
Again, in a Cassimir effect one has 2 plates separated and being able to move separately

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/Casimir_plates.svg/330px-Casimir_plates.svg.png)

in the EM Drive you have a solid closed body without internal surfaces being able to move separately.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sanman on 10/23/2017 09:35 pm
Is there some possibility of a Maxwell's Demon here?

ie. some kind of Quantum Feedback Loop whereby you're able to push off the Vacuum fluctuations in a directionally biased way

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_feedback

(so the Dynamic Vacuum would be the external field)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 10/23/2017 09:41 pm
....

If he used just glass would that be a shield enough from convection currents allowing him to still see what is going on with his experiment?  ...

...

No, the insulation is not there to shield from forced convection currents.

The issue is not insulating from forced convection in the room (as for example a fan or drafts in his room), in which case all you would need would be to have glass, or transparent plastic, or whatever non-permeable surface, to prevent the forced convection.

The issue is to minimize natural (also called "free") convection, not forced convection.  (We suppose that Monomorphic has no fans, air conditioning or heating vents with forced convection and other sources of forced convection  impinging on the enclosure and in any case the present transparent enclosure prevents such forced convection)

Natural convection is the result of difference in temperature between surfaces of the chamber. 

The purpose is to minimize the temperature gradient within the chamber.

To minimize natural convection he needs to insulate the chamber, so that the temperature gradients are minimized.

He needs to have all the internal surfaces of the chamber at the same temperature.  (Single pane) glass will not do that.  He needs to minimize the coefficient of heat transfer, he needs to have surfaces with low thermal conductivity.  He needs lots of insulation

It is also a good idea to minimize internal sources of heat.


(https://image.slidesharecdn.com/siheat4echap01lecture-140312030457-phpapp01/95/si-heat-4echap01lecture-31-638.jpg?cb=1394593564)

(https://image.slidesharecdn.com/radiantcoolingforresidentialandcommercialapplicationsver13-160508212911/95/radiant-cooling-for-residential-and-commercial-applications-messana-radiant-cooling-23-638.jpg?cb=1462743892)
Jose et al

Sorry this is from a few days ago - I have been offline and I am just catching up. 

Thanks for this - excellent explanation of the topic.  Decades ago I taught steam power plant engineering for submarines in the Navy and natural vs forced convection were some of the most difficult concepts  to get across.  And complicated to analyze analytically unless you made a LOT of simplifying assumptions (one dimensional head flow, steady state, laminar fluid  flow, homogenous fluid, etc etc etc).   But this is very important for those experimenters  trying to detect micro-newton level forces on a DIY budget.

 Just some observations - Heat flow (i.e. when there is any  temperature difference) between points via natural convection or even any radiative or worst conductive ) WILL generate acoustic spectrum vibrations. Perhaps very tiny but they will be there.   Materials of differing thermal conductivity and/or coefficients of expansion which are in contact, or worse which are rigidly attached to each other, will cause micro vibrations whenever.

Jamie is doing an truly outstanding job based on his latest noise profiles.     

graybeardsyseng
Herman
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 10/23/2017 09:43 pm
Is there some possibility of a Maxwell's Demon here?

ie. some kind of Quantum Feedback Loop whereby you're able to push off the Vacuum fluctuations in a directionally biased way

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_feedback

(so the Dynamic Vacuum would be the external field)
If the Quantum Vacuum is the zero energy point, that means that you should not be able to extract momentum or energy from it, because the momentum/energy gained by the EM Drive would be subtracted from the QV, which contradicts its zero point nature, so what you thought was "zero point energy" really wasn't.

(https://image.slidesharecdn.com/zeropointenergyandvacuumfluctuationseffects-13066047365942-phpapp01-110528124948-phpapp01/95/zero-point-energy-and-vacuum-fluctuations-effects-4-728.jpg?cb=1306587118)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sanman on 10/23/2017 09:51 pm
Is there some possibility of a Maxwell's Demon here?

ie. some kind of Quantum Feedback Loop whereby you're able to push off the Vacuum fluctuations in a directionally biased way

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_feedback

(so the Dynamic Vacuum would be the external field)
If the Quantum Vacuum is the zero energy point, that means that you should not be able to extract momentum or energy from it, because the momentum/energy gained by the EM Drive would be subtracted from the QV, which contradicts its zero point nature. 

But you are pumping up the Vacuum inside the cavity with RF/microwaves. So the state of the Vacuum inside the cavity is not the same as outside the cavity (the true zero point)

So regarding stealing momentum (asymmetrically), if you're stealing it from a pumped-up vacuum, that's not the same as stealing it from regular zero-point vacuum.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 10/23/2017 09:54 pm
Is there some possibility of a Maxwell's Demon here?

ie. some kind of Quantum Feedback Loop whereby you're able to push off the Vacuum fluctuations in a directionally biased way

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_feedback

(so the Dynamic Vacuum would be the external field)
If the Quantum Vacuum is the zero energy point, that means that you should not be able to extract momentum or energy from it, because the momentum/energy gained by the EM Drive would be subtracted from the QV, which contradicts its zero point nature. 

But you are pumping up the Vacuum inside the cavity with RF/microwaves. So the state of the Vacuum inside the cavity is not the same as outside the cavity (the true zero point)

So regarding stealing momentum (asymmetrically), if you're stealing it from a pumped-up vacuum, that's not the same as stealing it from regular zero-point vacuum.
But, besides the theoretical reasons, there is not a single reproducible experiment where someone has been able to extract energy from the Quantum Vacuum.

Even if one were to set aside the concerns about the experimental claims (i.e. Shawyer has never performed a single experiment in vacuum), and the theoretical problems (with the concept of extracting energy from the QV) explaining the EM Drive with an explanation that itself is the only experiment where someone has been able to extract energy from the Quantum Vacuum sounds like a circular argument.  Not compelling  ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sanman on 10/23/2017 10:17 pm
But, besides the theoretical reasons, there is not a single reproducible experiment where someone has been able to extract energy from the Quantum Vacuum.


Even if one were to set aside the concerns about the experimental claims (i.e. Shawyer has never performed a single experiment in vacuum), and the theoretical problems (with the concept of extracting energy from the QV) explaining the EM Drive with an explanation that itself is the only experiment where someone has been able to extract energy from the Quantum Vacuum sounds like a circular argument.



Well, there is the Universe - it continues to expand, and that expansion is being driven by the energy of the Quantum Vacuum. From that, one would understand that this expansion is then using up energy from the Quantum Vacuum, while increasing Entropy. If we insist that energy cannot be taken from the Quantum Vacuum, then we must also insist that the Universe cannot be expanding, since such expansion requires it.

So just like Voyager depended upon stealing momentum from Jupiter, and like Mach Effect drive depends on stealing momentum from the Rest of the Distant Universe, likewise EMdrive would depend upon stealing momentum from the Quantum Vacuum.

Dr Rodal, I was also eager to hear your comments on what I said in the Woodward Effect thread.   :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 10/23/2017 10:38 pm
But, besides the theoretical reasons, there is not a single reproducible experiment where someone has been able to extract energy from the Quantum Vacuum.


Even if one were to set aside the concerns about the experimental claims (i.e. Shawyer has never performed a single experiment in vacuum), and the theoretical problems (with the concept of extracting energy from the QV) explaining the EM Drive with an explanation that itself is the only experiment where someone has been able to extract energy from the Quantum Vacuum sounds like a circular argument.




Well, there is the Universe - it continues to expand, and that expansion is being driven by the energy of the Quantum Vacuum. From that, one would understand that this expansion is then using up energy from the Quantum Vacuum, while increasing Entropy. If we insist that energy cannot be taken from the Quantum Vacuum, then we must also insist that the Universe cannot be expanding, since such expansion requires it.

So just like Voyager depended upon stealing momentum from Jupiter, and like Mach Effect drive depends on stealing momentum from the Rest of the Distant Universe, likewise EMdrive would depend upon stealing momentum from the Quantum Vacuum.

Dr Rodal, I was also eager to hear your comments on what I said in the Woodward Effect thread.   :)

1) It is easy to show that the acceleration claimed by EM Drive proponents is a huge number of orders of magnitude larger than the cosmological constant term responsible for the accelerated expansion of the Universe.

2) It is also straight forward to show that the dark energy acts such that the accelerated expansion of the universe is only felt over huge distances: billions of light years, and completely negligible over distances like  the size of the EM Drive. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sanman on 10/23/2017 11:33 pm
1) It is easy to show that the acceleration claimed by EM Drive proponents is a huge number of orders of magnitude larger than the cosmological constant term responsible for the accelerated expansion of the Universe.

But the Cosmic Microwave Background is also quite a lot weaker than the magnetron in the EMdrive.  ;)

Quote
2) It is also straight forward to show that the dark energy acts such that the accelerated expansion of the universe is only felt over huge distances: billions of light years, and completely negligible over distances like  the size of the EM Drive.

How about the DeBroglie-Bohm / Pilot Wave Theory then? It's now said to be just as reasonable as Copenhagen.
Can EMdrive be said to be producing a Pilot Wave that could produce an acceleration?

Of course the frustrum is a macroscopic entity and not a quantum-sized one, so it doesn't seem like a Pilot Wave could affect it. Could Pilot Waves be affecting the photons themselves in a way that would produce an asymmetry for accelerative thrust?


https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-more-physicists-subscribe-to-pilot-wave-theory


https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-more-physicists-subscribe-to-pilot-wave-theory/answer/Thad-Roberts/comment/35591434

Quote
Ilja Schmelzer
May 17 · 2 upvotes
Already Bohm’s original version contains a proposal for the EM field. But the EM field is guided by the Maxwell equation, thus, a relativistic equation. So, relativistic field theories exist in Bohmian versions from the start.

A point is that such dBB versions of relativistic theories have a preferred frame. This is anyway necessary - any realistic interpretation needs a preferred frame, this is simply Bell’s theorem. But with or without a preferred frame - once this does not lead to differences in observable predictions, it should not matter, even following the criteria of defenders of relativity.

"Preferred frame", to me, means space itself has a frame.
Space isn't empty - there's something there - something which we can push off of?


Maybe EMdrive can be the new "Slit Experiment" of the 21st century?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 10/24/2017 12:54 am
Is there some possibility of a Maxwell's Demon here?

ie. some kind of Quantum Feedback Loop whereby you're able to push off the Vacuum fluctuations in a directionally biased way

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_feedback

(so the Dynamic Vacuum would be the external field)
If the Quantum Vacuum is the zero energy point, that means that you should not be able to extract momentum or energy from it, because the momentum/energy gained by the EM Drive would be subtracted from the QV, which contradicts its zero point nature, so what you thought was "zero point energy" really wasn't.

(https://image.slidesharecdn.com/zeropointenergyandvacuumfluctuationseffects-13066047365942-phpapp01-110528124948-phpapp01/95/zero-point-energy-and-vacuum-fluctuations-effects-4-728.jpg?cb=1306587118)

Directly relating to that, PBS Spacetime has a good episode on Zero Point Energy  :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5rAGfjPSWE
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sanman on 10/24/2017 01:09 am
What a coincidence, I was just watching a video from PBS Spacetime about Pilot Wave Theory   :P
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 10/24/2017 01:21 am
Hi TheTraveller. I think I recall someone or Roger himself saying Roger thinks that before the end of 2017 he expects to have a superconducting Emdrive to demonstrate. If that recollection was right, have you heard any news relating to it?

Hi Mark,

I know Roger is working with Gilo Industries on a wingless and propless drone. Have confirmed with Gilo Cardozo that Roger is working with Gilo Industries. Gilo Industries now owns a controlling shareholding in Universal Propulsion, the JV created by Roger and Gilo. Roger has been working with Gilo Industries since 2015. Plus there is a world patent application on the cryo thruster with Gilo Cardozo as the co-inventor.

So there is movement at the station.

Uh, now I'm wondering how, a document dating back to February 2017 (I mean THIS (http://www.emdrive.com/ShrivenhampresentationV.3.pdf) document) may indicate that as of today there's "movement at the station"


Hi TOG,

What I shared clearly shows there is activity occurring, based on SPR statements and changes in the effective ownership of the Universal Propulsion JV. I mean why would Gilo Industries Group acquire the controlling shares in the JV, if there was not value in doing so?

Likewise why would Gilo Cardozo be listed as the co-inventor on the world patent application?

TT,
I hope you are right that their work is ongoing. My question is, is Gilo the right type of company to maximize the progress made or are they just the only ones with enough courage to give it a try?

Nevil Shute wanted to develop a new aircraft with retractable wheels (then thought to complex to be made functional). He could not find the right one so he started one himself. He was able to do this because it made sense to the bank that it could be a winner if the company was tailored to the job.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 10/24/2017 01:27 am

(...)

It's just a fact of nature that kinetic energy generated in a moving reference frame will appear as greater in some other reference frames (and lesser in others). If any form of propellentless propulsion is possible at all, then you can amplify kinetic energy by judiciously creating it from within moving or rotating reference frames and harvesting it in another. It's no more 'free energy' that needs to be explained any more than a higher relative velocity due to relative motion has to be explained as 'free velocity'. The only thing that needs to be explained is the 'problem' of how and why nature would allow any form of PP to exist which of course many folks are busy working on. To me it just like a planetary flyby maneuver whereby the universe acts as a virtual planet.

Is your actual beef with the EMDrive in general or with the EMDrive as described by TT?

Bob012345,
I don't think shifting your reference frame is going to help you extract KE from anything. If that were possible then you could make a Gyro accelerate itself, which really has been tried many times.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sanman on 10/24/2017 01:41 am
Somebody put this up on Youtube - has it been posted here before?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o3mHVz_RTI
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/24/2017 02:13 am
Hi TheTraveller. I think I recall someone or Roger himself saying Roger thinks that before the end of 2017 he expects to have a superconducting Emdrive to demonstrate. If that recollection was right, have you heard any news relating to it?

Hi Mark,

I know Roger is working with Gilo Industries on a wingless and propless drone. Have confirmed with Gilo Cardozo that Roger is working with Gilo Industries. Gilo Industries now owns a controlling shareholding in Universal Propulsion, the JV created by Roger and Gilo. Roger has been working with Gilo Industries since 2015. Plus there is a world patent application on the cryo thruster with Gilo Cardozo as the co-inventor.

So there is movement at the station.

Uh, now I'm wondering how, a document dating back to February 2017 (I mean THIS (http://www.emdrive.com/ShrivenhampresentationV.3.pdf) document) may indicate that as of today there's "movement at the station"


Hi TOG,

What I shared clearly shows there is activity occurring, based on SPR statements and changes in the effective ownership of the Universal Propulsion JV. I mean why would Gilo Industries Group acquire the controlling shares in the JV, if there was not value in doing so?

Likewise why would Gilo Cardozo be listed as the co-inventor on the world patent application?

TT,
I hope you are right that their work is ongoing. My question is, is Gilo the right type of company to maximize the progress made or are they just the only ones with enough courage to give it a try?

Nevil Shute wanted to develop a new aircraft with retractable wheels (then thought to complex to be made functional). He could not find the right one so he started one himself. He was able to do this because it made sense to the bank that it could be a winner if the company was tailored to the job.

Hi Spurpeng,

Roger and Gilo have a similar mindset and don't have an issue with paddling against the current, plus both want to build flying cars.

As I understand it, Gilo approached Roger.

They then formed the Universal Propulsion JV, of which Gilo held 60% of the shares and SPR the other 40%.

Next event was Gilo being listed as the co-inventor on the world patent application.

Next Roger outed his work with Gilo Industries in the Shrivenham Presentation and in an interview with Mary Ann on IBT.

Then Gilo Industries received $40m in investment funds from a Chinese partner.

Next Gilo Industries took control of the Universal Propulsion JV.

Should point out that Gilo Industries CEO is a UAE citizen and resident, who runs a Abu Dhabi royal family investment fund that has more shares in Gilo Industries than do the Chinese.

So we have a major declared Chinese investment in Gilo Industries plus probably some off book investment by the Adu Dhabi royal family, with the company CEO being the guy who runs that fund.

So ask yourself if all this has happened because these 2 major shareholders have an interest in powered hang gliders or small rotary engines?

I suggest this all happened because of Roger's work with Gilo, plus Gilo has brought money to the table to fund the superconducting EmDrive R&D.

Also interesting is the UAE has established a NASA like and better funded space agency tasked with building UAE satellites, sending them to Mars, training UAE astronauts, building a test Mars city in the UAE desert and planing to build a UAE city on Mars. I suggest there is a place for a 1g EmDrive propelled UAE built space ship in those plans.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sanman on 10/24/2017 02:19 am
Now here's another good one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIyTZDHuarQ


Heh, so now you just have to picture a huge number of drops bouncing around inside a giant frustrum-shaped pool   ;D

(And reprogram COMSOL to calculate that way too)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 10/24/2017 02:44 am
Meberbs -

The reverse implication time dilation gradient -> gravity-like force is just straight from the maths.
The math does not specify cause and effect, only correlation.

I don't know how to address a suggestion that it isn't just fact, since we are generally quite happy to allow mathematics to do our deductions for us.
I think there is some miscommunication between us on this. The fact is the math shows a correlation. It does not tell us whether gravity causes time dilation or time dilation causes gravity. You keep making statements that "time dilation causes gravity" without any words like "possibly." In other statements you seem to be acknowledging the reverse interpretation as being valid. These 2 types of statements are contradictory. If gravity causes time dilation is a valid view (and it is) then you cannot make correctly make unqualified statements that time dilation causes gravity. (Note that I qualified "gravity causes time dilation" in that sentence by calling it a "valid view" rather than just stating it as a fact)

I have arguments that gravity causes time dilation is the more useful perspective (and more likely to be correct if there is a practical difference) but they aren't 100% conclusive, so I don't think there is value in going any further into them now.

Correct, there is no time dilation in Newtonian gravity. But if you replace Newtonian gravity with a very simplified form of GR where particles move on geodesics in a metric space where the only feature is a spatially varying 'time dilation field' you can recover the forces of Newtonian gravity. Plus, you have a theory with no 'action at a distance', which I believe is preferable.
Thank you, we are on the same page with this then.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 10/24/2017 04:29 am
Meberbs -

The reverse implication time dilation gradient -> gravity-like force is just straight from the maths.
The math does not specify cause and effect, only correlation.

I don't know how to address a suggestion that it isn't just fact, since we are generally quite happy to allow mathematics to do our deductions for us.
I think there is some miscommunication between us on this. The fact is the math shows a correlation. It does not tell us whether gravity causes time dilation or time dilation causes gravity. You keep making statements that "time dilation causes gravity" without any words like "possibly." In other statements you seem to be acknowledging the reverse interpretation as being valid. These 2 types of statements are contradictory. If gravity causes time dilation is a valid view (and it is) then you cannot make correctly make unqualified statements that time dilation causes gravity. (Note that I qualified "gravity causes time dilation" in that sentence by calling it a "valid view" rather than just stating it as a fact)

I have arguments that gravity causes time dilation is the more useful perspective (and more likely to be correct if there is a practical difference) but they aren't 100% conclusive, so I don't think there is value in going any further into them now.

RERT brought up the idea of a Transducer. I can give you a few examples.
1. Electricity causes a motor to turn a fan that pushes the air, vs Wind causing a propeller to turn, which turns a generator to produce electricity.
2. A loud speaker uses electricity to cause a membrane to vibrate and produce sound waves in the air, vs a Microphone where sound waves cause vibrations of a membrane that generates electricity.
3. Power transformers...
4. Peltier junctions...
and dozens, if not hundreds of other examples.

We also know gravitational (gravito-magnetic) induction exists similar to EM, (frame dragging, gravity waves, etc.)

Just saying; if gravity causes a gradient in the time dilation, then a gradient in the time dilation also causes gravity. It would be VERY unusual, not to mention inconsistent, with the many, many things we know that work this way, if it didn't. Granted, if it didn't work this way, it would be interesting to know why.


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 10/24/2017 04:41 am
But, besides the theoretical reasons, there is not a single reproducible experiment where someone has been able to extract energy from the Quantum Vacuum.

Consider the following thought experiment:

In the reference frame of a distant observer, outside of a gravity well, looking "down" into it. He sees an atom falling from height h1 to height h2 < h1. In doing so, the atom's oscillation transitions to and from the ground state becomes red-shifted, due to gravitational red shift.

Since the frequency of the atomic oscillations decreased, in the frame of the distant observer, the energy of the oscillator was also decreased;

h*f1 > h*f2
E1 > E2

In falling from h1 to h2, the atom lost energy. In this distant observer's frame, the atom's ground state energy is lower at h2 than it was at h1.

Given this example, and the fact that the ZPF sets the ground state energy of the atom. All Hydro-electric power is essentially extracting energy from the Quantum Vacuum.  8)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tleach on 10/24/2017 05:24 am

RERT brought up the idea of a Transducer. I can give you a few examples.
1. Electricity causes a motor to turn a fan that pushes the air, vs Wind causing a propeller to turn, which turns a generator to produce electricity.
2. A loud speaker uses electricity to cause a membrane to vibrate and produce sound waves in the air, vs a Microphone where sound waves cause vibrations of a membrane that generates electricity.
3. Power transformers...
4. Peltier junctions...
and dozens, if not hundreds of other examples.

We also know gravitational (gravito-magnetic) induction exists similar to EM, (frame dragging, gravity waves, etc.)

Just saying; if gravity causes a gradient in the time dilation, then a gradient in the time dilation also causes gravity. It would be VERY unusual, not to mention inconsistent, with the many, many things we know that work this way, if it didn't. Granted, if it didn't work this way, it would be interesting to know why.

Kind of like Calabi–Yau manifold mirror symmetry calculations? The equations work both ways and you just use whichever set makes it easier to find the answer to the question you're asking.

Oh, and while I'm logged in, I thought maybe I'd throw another crazy idea into the ring...

What if the EM drive is a type of Szilard engine? I know it sounds crazy, but think about it... The signal emitted into the frustum would need to be constantly varied during acceleration to keep resonance locked. That signal must be modulated in such a way that it accounts for changes in the position of the frustum in relation to the mass/energy distribution of the entire universe (if Mach was right). But, all of that information is radiated away as (pretty much) random IR noise, right? So what happened to the information?

Unfortunately, I came up with 0.00000000000011378659 Joules worth of acceleration when I tried to do the math... Maybe I'm off by a couple of orders of magnitude. I never was vary good at math.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 10/24/2017 06:14 am
Is there some possibility of a Maxwell's Demon here?

ie. some kind of Quantum Feedback Loop whereby you're able to push off the Vacuum fluctuations in a directionally biased way

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_feedback

(so the Dynamic Vacuum would be the external field)
If the Quantum Vacuum is the zero energy point, that means that you should not be able to extract momentum or energy from it, because the momentum/energy gained by the EM Drive would be subtracted from the QV, which contradicts its zero point nature, so what you thought was "zero point energy" really wasn't.


The quantum vacuum cannot be just zero point energy, other than within hypothetical contexts. Zero point energy would be the lowest possible “potential”, but reality is that the vacuum and thus even the quantum vacuum is filled with a very real broad spectrum EM background at the least. An EM background potential that varies over time and with location. The real question is whether there is a component of the QV that is something more than a zero point and real EM background potential. And how (or if) the boundary conditions between matter and the QV can be manipulated, in an asymmetric manner. Both the Casimir effect and Unruh radiation involve an asymmetry in boundary conditions between matter and the QV (if one accepts the associated theoretical explanations)... which suggests that if one could artificially manipulate the boundary conditions of matter, the interaction might result in an apparently propellentless acceleration.

Not that I believe that is what is happening with the EmDrive.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 10/24/2017 06:21 am
Is there some possibility of a Maxwell's Demon here?

ie. some kind of Quantum Feedback Loop whereby you're able to push off the Vacuum fluctuations in a directionally biased way

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_feedback

(so the Dynamic Vacuum would be the external field)
If the Quantum Vacuum is the zero energy point, that means that you should not be able to extract momentum or energy from it, because the momentum/energy gained by the EM Drive would be subtracted from the QV, which contradicts its zero point nature. 

But you are pumping up the Vacuum inside the cavity with RF/microwaves. So the state of the Vacuum inside the cavity is not the same as outside the cavity (the true zero point)

So regarding stealing momentum (asymmetrically), if you're stealing it from a pumped-up vacuum, that's not the same as stealing it from regular zero-point vacuum.
But, besides the theoretical reasons, there is not a single reproducible experiment where someone has been able to extract energy from the Quantum Vacuum.

Even if one were to set aside the concerns about the experimental claims (i.e. Shawyer has never performed a single experiment in vacuum), and the theoretical problems (with the concept of extracting energy from the QV) explaining the EM Drive with an explanation that itself is the only experiment where someone has been able to extract energy from the Quantum Vacuum sounds like a circular argument.  Not compelling  ;)

Something has always bothered me about the emphasis on proving thrust in a hard vacuum. While it would certainly be preferable, if it turned out that thrust could only be generated with a frustum in atmosphere, you could just put a drive inside a shell filled with atmosphere, in space. You could even optimize the atmosphere for optimum thrust...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Slyver on 10/24/2017 06:58 am
Something has always bothered me about the emphasis on proving thrust in a hard vacuum. While it would certainly be preferable, if it turned out that thrust could only be generated with a frustum in atmosphere, you could just put a drive inside a shell filled with atmosphere, in space. You could even optimize the atmosphere for optimum thrust...

I have been a proponent of a hermetically sealed EMDrive test since around the beginning of thread 1, what was it, 3 or 4 years ago?

Of course, the first step is to get it working in air with best (and collaborative) efforts at eliminating spurious forces, as our illustrious experimenters are doing. But step 2, is imo, a sealed test with an otherwise "working" EMDrive. Since we do not know the method of operation (if there is one) I consider it at least as important as a vacuum test, and probably easier to pull off (assuming of course step 1 shows unaccountable forces). Step 3 would be to test a frustum that passed test 2, both naked in vacuum, and in a sealed air filled container in vacuum.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 10/24/2017 07:11 am
Meberbs - if there is a 'time dilation gradient' there will be gravity-like forces acting. In this case, maybe unusually, I only mean exactly what I say. Plug the assumptions into the maths of GR, turn the handle, and the conclusion follows. The sentence beginning 'If' is therefore unambiguously correct within accepted physics.

To hold otherwise is to suggest that if the 'time dilation gradient' arises in the 'wrong' way, no forces will act. Maybe so - but if so physics just got a lot more complicated, with no particular evidence to suggest that it should.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/24/2017 07:49 am
Is there some possibility of a Maxwell's Demon here?

ie. some kind of Quantum Feedback Loop whereby you're able to push off the Vacuum fluctuations in a directionally biased way

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_feedback

(so the Dynamic Vacuum would be the external field)
If the Quantum Vacuum is the zero energy point, that means that you should not be able to extract momentum or energy from it, because the momentum/energy gained by the EM Drive would be subtracted from the QV, which contradicts its zero point nature. 

But you are pumping up the Vacuum inside the cavity with RF/microwaves. So the state of the Vacuum inside the cavity is not the same as outside the cavity (the true zero point)

So regarding stealing momentum (asymmetrically), if you're stealing it from a pumped-up vacuum, that's not the same as stealing it from regular zero-point vacuum.
But, besides the theoretical reasons, there is not a single reproducible experiment where someone has been able to extract energy from the Quantum Vacuum.

Even if one were to set aside the concerns about the experimental claims (i.e. Shawyer has never performed a single experiment in vacuum), and the theoretical problems (with the concept of extracting energy from the QV) explaining the EM Drive with an explanation that itself is the only experiment where someone has been able to extract energy from the Quantum Vacuum sounds like a circular argument.  Not compelling  ;)

Something has always bothered me about the emphasis on proving thrust in a hard vacuum. While it would certainly be preferable, if it turned out that thrust could only be generated with a frustum in atmosphere, you could just put a drive inside a shell filled with atmosphere, in space. You could even optimize the atmosphere for optimum thrust...

Hi OnlyMe,

The NASA Eagleworks data showed the same 1.2mN/kW specific force generation in atmo and vacuum. All that changed was the vac resonant freq increased approx 600kHz.

About time to stop the talk about vac vs atmo tests altering EmDrive thrust results. There is no thrust alteration. Atmo test results will be the same in vac, assuming the driving freq is adjusted upward a bit by the electronics.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/24/2017 07:54 am
Given this example, and the fact that the ZPF sets the ground state energy of the atom. All Hydro-electric power is essentially extracting energy from the Quantum Vacuum.  8)

Hi WT,

The water molecules are lifted up the gravity well via solar energy. The Hydro plant is extracting solar energy and not ZPF energy.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 10/24/2017 08:29 am
Hi TheTraveller. I think I recall someone or Roger himself saying Roger thinks that before the end of 2017 he expects to have a superconducting Emdrive to demonstrate. If that recollection was right, have you heard any news relating to it?

Hi Mark,

I know Roger is working with Gilo Industries on a wingless and propless drone. Have confirmed with Gilo Cardozo that Roger is working with Gilo Industries. Gilo Industries now owns a controlling shareholding in Universal Propulsion, the JV created by Roger and Gilo. Roger has been working with Gilo Industries since 2015. Plus there is a world patent application on the cryo thruster with Gilo Cardozo as the co-inventor.

So there is movement at the station.

Uh, now I'm wondering how, a document dating back to February 2017 (I mean THIS (http://www.emdrive.com/ShrivenhampresentationV.3.pdf) document) may indicate that as of today there's "movement at the station"


Hi TOG,

What I shared clearly shows there is activity occurring, based on SPR statements and changes in the effective ownership of the Universal Propulsion JV. I mean why would Gilo Industries Group acquire the controlling shares in the JV, if there was not value in doing so?

Likewise why would Gilo Cardozo be listed as the co-inventor on the world patent application?

TT,
I hope you are right that their work is ongoing. My question is, is Gilo the right type of company to maximize the progress made or are they just the only ones with enough courage to give it a try?

Nevil Shute wanted to develop a new aircraft with retractable wheels (then thought to complex to be made functional). He could not find the right one so he started one himself. He was able to do this because it made sense to the bank that it could be a winner if the company was tailored to the job.

Hi Spurpeng,

Roger and Gilo have a similar mindset and don't have an issue with paddling against the current, plus both want to build flying cars.

As I understand it, Gilo approached Roger.

They then formed the Universal Propulsion JV, of which Gilo held 60% of the shares and SPR the other 40%.

Next event was Gilo being listed as the co-inventor on the world patent application.

Next Roger outed his work with Gilo Industries in the Shrivenham Presentation and in an interview with Mary Ann on IBT.

Then Gilo Industries received $40m in investment funds from a Chinese partner.

Next Gilo Industries took control of the Universal Propulsion JV.

Should point out that Gilo Industries CEO is a UAE citizen and resident, who runs a Abu Dhabi royal family investment fund that has more shares in Gilo Industries than do the Chinese.

So we have a major declared Chinese investment in Gilo Industries plus probably some off book investment by the Adu Dhabi royal family, with the company CEO being the guy who runs that fund.

So ask yourself if all this has happened because these 2 major shareholders have an interest in powered hang gliders or small rotary engines?

I suggest this all happened because of Roger's work with Gilo, plus Gilo has brought money to the table to fund the superconducting EmDrive R&D.

Also interesting is the UAE has established a NASA like and better funded space agency tasked with building UAE satellites, sending them to Mars, training UAE astronauts, building a test Mars city in the UAE desert and planing to build a UAE city on Mars. I suggest there is a place for a 1g EmDrive propelled UAE built space ship in those plans.

TT is right. That UAE investor is really interesting. They keep very quite, but pour in a lot of funds. I would add that some of the dates UAE put forward when they want to make their space plans a reality is impossible with the current rocket engine technology. There are dates like 2020.

I encourage others to look around on more information about this investor from UAE.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 10/24/2017 01:52 pm
Given this example, and the fact that the ZPF sets the ground state energy of the atom. All Hydro-electric power is essentially extracting energy from the Quantum Vacuum.  8)

Hi WT,

The water molecules are lifted up the gravity well via solar energy. The Hydro plant is extracting solar energy and not ZPF energy.

The gravity well is not solar energy, it is vacuum energy. Lifting mass in a gravity well requires solar energy to overcome the change in vacuum energy. Letting it fall extracts the difference in vacuum energy.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 10/24/2017 01:52 pm
...
Something has always bothered me about the emphasis on proving thrust in a hard vacuum. While it would certainly be preferable, if it turned out that thrust could only be generated with a frustum in atmosphere, you could just put a drive inside a shell filled with atmosphere, in space. You could even optimize the atmosphere for optimum thrust...
That does not necessarily follow   :).  It would be like someone saying that the way to get around the fact that air breathing engines (like jet engines) can only generate thrust in atmosphere is to put the air breathing engine " inside a shell filled with atmosphere, in space".

No, a jet engine inside a shell filled with atmosphere will not produce any thrust to the center of mass of the space vehicle, whatsoever, in space.

Similarly, you cannot produce thrust of a space vehicle by using a propeller inside a shell filled with atmosphere. :D

Similarly, if the reason why Roger Shawyer never performed a single experiment in vacuum is because the tiny thrust he claims in his experiments is due to the EM Drive working as a very inefficient heater (thus producing convection of the air around it), putting the EM Drive inside a shell filled with air in space will not produce any thrust whatsoever either.  :)

For a drive to accelerate a vehicle in space it needs to either obtain its acceleration from the ejection of propellants, or otherwise it needs to attain such acceleration from an external field.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 10/24/2017 02:28 pm
But, besides the theoretical reasons, there is not a single reproducible experiment where someone has been able to extract energy from the Quantum Vacuum.

Consider the following thought experiment:

In the reference frame of a distant observer, outside of a gravity well, looking "down" into it. He sees an atom falling from height h1 to height h2 < h1. In doing so, the atom's oscillation transitions to and from the ground state becomes red-shifted, due to gravitational red shift.

Since the frequency of the atomic oscillations decreased, in the frame of the distant observer, the energy of the oscillator was also decreased;

h*f1 > h*f2
E1 > E2

In falling from h1 to h2, the atom lost energy. In this distant observer's frame, the atom's ground state energy is lower at h2 than it was at h1.

Given this example, and the fact that the ZPF sets the ground state energy of the atom. All Hydro-electric power is essentially extracting energy from the Quantum Vacuum.  8)
The problem with the example above is that there is one single type of energy that is precluded from entering the stress-energy-momentum tensor: gravitational potential energy.

Thus, from the point of view of General Relativity, if only the gravitational potential energy changed, then the stress-energy-momentum tensor T did not change in the example.   8)

See:  https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/45145/potential-energy-in-general-relativity

Quote
Gravitational energy cannot be explicitly included in the Einstein field equations because the equivalence principle --there is always a local inertial frame(the free-falling one) in which spacetime looks like the ordinary, flat, special-relativistic one. Hence if there was a frame-independent local notion of gravitational energy, i.e., a tensor, that tensor is zero in some local frame, and hence zero in every frame.

Repeat: that tensor is zero in every frame !

and I think that very few people will agree that "All Hydro-electric power is essentially extracting energy from the Quantum Vacuum."   8)

instead it is essentially extracting energy from the Sun, because it is the Sun ultimately responsible for the weather process responsible for replenishing the high water reservoir  thus enabling a continuous process of hydroelectric power generation.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 10/24/2017 03:07 pm
...
Something has always bothered me about the emphasis on proving thrust in a hard vacuum. While it would certainly be preferable, if it turned out that thrust could only be generated with a frustum in atmosphere, you could just put a drive inside a shell filled with atmosphere, in space. You could even optimize the atmosphere for optimum thrust...
That does not necessarily follow   :).  It would be like someone saying that the way to get around the fact that air breathing engines (like jet engines) can only generate thrust in atmosphere is to put the air breathing engine " inside a shell filled with atmosphere, in space".

No, a jet engine inside a shell filled with atmosphere will not produce any thrust to the center of mass of the space vehicle, whatsoever, in space.

Similarly, you cannot produce thrust of a space vehicle by using a propeller inside a shell filled with atmosphere. :D

Similarly, if the reason why Roger Shawyer never performed a single experiment in vacuum is because the tiny thrust he claims in his experiments is due to the EM Drive working as a very inefficient heater (thus producing convection of the air around it), putting the EM Drive inside a shell filled with air in space will not produce any thrust whatsoever either.  :)

For a drive to accelerate a vehicle in space it needs to either obtain its acceleration from the ejection of propellants, or otherwise it needs to attain such acceleration from an external field.

This last sentence is once again an arrogant statement suggesting that we already know everything there is to know. It is completely consistent with what we have observed and past experience. However...

Right now if and when an anomalous thrust is reliably demonstrated/proven it appears that it will require at the least, a re-evaluation of what we have come to think we know, rather than an insistence that our conclusions based on past experience represents everything there is to know about the universe and physics.

As example, If what is now being explored incorporates some interaction with the vacuum/quantum vacuum, most of our past classical interpretations of CoE and CoM cannot be expected to define or limit, the underlying mechanism(s). We cannot know that it is not possible to generate acceleration solely through an interaction between the frustum and internal fields or internal asymetric boundary conditions when we cannot today with certainty, agree on the composition of the QV or even that it exists and interacts with matter.

You jet engine example would only apply if the operation of an EmDrive consumes in some manner the atmosphere within and around it...

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 10/24/2017 03:21 pm
Pictures of the flexure bearings that arrived last week. Since the noise problem seems to have been solved for now, I will keep these for a potential future test stand and not worry about using them now.

The larger one is the E-10 bearing, which is the same used by Woodward/Fearn in the USC/ARC style thrust balance.  The other two are the D-10.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 10/24/2017 03:26 pm
...
You jet engine example would only apply if the operation of an EmDrive consumes in some manner the atmosphere within and around it...
No, it does not have to do with "consumption of air," [definition: consumption: the using up of a resource] on the contrary, it has to do with compression of air and ensuing higher velocity ejection of air, as the jets of gas shoots backward, the engine and the aircraft are thrust forward in order to conserve momentum (in the jet engine example)

(https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/UEET/StudentSite/images/engines/engineanimated.GIF)

Putting such a jet engine inside a shell in a spacecraft will result in zero thrust for the spacecraft.

Concerning the EM Drive experiments in air,  you will have asymmetric convection of air (as an inefficient asymmetric heater in experiments performed under ambient conditions) [as a possible source of anomalous thrust in EM Drive experiments under ambient conditons] and thus preserving conservation of momentum.  Addressing conservation of momentum is not "arrogance."

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 10/24/2017 03:32 pm
Pictures of the flexure bearings that arrived last week. Since the noise problem seems to have been solved for now, I will keep these for a potential future test stand and not worry about using them now.

The larger one is the E-10 bearing, which is the same used by Woodward/Fearn in the USC/ARC style thrust balance.  The other two are the D-10.

Where did you buy the bearings? $? I am interested in doing some Dean Drive experiments. I searched in google shopping but did not  find a seller. Thanks.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 10/24/2017 03:59 pm
Pictures of the flexure bearings that arrived last week. Since the noise problem seems to have been solved for now, I will keep these for a potential future test stand and not worry about using them now.

The larger one is the E-10 bearing, which is the same used by Woodward/Fearn in the USC/ARC style thrust balance.  The other two are the D-10.

Where did you buy the bearings? $? I am interested in doing some Dean Drive experiments. I searched in google shopping but did not  find a seller. Thanks.

https://c-flex.com/   PM me if you want the contact information for the lady who processed my order. They are ~$50 each.

Also attached is their brochure with bearings listed.  Was interesting to find out that the 19cm length of #14 piano wire I am using has slightly less torsional spring rate (0.00326 lb-in/degree) than one of the E-10 bearings (0.0037 lb-in/degree).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 10/24/2017 04:09 pm
But, besides the theoretical reasons, there is not a single reproducible experiment where someone has been able to extract energy from the Quantum Vacuum.

Consider the following thought experiment:

In the reference frame of a distant observer, outside of a gravity well, looking "down" into it. He sees an atom falling from height h1 to height h2 < h1. In doing so, the atom's oscillation transitions to and from the ground state becomes red-shifted, due to gravitational red shift.

Since the frequency of the atomic oscillations decreased, in the frame of the distant observer, the energy of the oscillator was also decreased;

h*f1 > h*f2
E1 > E2

In falling from h1 to h2, the atom lost energy. In this distant observer's frame, the atom's ground state energy is lower at h2 than it was at h1.

Given this example, and the fact that the ZPF sets the ground state energy of the atom. All Hydro-electric power is essentially extracting energy from the Quantum Vacuum.  8)
The problem with the example above is that there is one single type of energy that is precluded from entering the stress-energy-momentum tensor: gravitational potential energy.

Thus, from the point of view of General Relativity, if only the gravitational potential energy changed, then the stress-energy-momentum tensor T did not change in the example.   8)

See:  https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/45145/potential-energy-in-general-relativity

Quote
Gravitational energy cannot be explicitly included in the Einstein field equations because the equivalence principle --there is always a local inertial frame(the free-falling one) in which spacetime looks like the ordinary, flat, special-relativistic one. Hence if there was a frame-independent local notion of gravitational energy, i.e., a tensor, that tensor is zero in some local frame, and hence zero in every frame.

Repeat: that tensor is zero in every frame !

and I think that very few people will agree that "All Hydro-electric power is essentially extracting energy from the Quantum Vacuum."   8)

instead it is essentially extracting energy from the Sun, because it is the Sun ultimately responsible for the weather process responsible for replenishing the high water reservoir  thus enabling a continuous process of hydroelectric power generation.

And yet... in the frame of a distant observer, the energy of the water atoms themselves is lower at the bottom of the well, and the energy density of the water is greater. In terms of the PV model, if at the distant observer the refractive index, K=1 and in the gravity well K > 1, then;

E(K) = E/sqrt(K) < E
U(K) = K*U > U

So the T00 term of the "water" must change. The sun can heat water all it wants and increase its kinetic energy, but unless there is a gravity well, there is no Hydro-Electric power. (Steam engine, sure) The sun puts back, what the gravity well steels from the atoms in the water.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 10/24/2017 04:11 pm
Pictures of the flexure bearings that arrived last week. Since the noise problem seems to have been solved for now, I will keep these for a potential future test stand and not worry about using them now.

The larger one is the E-10 bearing, which is the same used by Woodward/Fearn in the USC/ARC style thrust balance.  The other two are the D-10.

Where did you buy the bearings? $? I am interested in doing some Dean Drive experiments. I searched in google shopping but did not  find a seller. Thanks.

https://c-flex.com/   PM me if you want the contact information for the lady who processed my order. They are ~$50 each.

Also attached is their brochure with bearings listed.  Was interesting to find out that the 19cm length of #14 piano wire I am using has slightly less torsional spring rate (0.00326 lb-in/degree) than one of the E-10 bearings (0.0037 lb-in/degree).

Thank you! By actually starting to do some research for the experiment I wanted to do, I suddenly lost interest. Sorry for wasting your time ! I will write up why in a separate post.

As to the comparison of piano wire and the E-10, Can't the piano wire be left long enough to achieve small torsional spring rate (torque/degree as in LB-IN)? So that 0.00326 might be of certain length? My balance wire was about 4 feet long so it is very sensitive.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 10/24/2017 04:18 pm
As to the comparison of piano wire and the E-10, Can't the piano wire be left long enough to achieve small torsional spring rate (torque/degree as in LB-IN)? So that 0.00326 might be of certain length? My balance wire was about 4 feet long so it is very sensitive.

Yes. 0.00326 lb-in/degree is for a certain length and diameter of wire. The longer the wire, the less the torsional spring rate. The thinner the wire the less torsional spring rate. 4ft of #14 piano wire would have a torsional spring rate of 0.000508 lb-in/degree.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 10/24/2017 04:24 pm
...
So the T00 term of the "water" must change. The sun can heat water all it wants and increase its kinetic energy, but unless there is a gravity well, there is no Hydro-Electric power. (Steam engine, sure) The sun puts back, what the gravity well steels from the atoms in the water.
It may change in your PV model, but not in Einstein's General Relativity (if the only difference is potential gravitational energy). :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 10/24/2017 04:29 pm
...
So the T00 term of the "water" must change. The sun can heat water all it wants and increase its kinetic energy, but unless there is a gravity well, there is no Hydro-Electric power. (Steam engine, sure) The sun puts back, what the gravity well steels from the atoms in the water.
It may change in your PV model, but not in Einstein's General Relativity. :)
IMO GR is a misinterpretation of a quantum mechanical process, as being space-time curvature. Space is what we measure with rulers, time is what we measure with clocks. If there is curvature, it is the instruments that are deformed by fields, not the empty vacuum that is geometrically curved.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 10/24/2017 04:39 pm
Is there some possibility of a Maxwell's Demon here?

ie. some kind of Quantum Feedback Loop whereby you're able to push off the Vacuum fluctuations in a directionally biased way

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_feedback

(so the Dynamic Vacuum would be the external field)
If the Quantum Vacuum is the zero energy point, that means that you should not be able to extract momentum or energy from it, because the momentum/energy gained by the EM Drive would be subtracted from the QV, which contradicts its zero point nature, so what you thought was "zero point energy" really wasn't.


I was thinking it's probably better to think about doing the exact opposite of extracting energy or momentum from the QV. I'd like to see and understand more about these developments before I can seriously talk about such things.

https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-discover-an-unexpected-force-acting-on-nanoparticles-in-a-vacuum
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.133605
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20927994-100-vacuum-has-friction-after-all/
https://journals.aps.org/pra/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevA.82.063827
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 10/24/2017 05:03 pm
I wrote up why I lost interest in Dean Drive experiments in the Woodward thread. There are links for some good reads.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1741500#msg1741500 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1741500#msg1741500)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 10/24/2017 06:46 pm

(...)

It's just a fact of nature that kinetic energy generated in a moving reference frame will appear as greater in some other reference frames (and lesser in others). If any form of propellentless propulsion is possible at all, then you can amplify kinetic energy by judiciously creating it from within moving or rotating reference frames and harvesting it in another. It's no more 'free energy' that needs to be explained any more than a higher relative velocity due to relative motion has to be explained as 'free velocity'. The only thing that needs to be explained is the 'problem' of how and why nature would allow any form of PP to exist which of course many folks are busy working on. To me it just like a planetary flyby maneuver whereby the universe acts as a virtual planet.

Is your actual beef with the EMDrive in general or with the EMDrive as described by TT?

Bob012345,
I don't think shifting your reference frame is going to help you extract KE from anything. If that were possible then you could make a Gyro accelerate itself, which really has been tried many times.

The problem with that argument is this. All the energy of the gyro was input from a non-rotating the reference frame. Accelerating a moving object takes more and more energy, it requires a quadratic input of energy to maintain a constant torque. If you then extract the kinetic energy of course you merely get back what you put in minus losses. But if you can spin up the gyro with a force applied completely within a rotating reference frame, say from a working EMDrive device or other effect, then if the power to create the torque is constant, the total energy to spin it up increases linearly in that frame while the kinetic energy of the gyro grows quadratically in the lab frame. At some point depending on design specifics, the total kinetic energy in the lab frame is larger than the total input energy and that excess can in principle be harvested. I

Keeping the discussion EMDrive related (and not that other drive), Shawyer's proposed interstellar probe design, (if it worked as stated) accelerates at about 1m/s/s with a mass of 8936 kg and an electrical power of 29.6kW. Such a probe would have more kinetic energy in the starting frame than energy input in the moving frame in only about six seconds. After the nearly ten year trip it would have about twenty million times more kinetic energy than electrical input as it flew by at .67c. While I'm not saying I buy these numbers at all, I'm saying that's the benefit of manipulating energy in reference frames if you can really do it.

All I'm really saying is that I believe the benefit of these devices is that they allow manipulation of kinetic energy between different reference frames, which is a fundamental aspect of classical physics, for attaining either great velocity or useful energy or both.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 10/24/2017 06:53 pm
...
You jet engine example would only apply if the operation of an EmDrive consumes in some manner the atmosphere within and around it...
No, it does not have to do with "consumption of air," [definition: consumption: the using up of a resource] on the contrary, it has to do with compression of air and ensuing higher velocity ejection of air, as the jets of gas shoots backward, the engine and the aircraft are thrust forward in order to conserve momentum (in the jet engine example)

(https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/UEET/StudentSite/images/engines/engineanimated.GIF)

Putting such a jet engine inside a shell in a spacecraft will result in zero thrust for the spacecraft.

Concerning the EM Drive experiments in air,  you will have asymmetric convection of air (as an inefficient asymmetric heater in experiments performed under ambient conditions) [as a possible source of anomalous thrust in EM Drive experiments under ambient conditons] and thus preserving conservation of momentum.  Addressing conservation of momentum is not "arrogance."

Same dog, different spots.

Your assumption seems to be that since everything we have been able to build and test in the past, has required that an engineered change in velocity requires, pushing against a mass or field external to to the drive/engine etc., all of physics is limited to those conditions... That we already know everything on the subject and there is no room for anything beyond what we think we know right now.

It is justified to say this is what we know from experience and another thing to say that how we interpret what we have experienced in the past, places a limit on physical reality. Just because we have not seen it does not mean it cannot happen.

The whole issue reminds me of a quote from, “Thinking fast and slow“, by Daniel Kahneman
"... Which describes a puzzling limitation of our mind: our excessive confidence in what we believe we know, and our apparent inability to acknowledge the full extent of our ignorance and the uncertainty of the world we live in."

The whole discussion is confused by intermingling conclusions based on classical experience and experimentation and theoretical projections not yet proven or even fully understood and then assuming that what we believe within the context of either alone or together, represents practical limitations on physics. The fact is we don’t know everything there is to know about physics, so we cannot say with certainty something (currently unknown) happening inside a frustum might generate thrust, without pushing off of or pulling on something outside the frustum.

When you say with certainty that, no acceleration can occur without interacting with something outside the frustum, you are saying you know everything there is to know. If your argument had been phrased as, this is what I believe, rather than as a certainty that implies we already know all there is to know, it would have been better, the way I read your comments.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 10/24/2017 07:35 pm
...
The whole issue reminds me of a quote from, “Thinking fast and slow“, by Daniel Kahneman
...

When you say with certainty that, no acceleration can occur without interacting with something outside the frustum, you are saying you know everything there is to know. If your argument had been phrased as, this is what I believe, rather than as a certainty that implies we already know all there is to know, it would have been better, the way I read your comments.


Daniel Kanehman has a Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, "the dismal science" so called for many reasons (including the fact that one cannot have well-controlled experiments in Economics), including that this prize has the dubious distinction that it has been conferred on the same year to people having diametrically different economic opinions.

What I am saying is not (like you incorrectly claim) that I know everything (I never said that), but that I am confident enough to place a financial bet with you that it will turn out as I wrote concerning conservation of momentum, internal and external fields.  Unfortunately there is no option market to place such a bet at the moment, as I think that it would be a good financially rewarding bet to place  ;) (of course it would be a matter of what would be the odds in such a market...)

I am also confident that the Sun will rise again tomorrow.  I have no 100% absolute certainty about it, and I don't claim that I know everything that could happen to prevent the Sun from rising again tomorrow, but I am confident enough to place such a strong financial bet on that too, and to say so (it is not arrogance, but instead confidence on the laws of Nature).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: otlski on 10/25/2017 12:39 am
Pictures of the flexure bearings that arrived last week. Since the noise problem seems to have been solved for now, I will keep these for a potential future test stand and not worry about using them now.

The larger one is the E-10 bearing, which is the same used by Woodward/Fearn in the USC/ARC style thrust balance.  The other two are the D-10.

If and when you get around to implementing the flexures, be very careful to align the top mount with the bottom mount so the the bores are coaxial to say 0.005 inch.  We use precision ground Thomson rod to align.  It looks like you have the thin webs which in tension are fair but in compression are weak.  Tension mode is when you "close" the smile looking at the end.  Any misalignment upon assembly will wrinkle them and linearity and hysteresis will go out the window.  Though you will be purposefully loading them axially I assume, you can crunch them while unscrewing a cable out at the end of the arm if you are not careful.  If you can, design the mounts not only for alignment but for visual inspection so you can lay eyes on them when data gets weird.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/25/2017 12:46 am
I am also confident that the Sun will rise again tomorrow.  I have no 100% absolute certainty about it, and I don't claim that I know everything that could happen to prevent the Sun from rising again tomorrow, but I am confident enough to place such a strong financial bet on that too, and to say so (it is not arrogance, but instead confidence on the laws of Nature).

Hi Jose,

See attached. ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/25/2017 12:55 am
All I'm really saying is that I believe the benefit of these devices is that they allow manipulation of kinetic energy between different reference frames, which is a fundamental aspect of classical physics, for attaining either great velocity or useful energy or both.

Hi Bob,

Choose any frame you wish.

Knowing the force and mass, measure the time of acceleration. Work done is then invarient using Work = (N^2 t^2) / 2 m.

Or measure dV, then knowing mass, KE change is invarient using dKE = (m dV^2) / 2
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/25/2017 01:01 am
When you say with certainty that, no acceleration can occur without interacting with something outside the frustum, you are saying you know everything there is to know. If your argument had been phrased as, this is what I believe, rather than as a certainty that implies we already know all there is to know, it would have been better, the way I read your comments.

Hi OnlyMe,

The requirenent is to generate an internal force imbalance that operationally shifts the centre of mass during acceleration.

Remember an EmDrive that is not accelerating, doesn't generate any thrust.

The "Shawyer Effect" is about what happens inside a resonant asymmetric cavity DURING acceleration.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 10/25/2017 01:17 am
All I'm really saying is that I believe the benefit of these devices is that they allow manipulation of kinetic energy between different reference frames, which is a fundamental aspect of classical physics, for attaining either great velocity or useful energy or both.

Hi Bob,

Choose any frame you wish.

Knowing the force and mass, measure the time of acceleration. Work done is then invarient using Work = (N^2 t^2) / 2 m.

Or measure dV, then knowing mass, KE change is invarient.
First, you seem to have forgotten that that equation you keep throwing around is derived assuming the object starts from rest. It simply does not apply in anything other than the initial rest frame.

Second, you seem to have missed my recent post explaining to you that if the emDrive acts as you describe it clearly violates conservation of energy.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/25/2017 01:30 am
All I'm really saying is that I believe the benefit of these devices is that they allow manipulation of kinetic energy between different reference frames, which is a fundamental aspect of classical physics, for attaining either great velocity or useful energy or both.

Hi Bob,

Choose any frame you wish.

Knowing the force and mass, measure the time of acceleration. Work done is then invarient using Work = (N^2 t^2) / 2 m.

Or measure dV, then knowing mass, KE change is invarient.
First, you seem to have forgotten that that equation you keep throwing around is derived assuming the object starts from rest. It simply does not apply in anything other than the initial rest frame.

Second, you seem to have missed my recent post explaining to you that if the emDrive acts as you describe it clearly violates conservation of energy.

Hi Meberbs,

Acceleration, as far as the accelerated mass is concerned, always starts from a rest frame. Mass knows no starting velocity.

What I described is valid from any frame and results in invarient calculations of work done and changed KE. Try it.

As I have described to you, during EmDrive acceleration, thrust drops as work is done to accelerate mass. EmDrive acceleration is not OU any more than an electrical motor spinning up a mass is OU.

Roger has explained this many times, such as in this attachment.

The KE export increases cavity energy loss per cycle and drops Q, just as it does in every accelerator cavity.

Using Work = (N^2 t^2) / 2 m, it is clear work done to accelerate mass increases as the square of the acceleration time. Thus cavity energy loss to constantly increasing KE, increases as the square of the acceleration time. Then as EmDrive thrust generation is driven by cavity Q, thrust generation decreases as acceleration time increases.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 10/25/2017 01:46 am
...
So the T00 term of the "water" must change. The sun can heat water all it wants and increase its kinetic energy, but unless there is a gravity well, there is no Hydro-Electric power. (Steam engine, sure) The sun puts back, what the gravity well steels from the atoms in the water.
It may change in your PV model, but not in Einstein's General Relativity (if the only difference is potential gravitational energy). :)

Well, the result would be the same if I used a Schwarzschild solution of GR, rather than the PV Model. The Schwarzschild solution is a vacuum solution, so the stress-energy tensor is zero "0" to begin with because the solution intentionally "excludes" all the matter causing the gravity well. However, in that solution, the effect of a test particle is assumed to be negligible. It has NO contribution to the tensor, so although its density increases as it falls down, it is not included in the result. Hence, why people believe the energy density doesn't change.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 10/25/2017 02:02 am
...
So the T00 term of the "water" must change. The sun can heat water all it wants and increase its kinetic energy, but unless there is a gravity well, there is no Hydro-Electric power. (Steam engine, sure) The sun puts back, what the gravity well steels from the atoms in the water.
It may change in your PV model, but not in Einstein's General Relativity (if the only difference is potential gravitational energy). :)

Well, the result would be the same if I used a Schwarzschild solution of GR, rather than the PV Model. The Schwarzschild solution is a vacuum solution, so the stress-energy tensor is zero "0" to begin with because the solution intentionally "excludes" all the matter causing the gravity well. However, in that solution, the effect of a test particle is assumed to be negligible. It has NO contribution to the tensor, so although its density increases as it falls down, it is not included in the result. Hence, why people believe the energy density doesn't change.

You are actually bringing up a very interesting feature of Einstein's theory.  Unfortunately GR admits many solutions some of which are non-Machian (all vacuum solutions as the one you pose that are not Minkowski flat, are non-Machian) but most of the experimental evidence (WMAP) argues instead for Friedman-Robertson-Walker metric over large scales
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann%E2%80%93Lema%C3%AEtre%E2%80%93Robertson%E2%80%93Walker_metric#Evidence

and over small scales, the evidence is that spacetime curvature (gravity) is due to matter sources.

Quote
It was one of Einstein’s early goals, although he never succeeded, to incorporate
Mach’s principle in his general theory of relativity. It has been generally
regarded that general relativity does not embody Mach’s principle, that is that
geometry can exist independent of matter. It was the Schwarzschild solution
that seemed to bring this idea its early but reluctant acceptance. That is, a
geometry can arise in the absence of a source term, from the vacuum. Of
course, in the practical applications of the Schwarzschild solution to the precession
problem of Mercury and the bending of light, it was always assumed that
looming behind the formal sourceless equation was a real sun. Nevertheless, a
possible formal interpretation has been that a curved space exists without an
identifiable source, thus obviating the need for Mach’s principle
Our result has been to replace the Schwarzschild solution to the sourceless
spherically symmetric static environment, which then, as now seems to allow
the existence of non-trivial spacetime curvature in absence of any matter, with
a solution that does not correspond to a sourceless environment but yet leads
nevertheless to a metric that can approach the Schwarzschild with arbitrary
accuracy in an asymptotic way. In doing so, for this particular case at least,
Mach’s principle, the idea that geometry emerges as an interaction between an
identifiable matter term and geometry is preserved

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.2040.pdf

The problem the way I see it is that for the Schwarschild metric, the components have a singularity r^(-n). There are no spacetimes that can remove those singularities (the paper above was an effort to deal with the Schwarschild singularity).  See p.78 of Choquet-Bruhat "GR and the Einstein Equations"  http://bit.ly/2yQenju
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 10/25/2017 02:36 am
Acceleration, as far as the accelerated mass is concerned, always starts from a rest frame. Mass knows no starting velocity.
False. Physics works just fine desribing objects that don't start from rest.

What I described is valid from any frame and results in invarient calculations of work done and changed KE. Try it.
Mass = 10 kg
initial velocity = 1 m/s
Force = 20 N
time = 2 s
final velocity = 1+ (20/10)*2 = 5 m/s
initial kinetic energy = 0.5*10*1^2 = 5 J
final kinetic energy = 0.5*10*5^2 = 125 J
work done = 120 J

your equation:
(20^2*2^2)/(2*10) = 80 J
Conclusion: as I stated, your equation does not apply to other frames, as it clearly gives the wrong answer in them and thus cannot be used to demonstrate frame invariance.

As I have described to you, during EmDrive acceleration, thrust drops as work is done to accelerate mass.
It appears you still did not read my previous post that explains why this is irrelevant, I'll quote it here for your convenience:

EmDrive generated force decreases as acceleration continues. Generated force returns to initial value after acceleration stops and restarts.
And this creates a way to have a very obvious example of overunity. You spend a fixed amount of energy to run the drive for a fixed amount of time and gain a fixed velocity. Then you turn it off and repeat, using using the same amount of energy to get the same amount of delta V. The problem is then that the energy you spend is linearly proportional to the total velocity, but the kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the velocity. Repeat the cycle enough times and you have free energy.


EmDrive acceleration is not OU any more than an electrical motor spinning up a mass is OU.

Roger has explained this many times, such as in this attachment.
And every time he has done so, he has been wrong, demonstrating that he either does not understand basic physics, or he is a fraud. The turn off and back on counter to the decreasing thrust you described that I explained above is obvious to people who know what they are talking about and nullifies any arguments you provide about thrust decreasing as it runs. It doesn't apply to anything else, because every other type of drive in the universe has something it pushes on which makes the energy balance (power consumption is variable with the velocity relative to what it is pushing on).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 10/25/2017 03:56 am
The problem the way I see it is that for the Schwarschild metric, the components have a singularity r^(-n). There are no spacetimes that can remove those singularities (the paper above was an effort to deal with the Schwarschild singularity).  See p.78 of Choquet-Bruhat "GR and the Einstein Equations"  http://bit.ly/2yQenju

In my engineering model; I start with the Lagrangian density for the refractive index as a scalar field. I solve the "radial", time independent equation of motion in spherical polar coordinates. No assumptions required. The value of K that solves the radial equation is;

K(r) = 1/(1 - 2Φ/r);

This solution is identical to the Schwarzschild coefficient, so all the same tests of GR which depend on this, (light bending, lensing, the perihelion of the planet Mercury, Time dilation and Length contraction) are all identical to GR. It is the interpretation of the physical nature of the system that is different.

In my model, the singularity at (r=2Φ), has a clear, unambiguous interpretation as follows:

1. Atoms outside this event horizon, (r>2Φ) are Under-damped oscillators.
2. Atoms at this event horizon, (r=2Φ) are Critically damped oscillators.
3. Atoms below this event horizon, (r<2Φ) are Over-damped oscillators.

The singularity at r=0 is quite frankly, irrelevant for all practical "engineering" purposes.

The model is Machian in that, where Radiation Reaction (RR) is referred to in QED, I simply interpret this effect as being the field derived from all the rest of the matter in the Universe, as described by Dr. Fearn.

The Quantum Vacuum is the EM ZPF + the RR field of the Universe, superimposed upon each other. The ZPF being the ground state, and everything else is an excitation above the ground state.

The ZPF Drives the oscillators to their maximum ground state energy, and the RR field damps them to create the effects of gravity. In flat space-time the two fields are in equilibrium. Gravity is a gradient in this equilibrium due to the proximity of matter, increasing the damping side of the equation.

Since Time Dilation and Length Contraction are physical effects caused by increased damping of the oscillators, the cause must be the same in SR as well. With this interpretation, the FTL paradox of SR goes away. Reciprocity in SR is broken, just as it is in GR and it is all self-consistent. This is where a test could be done of the model. There are currently no experiments of SR that prove Reciprocity.

It's very simple IMO!


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/25/2017 04:49 am
For a drive to accelerate a vehicle in space it needs to either obtain its acceleration from the ejection of propellants, or otherwise it needs to attain such acceleration from an external field.

Or it needs to generate an internal axial force imbalance, producing a dynamic change in the centre of mass, which causes acceleration opposite to the mass change direction.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/25/2017 05:07 am
Acceleration, as far as the accelerated mass is concerned, always starts from a rest frame. Mass knows no starting velocity.
False. Physics works just fine desribing objects that don't start from rest.

What I described is valid from any frame and results in invarient calculations of work done and changed KE. Try it.
Mass = 10 kg
initial velocity = 1 m/s
Force = 20 N
time = 2 s
final velocity = 1+ (20/10)*2 = 5 m/s
initial kinetic energy = 0.5*10*1^2 = 5 J
final kinetic energy = 0.5*10*5^2 = 125 J
work done = 120 J

your equation:
(20^2*2^2)/(2*10) = 80 J
Conclusion: as I stated, your equation does not apply to other frames, as it clearly gives the wrong answer in them and thus cannot be used to demonstrate frame invariance.

As I have described to you, during EmDrive acceleration, thrust drops as work is done to accelerate mass.
It appears you still did not read my previous post that explains why this is irrelevant, I'll quote it here for your convenience:

EmDrive generated force decreases as acceleration continues. Generated force returns to initial value after acceleration stops and restarts.
And this creates a way to have a very obvious example of overunity. You spend a fixed amount of energy to run the drive for a fixed amount of time and gain a fixed velocity. Then you turn it off and repeat, using using the same amount of energy to get the same amount of delta V. The problem is then that the energy you spend is linearly proportional to the total velocity, but the kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the velocity. Repeat the cycle enough times and you have free energy.


EmDrive acceleration is not OU any more than an electrical motor spinning up a mass is OU.

Roger has explained this many times, such as in this attachment.
And every time he has done so, he has been wrong, demonstrating that he either does not understand basic physics, or he is a fraud. The turn off and back on counter to the decreasing thrust you described that I explained above is obvious to people who know what they are talking about and nullifies any arguments you provide about thrust decreasing as it runs. It doesn't apply to anything else, because every other type of drive in the universe has something it pushes on which makes the energy balance (power consumption is variable with the velocity relative to what it is pushing on).

Mass knows no velocity as that requires a rest frame from which to measure velocity.

What mass obeys is a = N / m.

In your example dV = 4 m/s & mass = 10 kg. Change in KE = 10 × 4^2 / 2 = 80 J & using work energy equivalence, work done = 80 J.

The 120 J is based not on the mass but on what an observer would incorrectly calculate from his 1m/sec vs the mass frame. Had he calculated the KE change and work done based on the observed dV, then the result would be 80 J and be frame invarient.

Roger's explanation is not incorrect. The same KE export from the stored cavity energy, dropping cavity Q, dropping e field gradient, happens when accelerator cavities accelerate mass via the e field gradient created through the middle of their donut shaped cavity.

QED
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThinkerX on 10/25/2017 05:44 am
Traveler, a while back you posted a list of observations about your own experiments, including two or three you had no explanation for.  Does that not imply that the EM Drive theory you are using is, at an absolute minimum, incomplete, and more likely badly flawed?  Would it not be better for you to address your efforts towards discovering and properly accounting for this incompleteness/flaw rather than continually asserting without foundation concepts that nobody else here agrees with?   
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/25/2017 06:55 am
Traveler, a while back you posted a list of observations about your own experiments, including two or three you had no explanation for.  Does that not imply that the EM Drive theory you are using is, at an absolute minimum, incomplete, and more likely badly flawed?  Would it not be better for you to address your efforts towards discovering and properly accounting for this incompleteness/flaw rather than continually asserting without foundation concepts that nobody else here agrees with?

Hi ThinkerX,

What is it you disagee with?

You disagee that the change in KE = m * dV^2 / 2 is not frame invarient?

Or do you disagree that the work done to cause the dV is not equal to the change in KE?

Or that the force generated by an EmDrive drops as the cavity Q drops, as the constantly increasing KE drain on stored cavity energy increases cavity energy loss per cycle?

The SPR theory and Roger's expanded explanations,  in all his papers, videos & presentations does explain one way the "Shawyer Effect" could work. When you follow all Roger has shared and build a thruster, it works as expected.

What I can't prove is if the SPR theory + explanations is what is producing the force.

You should consider what happens when a resonant cavity accelerates vs the doppler effects that occur at each end. Consider what happens as the leading small end experiences a red shift and the trailing big end experiences a blue shift.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 10/25/2017 07:26 am
Mass knows no velocity as that requires a rest frame from which to measure velocity.

What mass obeys is a = N / m.

In your example dV = 4 m/s & mass = 10 kg. Change in KE = 10 × 4^2 / 2 = 80 J & using work energy equivalence, work done = 80 J.

The 120 J is based not on the mass but on what an observer would incorrectly calculate from his 1m/sec vs the mass frame.

You just said that kinetic energy is not equal to 0.5*m*v^2.

This is so fundamentally wrong, there is no point in me writing my own explanation, instead, I'll just point you to a derivation of kinetic energy from the basic definition of work:
https://physics.info/energy-kinetic/

Had he calculated the KE change and work done based on the observed dV, then the result would be 80 J and be frame invarient.
Kinetic energy is not frame invariant, it is a function of velocity which is obviously not frame invariant. It is also not a linear function of velocity, so differences in kinetic energy also cannot be frame invariant.

Roger's explanation is not incorrect.
Yes it is and I just demonstrated it again.

As ThinkerX pointed out, you yourself even found a major flaw in Shawyer's theory, namely that it predicts the opposite direction of force than what has been observed, and the direction he claims it predicts. (I actually tried to point this out to you a year ago, and you refused to listen to me, I am glad you figured it out eventually though.)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 10/25/2017 09:12 am
Hi TheTraveller. I think I recall someone or Roger himself saying Roger thinks that before the end of 2017 he expects to have a superconducting Emdrive to demonstrate. If that recollection was right, have you heard any news relating to it?

Hi Mark,

I know Roger is working with Gilo Industries on a wingless and propless drone. Have confirmed with Gilo Cardozo that Roger is working with Gilo Industries. Gilo Industries now owns a controlling shareholding in Universal Propulsion, the JV created by Roger and Gilo. Roger has been working with Gilo Industries since 2015. Plus there is a world patent application on the cryo thruster with Gilo Cardozo as the co-inventor.

So there is movement at the station.

Uh, now I'm wondering how, a document dating back to February 2017 (I mean THIS (http://www.emdrive.com/ShrivenhampresentationV.3.pdf) document) may indicate that as of today there's "movement at the station"


Hi TOG,

What I shared clearly shows there is activity occurring, based on SPR statements and changes in the effective ownership of the Universal Propulsion JV. I mean why would Gilo Industries Group acquire the controlling shares in the JV, if there was not value in doing so?

Likewise why would Gilo Cardozo be listed as the co-inventor on the world patent application?

TT,
I hope you are right that their work is ongoing. My question is, is Gilo the right type of company to maximize the progress made or are they just the only ones with enough courage to give it a try?

Nevil Shute wanted to develop a new aircraft with retractable wheels (then thought to complex to be made functional). He could not find the right one so he started one himself. He was able to do this because it made sense to the bank that it could be a winner if the company was tailored to the job.

Hi Spurpeng,

Roger and Gilo have a similar mindset and don't have an issue with paddling against the current, plus both want to build flying cars.

As I understand it, Gilo approached Roger.

They then formed the Universal Propulsion JV, of which Gilo held 60% of the shares and SPR the other 40%.

Next event was Gilo being listed as the co-inventor on the world patent application.

Next Roger outed his work with Gilo Industries in the Shrivenham Presentation and in an interview with Mary Ann on IBT.

Then Gilo Industries received $40m in investment funds from a Chinese partner.

Next Gilo Industries took control of the Universal Propulsion JV.

Should point out that Gilo Industries CEO is a UAE citizen and resident, who runs a Abu Dhabi royal family investment fund that has more shares in Gilo Industries than do the Chinese.

So we have a major declared Chinese investment in Gilo Industries plus probably some off book investment by the Adu Dhabi royal family, with the company CEO being the guy who runs that fund.

So ask yourself if all this has happened because these 2 major shareholders have an interest in powered hang gliders or small rotary engines?

I suggest this all happened because of Roger's work with Gilo, plus Gilo has brought money to the table to fund the superconducting EmDrive R&D.

Also interesting is the UAE has established a NASA like and better funded space agency tasked with building UAE satellites, sending them to Mars, training UAE astronauts, building a test Mars city in the UAE desert and planing to build a UAE city on Mars. I suggest there is a place for a 1g EmDrive propelled UAE built space ship in those plans.

Thanks TT  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 10/25/2017 01:24 pm
...

In my model, the singularity at (r=2Φ), has a clear, unambiguous interpretation as follows:

1. Atoms outside this event horizon, (r>2Φ) are Under-damped oscillators.
2. Atoms at this event horizon, (r=2Φ) are Critically damped oscillators.
3. Atoms below this event horizon, (r<2Φ) are Over-damped oscillators.

...
Nowadays, the consensus is that the behavior at Schwarzschild radius is not a true mathematical singularity.  The only true singularity is at r=0.

Apparently your model still has the singularity at r=0?


...
The singularity at r=0 is quite frankly, irrelevant for all practical "engineering" purposes.
...
By being irrelevant you must mean for r>>0 that at far enough radial distance "r" from r=0 it doesn't matter.  Certainly irrelevant for r> Schwarzschild radius. But the singularity at r=0 made all these singular vacuum solutions suspect in the eyes of Einstein and several other scientists that considered them therefore to be non-physical.  They considered them to approximate some true solution for a matter source.  Vacuum solutions that show curvature of spacetime without the presence of any matter, as the solution you present were quite disturbing to Einstein, and he explained them away as being intrinsically unphysical.  It was thought then that the existence of spacetime curvature without any matter was an artifact of the singularity.  Something not real, because singularities are not physical. 

So Einstein and many other scientists construed the Schwarzschild singularity as hiding a true mass.

In that interpretation, although you may validly think that the singularity does not matter for "engineering" purposes, many physicists interpreted the Schwarzschild singularity as hiding a true mass, and thus explaining why it was not "physically" a vacuum solution.

When people considered the Schwarzschild solution they considered that there was a true mass there responsible for the singularity.  Yes it is a vacuum solution because T=0, but it is a vacuum solution with a singularity, and the singularity has been interpreted as hiding a mass, so the curvature is really due to a non-zero T.  So went the explanation.


The final blow was in 1962, seven years after Einstein had died, that Ozsváth and Schücking published their anti-Machian metric solution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozsv%C3%A1th%E2%80%93Sch%C3%BCcking_metric . The first known solution to Einstein's General Relativity

Quote
that is stationary, globally defined, and singularity-free but nevertheless not isometric to the Minkowski metric. This stands in contradiction to a claimed strong Mach principle, which would forbid a vacuum solution from being anything but Minkowski without singularities, where the singularities are to be construed as mass as in the Schwarzschild metric.

This was the death blow to any pretension that Einstein's General Relativity necessarily implied Mach's principle (it doesn't).

Earlier on (1949) Goedel had presented to Einstein for his 70th birthday a birthday present he hated: an anti-Machian solution to GR of a rotating Universe.  Although this was anti-Machian, it was explained away for a short while with several arguments as to why the Universe could not be rotating (including closed time-loops).

So it is clear now that Einstein's General Relativity admits both Machian solutions (Friedman-Robertson-Walker) and very anti-Machian solutions.

(https://www.americanscientist.org/sites/americanscientist.org/files/2017-105-6-344-1-natural.jpg)

The question is are these anti-Machian solutions really present in Nature? or are they mathematical artifacts.?

The singularity (at r=0) in Schwarzschild 's solution cannot be a true singularity.  It must be an approximation.  It must be hiding a true mass source [alternatively, flux-capacitor posted a solution by Andrei Sakharov (?) positing that it hides a wormhole].  We are not going to know until experiments show a successful quantum gravity theory that matches experimental results.

PS: By the way, StrongGR posted a solution to the EM Drive a long time ago examining the singularity at the vertex of the cone.  However, this cannot explain the claims of the EM Drive since the construction pursued by Shawyer and his followers does not have this singularity: they stop the truncated cone well short of reaching any singularity.  And the energy in the EM Drive is so small that the Schwarzschild radius for the EM Drive is close to zero (a very infinitesimal value).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 10/25/2017 05:42 pm
All I'm really saying is that I believe the benefit of these devices is that they allow manipulation of kinetic energy between different reference frames, which is a fundamental aspect of classical physics, for attaining either great velocity or useful energy or both.

Hi Bob,

Choose any frame you wish.

Knowing the force and mass, measure the time of acceleration. Work done is then invarient using Work = (N^2 t^2) / 2 m.

Or measure dV, then knowing mass, KE change is invarient.
First, you seem to have forgotten that that equation you keep throwing around is derived assuming the object starts from rest. It simply does not apply in anything other than the initial rest frame.

Second, you seem to have missed my recent post explaining to you that if the emDrive acts as you describe it clearly violates conservation of energy.


I agree with Meberbs here. If you pick a random frame to observe the device, the work is always force integrated over distance. Assuming a constant force and acceleration, distance is x0 + v0*t + 0.5*a*t^2. We can drop the x0 term but not the v0*t term. All observers see the same change in velocity. Work equates to the change in kinetic energy to each observer; 0.5*m*(v0 + a*t)^2 - 0.5*m*v0^2 which reduces to m*v0*a*t + 0.5*m*a^2*t^2 for each observer. Part of the work is invariant but there is another term. All see different amounts of work and that difference is exactly the mass times the differences in initial velocities of two observers times the change in velocity they both agree on m*(v2-v1)*a*t where a*t is just the delta_v.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: wicoe on 10/25/2017 06:07 pm
I agree with Meberbs here. If you pick a random frame to observe the device, the work is always force integrated over distance. Assuming a constant force and acceleration, distance is x0 + v0*t + 0.5*a*t^2. We can drop the x0 term but not the v0*t term. All observers see the same change in velocity. Work equates to the change in kinetic energy to each observer; 0.5*m*(v0 + a*t)^2 - 0.5*m*v0^2 which reduces to m*v0*a*t + 0.5*m*a^2*t^2 for each observer. Part of the work is invariant but there is another term. All see different amounts of work and that difference is exactly the mass times the differences in initial velocities of two observers times the change in velocity they both agree on m*(v2-v1)*a*t where a*t is just the delta_v.

The above quote (emphasis mine) describes perfectly why you cannot have an object accelerate without pushing against something else.  If different observers see different amounts of work, but the amount of fuel (or potential/electrical energy) expended to do this work is the same (as it does not depend on the frame of reference), you have a problem.  To satisfy CoE, these amounts must be equal.  To make them equal, you need to involve work done on/by some other object/field, so that the sum is frame-invariant.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 10/25/2017 07:26 pm
100 W/4 GHz dummy load from ebay

turns out to be not so good. An SWR of <1.2 was given.
Measured with the Windfreak Techn. SynthNV + directional coupler, relative to a 2 W termination of MiniCircuits.
It can be good, see for comparison the (lack of) reflection of the Centric RF 20 W termination, measured in the same setup.
 :(
Anyone with suggestions for a affordable 100 W / 4 GHZ termination?

Peter
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: wicoe on 10/25/2017 07:28 pm
The amount of fuel burned or energy released in the rocket frame is the same for all observers but the total work seen is different to observers with different velocities.

This is incorrect.  If you calculate the total work (the force acting between the rocket and the propellant is bidirectional, so there is work done on/by the propellant as well), you get a total amount that is independent of the reference frame, and this amount equals the amount of energy burnt (actually, it's a bit less due to losses).  This constitutes CoE.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 10/25/2017 07:45 pm
100 W/4 GHz dummy load from ebay

turns out to be not so good. An SWR of <1.2 was given.
Measured with the Windfreak Techn. SynthNV + directional coupler, relative to a 2 W termination of MiniCircuits.
It can be good, see for comparison the (lack of) reflection of the Centric RF 20 W termination, measured in the same setup.
 :(
Anyone with suggestions for a affordable 100 W / 4 GHZ termination?

Peter
Peter,
at which plane (connector) the calibration of the vna was done? Is it the connector at which the load is connected right now with inclusive the additional device shown in the picture? If not please try to calibrate at this connector. The SMA to N interface may also increase the VSWR level.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 10/25/2017 07:57 pm
The amount of fuel burned or energy released in the rocket frame is the same for all observers but the total work seen is different to observers with different velocities.

This is incorrect.  If you calculate the total work (the force acting between the rocket and the propellant is bidirectional, so there is work done on/by the propellant as well), you get a total amount that is independent of the reference frame, and this amount equals the amount of energy burnt (actually, it's a bit less due to losses).  This constitutes CoE.

Your statement is true by itself, but I was talking about work done on the rocket or cavity, not the exhaust in the context of TT's argument that the cavity provides all the kinetic energy. I probably shouldn't have used the word 'total' though which was confusing. The question you are answering is what is total change in the system KE and what you stated is true but not what I was discussing. It's also true for all systems including EMDrive (and that other drive) or any propellent-less propulsion technique where the universe or some field is the exhaust. In those cases you don't care about having to supply the energy for the "exhaust".  In any event I felt my post was poorly worded so I removed it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: wicoe on 10/25/2017 08:20 pm
The question you are answering is what is total change in the system KE and what you stated is true but not what I was discussing. It's also true for all systems including EMDrive (and that other drive) or any propellent-less propulsion technique where the universe or some field is the exhaust. In those cases you don't care about having to supply the energy for the "exhaust".  In any event I felt my post was poorly worded so I removed it.

My point is that one cannot satisfy the frame-invariance of the total change in KE if they do not include other interacting objects/fields (some external objects, or perhaps "the rest of the universe", although I'm a bit skeptical regarding this).  In other words, the Shawyer's description (which claims to not involve "new physics" or any interactions with external objects/fields) cannot satisfy CoE.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 10/26/2017 05:15 am

Apparently your model still has the singularity at r=0?

Yes, but so does an electron. It doesn't stop us from using electricity.

...
The final blow was in 1962, seven years after Einstein had died, that Ozsváth and Schücking published their anti-Machian metric solution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozsv%C3%A1th%E2%80%93Sch%C3%BCcking_metric . The first known solution to Einstein's General Relativity

Quote
that is stationary, globally defined, and singularity-free but nevertheless not isometric to the Minkowski metric. This stands in contradiction to a claimed strong Mach principle, which would forbid a vacuum solution from being anything but Minkowski without singularities, where the singularities are to be construed as mass as in the Schwarzschild metric.

This was the death blow to any pretension that Einstein's General Relativity necessarily implied Mach's principle (it doesn't).

...
So it is clear now that Einstein's General Relativity admits both Machian solutions (Friedman-Robertson-Walker) and very anti-Machian solutions.
...

In the link above, it says that the Ozsváth and Schücking Metric is a parallel plane wave (pp-wave) solution. This is considered anti-Machian?

That seems strange to me, since pp-waves are known to be approximations of waves generated by a source, at distances much greater than a wavelength. We have recently seen what it takes to create gravitational waves.

Quote
Furthermore, in general relativity, disturbances in the gravitational field itself can propagate, at the speed of light, as "wrinkles" in the curvature of spacetime. Such gravitational radiation is the gravitational field analogue of electromagnetic radiation. In general relativity, the gravitational analogue of electromagnetic plane waves are precisely the vacuum solutions among the plane wave spacetimes. They are called gravitational plane waves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pp-wave_spacetime (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pp-wave_spacetime)

Also, the EM ZPF is a source-free solution of the EM field. I would interpret this Ozsváth and Schücking Metric as an analog to a source free gravitational field. It's not isomorphic to Minkowski space-time because it's wavy, but it has to be there as the ground state of the field.

In my model, this ground state of the field is the EM ZPF. Superimposed onto this, is the RR field matter interacts with, assuming it was generated by "everything else" in the Universe. A isomorphism to Minkowski space-time would be a vacuum where matter is in equilibrium and there are no spacial gradients. There are an infinite number of possible conformally invariant solutions to this. Then there is this Ozsváth and Schücking Metric, which I would interpret as an oscillation around the equilibrium point.

Maybe I'm missing something, but this doesn't seem very anti-Machian to me, IMO.

Also, I really like the FRW Metric. The scaling parameter "a" can be interpreted as the scale of the ruler used to measure the universe, rather than the scale of the Universe. That is how I ended up with the notion that the Hubble constant, equates to a 1-meter long ruler on Earth, shrinking by 6.8 nm/m/century relative to the distant galaxies. In agreement with how space-time curvature is interpreted in my model as a deformation of rulers and clocks.


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/26/2017 07:08 am
Kinetic energy is not frame invariant, it is a function of velocity which is obviously not frame invariant. It is also not a linear function of velocity, so differences in kinetic energy also cannot be frame invariant.

The change in KE and work done can be frame invarient as follows.

Acceleration causes a change in velocity, which is frame invarient. All frames observe the same change in velocity, the same dV.

Using the dV, the change in KE can be calculated as dKE = m dV^2 / 2. Work done is then equal to dKE.

Therefore dV, dKE & work done are now frame invarient.

QED

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 10/26/2017 07:13 am
A tangent re De Broglie-Bohm and a relatively new paper of note:

Null point polarization at the intersection of wall segments may polarize the quantum flow of waveforms in the skin. This relates strongly to the chaos inherent in the systems evolution... a sign why thrust is not constant from observations? Alternatively null point generation may also vary due to the amount of flux tubes and arcing/short circuiting from wall defects.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.09810
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 10/26/2017 12:49 pm
100 W/4 GHz dummy load from ebay

turns out to be not so good. An SWR of <1.2 was given.
Measured with the Windfreak Techn. SynthNV + directional coupler, relative to a 2 W termination of MiniCircuits.
It can be good, see for comparison the (lack of) reflection of the Centric RF 20 W termination, measured in the same setup.
 :(
Anyone with suggestions for a affordable 100 W / 4 GHZ termination?

Peter
Peter,
at which plane (connector) the calibration of the vna was done? Is it the connector at which the load is connected right now with inclusive the additional device shown in the picture? If not please try to calibrate at this connector. The SMA to N interface may also increase the VSWR level.

Totally agreed; also, not sure but that dummy load seems the same used by Jamie and, apparently, he didn't have such an issue, so maybe he'll have something to add or a tip to share; at any rate, testing the load with a straight connection (putting together a length of cable with connector is fast/easy and will cost less than another dummy load) is for sure a way to start with a "clean room" condition :)

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 10/26/2017 12:58 pm
Quantum Weirdness of Light Was Just Confirmed by Shooting Photons Into Space

Ok, this is (most probably) off-topic, yet, I think it's worth a mention here  ;)

I'm referring to this experiment (https://www.sciencealert.com/wheeler-s-delayed-choice-experiment-record-distance-space) about the so-called "Wheeler's delayed-choice" (details here (http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/10/e1701180.full))
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 10/26/2017 01:08 pm
....

In the link above, it says that the Ozsváth and Schücking Metric is a parallel plane wave (pp-wave) solution. This is considered anti-Machian?

That seems strange to me, since pp-waves are known to be approximations of waves generated by a source, at distances much greater than a wavelength. We have recently seen what it takes to create gravitational waves.

....

Also, the EM ZPF is a source-free solution of the EM field. I would interpret this Ozsváth and Schücking Metric as an analog to a source free gravitational field. It's not isomorphic to Minkowski space-time because it's wavy, but it has to be there as the ground state of the field.

...

Maybe I'm missing something, but this doesn't seem very anti-Machian to me, IMO.

...
When discussing "vacuum" we have to clearly define and agree on what one means by "vacuum".

The discussions of metric "vacuum solutions" within General Relativity deal with solutions for which there is constant zero density (*).  This is the vacuum of General Relativity, not the Quantum Vacuum (*).

The Ozsváth and Schücking Metric is a solution for a vacuum in General Relativity: one with constant zero density.  It is not a solution for a Quantum Vacuum.


The Ozsváth and Schücking Metric is considered to be very anti-Machian because according to Mach's Principle a Universe without any matter-energy sources should be flat and free of gravitation.

The Ozsváth and Schücking Metric is a solution that allows a universe to exist (within Einstein's General Relativity cosmology) with constant zero density and yet it has (Riemannian) curvature (wrinkles) that propagate in it. 
I emphasize: in General Relativity a vacuum has constant zero density (*).

Before  Ozsváth and Schücking came up with this solution there were many vacuum solutions that allowed such curvature (and hence gravitation) without sources, but they all contained singularities, and the interpretation was that the singularities hide real matter sources.  The singularities are unphysical, so it was easier to explain away these vacuum solutions.

What is disturbing about Ozsváth and Schücking's metric is that it is a constant zero density solution that does not have any singularity, so it cannot be explained away using that argument.

You state "pp-waves are known to be approximations of waves generated by a source, at distances much greater than a wavelength", but the problem with the  Ozsváth and Schücking's metric solution is that it allows a universe to exist where these waves exist in a vacuum with constant zero density, and without having been generated by any source.

It is the fact that this metric allows a universe to exist that has such waves in a vacuum with constant zero density and without having been generated by any source that is considered to be very anti-Machian.

Let's re-capitulate the versions of Mach's Principle listed by Samuel and Bondi:

Mach0: The universe, as represented by the average motion of distant galaxies, does not appear to rotate relative to local inertial frames.

Goedel's metric violates this



Mach7: If you take away all matter, there is no more space.

This is violated by all vacuum solutions, and is particularly violated by Ozsváth and Schücking's because it contains no singularities behind which matter can hide


PS: The discussion above is purely within General Relativity.  When you talk about your EM ZPF you are discussing a different theory.  In General Relativity there is no such thing as Quantum Vacuum.  Quantum Mechanics is separate from General Relativity.   If you consider the EM ZPF to have a ground state with non-zero-density or a fluctuating density around this ground state, then according to General Relativity, the EM ZPF is not a vacuumAccording to General Relativity a vacuum has constant zero density. This is what is meant by Ozsváth and Schücking's solution: it is a solution for a universe with constant zero density.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 10/26/2017 01:08 pm
100 W/4 GHz dummy load from ebay

turns out to be not so good. An SWR of <1.2 was given.
Measured with the Windfreak Techn. SynthNV + directional coupler, relative to a 2 W termination of MiniCircuits.
It can be good, see for comparison the (lack of) reflection of the Centric RF 20 W termination, measured in the same setup.
 :(
Anyone with suggestions for a affordable 100 W / 4 GHZ termination?

Peter
Peter

I have had mixed results with this type of dummy load as well - looks like a RELM unit.    Below about 1 Ghz most seem to work fairly well but not so good upwards toward 2 or 3 Ghz.   Performance also tends to drop off as power increases towards max rating and in particularly if high power is dumped into the load for a long period of time.

Barry dummy loads have a pretty good reputation.   If buying from Ebay (where I get most of my microwave items) look for an post which specifies it was actually tested and they specify at SWR it tested to.   Here is a current example - preferably with test data.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Barry-Dummy-Load-RF-Microwave-100-Watt-50-Ohm-DC-3GHz-SMA-M-SWR-1-17/272350381849?hash=item3f69590719:g:Ll8AAOSw0UdXvBYb (https://www.ebay.com/itm/Barry-Dummy-Load-RF-Microwave-100-Watt-50-Ohm-DC-3GHz-SMA-M-SWR-1-17/272350381849?hash=item3f69590719:g:Ll8AAOSw0UdXvBYb)

Not cheap and shipping is also rather high.

Here is an EMR dummy load but it only goes to 2.1 Ghz and 60 watts.   Pretty good rep and they post the test data showing how the load preforms.     Cost is much more reasonable. 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/EMR-1640-Dummy-Load-RF-Microwave-60-Watt-50-Ohm-DC-2-1-GHz-SWR-1-1-TESTED/282525852544?hash=item41c7da6380:g:6NAAAOSw1BlZQate (https://www.ebay.com/itm/EMR-1640-Dummy-Load-RF-Microwave-60-Watt-50-Ohm-DC-2-1-GHz-SWR-1-1-TESTED/282525852544?hash=item41c7da6380:g:6NAAAOSw1BlZQate)

Hope this helps
Herman
graybeardsyseng
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 10/26/2017 01:41 pm
Kinetic energy is not frame invariant, it is a function of velocity which is obviously not frame invariant. It is also not a linear function of velocity, so differences in kinetic energy also cannot be frame invariant.

The change in KE and work done can be frame invarient as follows.

Acceleration causes a change in velocity, which is frame invarient. All frames observe the same change in velocity, the same dV.

Using the dV, the change in KE can be calculated as dKE = m dV^2 / 2. Work done is then equal to dKE.
I am guessing you haven't studied calculus, that is the incorrect way to take a derivative.

The correct answer is dKe/dV = m*v, which is  a function of velocity, not difference in velocity, so by the third or fourth different method, it is still not frame invariant.

Please note, that at this point further "proofs" from you are pointless unless you directly point out something wrong with all of the proofs I have provided. My proofs include directly calculating kinetic energy using the equation for kinetic energy, and I also linked you to a first principles derivation of this equation.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 10/26/2017 01:45 pm
100 W/4 GHz dummy load from ebay

turns out to be not so good. An SWR of <1.2 was given.
Measured with the Windfreak Techn. SynthNV + directional coupler, relative to a 2 W termination of MiniCircuits.
It can be good, see for comparison the (lack of) reflection of the Centric RF 20 W termination, measured in the same setup.
 :(
Anyone with suggestions for a affordable 100 W / 4 GHZ termination?

Peter
Peter,
at which plane (connector) the calibration of the vna was done? Is it the connector at which the load is connected right now with inclusive the additional device shown in the picture? If not please try to calibrate at this connector. The SMA to N interface may also increase the VSWR level.

Hi X_RaY, the calibration was done with the 50Ω directly on the dir coupler. The m-to-m adapter visible in the picture was not between it. But that shouldn't matter with a termination, isn't it?

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 10/26/2017 02:24 pm
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Barry-Dummy-Load-RF-Microwave-100-Watt-50-Ohm-DC-3GHz-SMA-M-SWR-1-17/272350381849?hash=item3f69590719:g:Ll8AAOSw0UdXvBYb (https://www.ebay.com/itm/Barry-Dummy-Load-RF-Microwave-100-Watt-50-Ohm-DC-3GHz-SMA-M-SWR-1-17/272350381849?hash=item3f69590719:g:Ll8AAOSw0UdXvBYb)

isn't this one (https://www.ebay.com/p/Barry-Dummy-Load-RF-Microwave-912-0095-100-Watt-50-Ohm-DC-3ghz-SMA/680140650?iid=131333798672) the very same item ?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 10/26/2017 02:27 pm
100 W/4 GHz dummy load from ebay

turns out to be not so good. An SWR of <1.2 was given.
Measured with the Windfreak Techn. SynthNV + directional coupler, relative to a 2 W termination of MiniCircuits.
It can be good, see for comparison the (lack of) reflection of the Centric RF 20 W termination, measured in the same setup.
 :(
Anyone with suggestions for a affordable 100 W / 4 GHZ termination?

Peter
Peter,
at which plane (connector) the calibration of the vna was done? Is it the connector at which the load is connected right now with inclusive the additional device shown in the picture? If not please try to calibrate at this connector. The SMA to N interface may also increase the VSWR level.

Hi X_RaY, the calibration was done with the 50Ω directly on the dir coupler. The m-to-m adapter visible in the picture was not between it. But that shouldn't matter with a termination, isn't it?

as x_ray wrote, even an m2m adapter may cause problems and should be carefully measured as well ;)


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 10/26/2017 03:24 pm
{snip}
The singularity (at r=0) in Schwarzschild 's solution cannot be a true singularity.  It must be an approximation.  It must be hiding a true mass source [alternatively, flux-capacitor posted a solution by Andrei Sakharov (?) positing that it hides a wormhole].

The answer lays in topology.

Actually, Sakharov's hypothesis about wormholes was, although clever and ahead of time, just an idea without much mathematical demonstration. There are more recent (2015) mathematical demonstration clearly showing that the so-called "true singularity" at r = 0 can be cancelled (in fact, more precisely, does not exist) "within" a black hole. Because a black hole has no interior.

First, Karl Schwarzschild himself posited r > 0. r cannot go negative according to Schwarzschild. It is clearly written in his two founding papers, attached to this post in both German and English, that almost nobody ever has read in their original 1916 form nor in their more recent English translation. That is to say, space coordinates are always real. Doing analytic continuation for r < 0 is nothing but allowing space coordinates to become imaginary. In other words, it is allowing someone to make distance measurements of a hypersurface, but outside of that hypersurface. It is meaningless.

Second, and this is related as this choice to operate using real quantities and not imaginary ones, to stay in the real, laboratory physics, Schwarzschild considered only the metric signature (+ – – –)

Third, the main error everyone did and still does is to posit r is a radius, i.e. a radial distance from a center point, like in a sphere. But r is no a radius, it is a space marker. For r Schwarzschild used the words "polar coordinates" (Polarkoordinaten):

(http://ayuba.fr/janus/schwarzschild/schwarzschild-1916a-2.png)

But Schwarzschild introduces what he calls an "auxiliary quantity" (Hilfsgröße) R, and it is through it that he expresses his "exterior" solution in his first paper in January 1916:

(http://ayuba.fr/janus/schwarzschild/schwarzschild-1916a-3.png)

So the variable r chosen by Schwarzschild is strictly positive, and the intermediate quantity R is not free but has a lower limit α (which will later be called the "Schwarzschild radius" mostly written Rs):

(http://ayuba.fr/janus/schwarzschild/R-r-alpha.png)

r = Rs was at first considered as a "true singularity" but is has been shown after Schwarzschild's death that is is only a "coordinate singularity" that can be eliminated through various changes of coordinates.

What about r = 0, that is to say R = Rs  ?

It has been shown (reference (http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/2015-ModPhysLettA.pdf)) that a change of coordinates can eliminate this "true" singularity, because such singularity is not really "true" it is caused by a wrong choice of local topology.

The "magical" change of variable is to take:

r = Rs (1 + Log ch ρ)

To explain quickly how this is done mathematically without resorting to the full maths of the peer-reviewed paper, I will decrease the number of dimensions so everyone can visualize. The Schwarzschild exterior metric describes a 4D object:

(http://ayuba.fr/janus/schwarzschild/schwarzschild-exterior-metric-4d.png)

Removing the part of the metric related to time, keeping only the spatial part of the metric, we get the description of a 3D hypersurface:

(http://ayuba.fr/janus/schwarzschild/schwarzschild-exterior-metric-3d.png)

We continue and remove one space dimension, to get a 2D surface:

(http://ayuba.fr/janus/schwarzschild/schwarzschild-exterior-metric-2d.png)

Studying the surface described by this metric, it is easy to show it corresponds to a parabola:

(http://ayuba.fr/janus/schwarzschild/parabola.png)

Applying a rotational symmetry to the parabola around the z-axis, returning to a 2D surface embedded in a higher dimensional 3D space, one gets the shape of a diabolo:

(http://ayuba.fr/janus/schwarzschild/diabolo-2D.png)

which connects two spaces together through a throat circle:

(http://ayuba.fr/janus/schwarzschild/throat-circle.png)

The diabolo is represented above with two circular boundaries on both sides to better show the general shape of the object, but this surface is actually borderless as it connects two flat spaces:
 
(http://ayuba.fr/janus/schwarzschild/diabolo-2D-flat.png)

That is to say in higher dimensions, this bridge connects two Minkowski spaces together through a throat surface.

One fundamental question for the black hole model is: can we choose the topology of a hypersurface freely, or does the topology of a hypersurface is intimately ensueing from its metric?

In the correct interpretation of the topology description of the object, contained in its metric, there is no center in this hypersurface. When you chose, like Schwarzschild, to keep real quantities everywhere, i.e. to be able to measure every point of the hypersurface in this solution of the Einstein field equations, everything becomes clear. r < 0 is not real. Space does not "become timelike" and t does not "become spacelike" anymore beyond this boundary. There is no more "central singularity". When you approach the event horizon of the black hole, if you make periodic measurements of the space marker r, you will notice that r is decreasing. Reaching the boundary, r has a minimal value. But going further ahead toward the (imaginary) "center" of the object, you will notice the space marker r is now growing again. The hypersurface is not contractible. r never becomes negative. All coordinates stay real.

There is also some successive work showing such event horizon acts as a one-way membrane with limited time transit for a test particle as well as for the point of view of a distant observer, contrary to the established "freeze frame" model of the black hole where time seems frozen according to a distant observer watching a test particle falling toward the event horizon (the fall of the test particle seems to take an infinite amount of time for the distant observer).

(http://ayuba.fr/janus/schwarzschild/infinite-time.png)

The key is to take radial frame-dragging into account during the gravitational collapse of a destabilized neutron star (which is never done classically, even for the Kerr black hole where only azimuthal, i.e. rotational frame-dragging within the ergosphere is considered, due to the dense body spinning around its axis). Indeed in a Machian sense, space is also dragged along the radial implosion of the star. If some of you express interest in this area I can detail further about this crucial point of infinite time vs finite time transit.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 10/26/2017 03:34 pm
...

Third, the main error everyone did and still does is to posit r is a radius, i.e. a radial distance from a center point, like in a sphere. But r is no a radius, it is a space marker. For r Schwarzschild used the words "polar coordinates" (Polarkoordinaten):

...
Look at the equations (the math, instead of the words) you posted: Schwarzschild is using what is presently known as spherical coordinates
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SphericalCoordinates.html
instead of what is presently known as polar coordinates
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PolarCoordinates.html 

(http://ayuba.fr/janus/schwarzschild/schwarzschild-1916a-2.png)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 10/26/2017 03:43 pm
...

Third, the main error everyone did and still does is to posit r is a radius, i.e. a radial distance from a center point, like in a sphere. But r is no a radius, it is a space marker. For r Schwarzschild used the words "polar coordinates" (Polarkoordinaten):

...
Look at the equations you posted: Schwarzschild is using what is presently known as spherical coordinates.

True. But this doesn't change the rest of the explanation, as for negative values of r space coordinates quantities cannot be real, so the choice of terms referring to the concept of a "distance from an origin" is still problematic for the description of r. Only ds has a physical meaning, i.e. a distance quantity. r and t are space and time markers, respectively.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Ricvil on 10/26/2017 03:49 pm
We know the polarization state of photons ( clockwise and counterclockwise) are related with angular moment and helicity.
If a device changes these polarizations states of photons, them in fact some exchanges of angular moment occurs between them.
My question is.
TE and TM states in waveguides and cavities are  other types of polarization, and if a device change one state to another, what type of exchange is occuring, or what is been transfered between the device and and the photons (modes)?
I'm asking because I can see a scenario where inside the fulstrum, two localized resonant modes (one at small flat end, and other at big flat end), can exchange energy like a DIMER, producing a oscilating center of mass.
In fact, this dimer is a asymmetrical dimer, with a TE and a TM localized resonant modes at same resonant frequency.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 10/26/2017 04:17 pm
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Barry-Dummy-Load-RF-Microwave-100-Watt-50-Ohm-DC-3GHz-SMA-M-SWR-1-17/272350381849?hash=item3f69590719:g:Ll8AAOSw0UdXvBYb (https://www.ebay.com/itm/Barry-Dummy-Load-RF-Microwave-100-Watt-50-Ohm-DC-3GHz-SMA-M-SWR-1-17/272350381849?hash=item3f69590719:g:Ll8AAOSw0UdXvBYb)

isn't this one (https://www.ebay.com/p/Barry-Dummy-Load-RF-Microwave-912-0095-100-Watt-50-Ohm-DC-3ghz-SMA/680140650?iid=131333798672) the very same item ?

Well - yes it is apparently the same p/n item (if I am reading the p/n correctly on the one I found).  BUT - the big difference is the unit I listed specifically provides the measured SWR when the unit was tested.   The other unit is likely fine, it does say 100% tested, but does not say explicitly what the result of the test was. 

 I have had some bad experiences with items listed as Working - Tested - Works 100% or similar language which meant they had demonstrated functionality but not performance.   I just like to have as much data as possible on something like this where I don't want to introduce any more problems or errors to a system or waste money.   I usually ask a lot of questions of the vendor if possible when I am not sure.  For both of these items I would likely question the vendors WRT what frequency the test was run at etc.     BTW - there are other dummy loads where the response curve (SWR or RL) is shown vs frequency.   Now that is helpful. 

Fundamentally its a matter of 'you pay your money and you take your chance'.

For other users who may not be familiar with why dummy loads are important - you can destroy an amplifier or RF source very quickly by allowing it to feed RF into either an open circuit or a dummy load which doesn't function correctly .  A few watts of RF - particularly at GHz frequencies, is all it takes. 

graybeardsyseng
Herman
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 10/26/2017 04:47 pm
....
What about r = 0, that is to say R = Rs  ?

It has been shown (reference (http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/2015-ModPhysLettA.pdf)) that a change of coordinates can eliminate this "true" singularity, because such singularity is not really "true" it is caused by a wrong choice of local topology.

The "magical" change of variable is to take:

r = Rs (1 + Log ch ρ)

...

Unfortunately they (http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/2015-ModPhysLettA.pdf) don't achieve this simply by a "magical" change in variables in a conventional metric cosmology.

There is a heavy price to pay.

It is not just topology of conventional spacetime manifolds that others [including Einstein -who read Schwarzchild in the original German] were unable to see.

Instead the way they manage to eliminate the singularity is by using a very unconventional "Janus" Cosmological Model of the universe composed by positive and negative energy (and mass if they own) particles, respectively described separate metrics g(+)µν and g(−)µν , solutions of a coupled field equation system.  https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43501.msg1709505#msg1709505


Their model implies injection of negative energy (and mass if they own) particles in spacetime, considered as a
manifold plus two metrics .  They also had to assume that particles of opposite masses do not interact neither by electromagnetic forces nor strong or weak forces.

There is no physical evidence for such a cosmological unconventional model composed by positive and negative energy (and mass if they own) particles, respectively described separate metrics g(+)µν and g(−)µν

So, they replace one problem deep inside the event horizon of a black hole (the singularity at r=0) with another problem (2 separate metrics, and existence of negative energy) for the whole naked Universe, -which we can see- for which we have no cosmological experimental evidence of existence (aside from a very narrow context: an interpretation of the Casimir effect).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 10/26/2017 05:23 pm
100 W/4 GHz dummy load from ebay

turns out to be not so good. An SWR of <1.2 was given.
Measured with the Windfreak Techn. SynthNV + directional coupler, relative to a 2 W termination of MiniCircuits.
It can be good, see for comparison the (lack of) reflection of the Centric RF 20 W termination, measured in the same setup.
 :(
Anyone with suggestions for a affordable 100 W / 4 GHZ termination?

Peter
Peter,
at which plane (connector) the calibration of the vna was done? Is it the connector at which the load is connected right now with inclusive the additional device shown in the picture? If not please try to calibrate at this connector. The SMA to N interface may also increase the VSWR level.

Hi X_RaY, the calibration was done with the 50Ω directly on the dir coupler. The m-to-m adapter visible in the picture was not between it. But that shouldn't matter with a termination, isn't it?
Nothing is perfect. This type of connectors can cause reflections and small amount of impedance mismatch.  ;)

https://www.rfmw.com/data/Carlisle_RF_Microwave_Adapters.pdf

The load itself also cannot be described as a pure R component. Because of the mechanically parts C and L are not exact zero (feedline, resistor caps and so on), their values are frequency dependent. All this together can lead to the mismatch you observe.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 10/26/2017 05:25 pm
Kinetic energy is not frame invariant, it is a function of velocity which is obviously not frame invariant. It is also not a linear function of velocity, so differences in kinetic energy also cannot be frame invariant.

The change in KE and work done can be frame invarient as follows.

Acceleration causes a change in velocity, which is frame invarient. All frames observe the same change in velocity, the same dV.

Using the dV, the change in KE can be calculated as dKE = m dV^2 / 2. Work done is then equal to dKE.

Therefore dV, dKE & work done are now frame invarient.

QED

Sorry, but it's m*v0*dV +  (m dV^2) /2 using your notation where v0 is the initial velocity as seen by an arbitrary observer. I assume by dV you really simply mean the change in velocity.

The work done is the change in kinetic energy but in general it's computed as 0.5*m*(v2^2 - v1^2) not 0.5*m*(v2 -v1)^2 where 1,2 are initial and final velocities as seen by some observer. Your formula gives 0.5*m*(v2^2 - 2*v2*v1 + v1^2) which amounts to the sum of the kinetic energies minus an interaction term.

I can write it out in your notation which is v1 = v0 and v2= v0 + dV. Then, the work energy theorem becomes Work = 0.5*m*(v0 + dV)^2 - 0.5*m*v0^2 which reduces to m*v0*dV +  (m dV^2) /2. So all observers do agree on the second term which is the work done starting from rest and disagree on the first term which depends on the relative velocity of the observer. So, there is a frame invariant part and a non frame invariant part.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 10/26/2017 06:09 pm
In the typical EMDrive cavity, what typical values of radiation pressure exist on the endplates? I'm guessing it's something on the order of Q* (power/c )/area where area is average area of the endplates. Is that anywhere close to being reasonable? I'm asking about pressure, not thrust. Thanks.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 10/26/2017 06:12 pm
....
What about r = 0, that is to say R = Rs  ?

It has been shown (reference (http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/2015-ModPhysLettA.pdf)) that a change of coordinates can eliminate this "true" singularity, because such singularity is not really "true" it is caused by a wrong choice of local topology.

The "magical" change of variable is to take:

r = Rs (1 + Log ch ρ)

...

Unfortunately they (http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/2015-ModPhysLettA.pdf) don't achieve this simply by a "magical" change in variables in a conventional metric cosmology.

There is a heavy price to pay.

It is not just topology of conventional spacetime manifolds that others were unable to see.

Instead the way they manage to eliminate the singularity is by using a very unconventional "Janus" Cosmological Model of the universe composed by positive and negative energy (and mass if they own) particles, respectively described separate metrics g(+)µν and g(−)µν , solutions of a coupled field equation system.  https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43501.msg1709505#msg1709505

Two distincts things there.

The authors indeed propose both a cosmological model involving negative mass; and a black hole model where the central singularity is eliminated with a change of variable. Both models are of course compatible (i.e. when used together) but one or the other can also exist without the other one being true.

Yes, the "diabolo topology" strongly militates for a connection of two distinct spacetimes. But it could also describe the connection of two distant regions of the same spacetime. Although the second proposition may seem problematic at first due to the lack of any observable white fountain in the universe, this is not such a problem anymore when the process is considered as ephemeral, as radial frame-dragging implies a finite (and quite fast) process.

Both the cancellation of the central singularity (using the proper change of variable) and the finite-time transit (due to radial frame-dragging) are disconnected from the Janus cosmological model roots and could still be used in other frameworks (such as the brane cosmology you and others cited many times in these threads).

So again, the change of variable can be particularly interpreted as a mass inversion process in a finite time transit through an orbifold acting as a one-way membrane triggering CPT symmetry between two spacetimes in the framework of the Janus cosmological model, after Sakharov-Souriau-Petit. But such black hole model with no central singularity is not restricted to this particular cosmological model. They just fit well together and the paper you and I are referring to (Cancellation of the central singularity of the Schwarzschild solution with natural mass inversion process (http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/2015-ModPhysLettA.pdf) indeed makes use of the two models in an interweaved way, as implied by its title).

Quote
Their model implies injection of negative energy (and mass if they own) particles in spacetime, considered as a manifold plus two metrics .  They also had to assume that particles of opposite masses do not interact neither by electromagnetic forces nor strong or weak forces.

This is because gravity is different in essence (Hinted already (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1721974#msg1721974). But you do not agree (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1722265#msg1722265). Although there may be different interpretations (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1722316#msg1722316)?). Gravity is spacetime curvature. Gravity is not mediated by particles following geodesics of spacetime, like photons. Consider models of gravity where one (not two!) manifold includes several metrics. Not a problem for mathematicians. Let's say there are only two metrics: in physics this is a particular form of bimetric gravity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bimetric_gravity) (also called "bigravity"). Negative energy photons and positive energy photons follow null-geodesics of their own metric, that preclude any electromagnetic interaction. This is different for gravity. Being part of the same universe, but not the same metric, positive and negative masses induce spacetime curvature that is felt by both species:

(http://ayuba.fr/janus/conjugate_curvatures/images/curved_spacetime.png)

There you can understand that a mass is not intrinsically "negative" as a mass always induces a positive curvature in its own metric. The negative nature of gravity is also a relativity concept, as a mass is felt as being "negative" only from the point of view of an observer in the opposite metric (a hypothetical red observer made of "negative" mass in the image above would feel the blue Earth, although invisible, as being a concentration of negative mass, from his own point of view). This phenomenon can be described as "conjugate curvatures" or "conjugate geometries": Positive mass here, induces negative mass there.

But the 2D didactic image of a flat bedsheet or wire mesh being distorted is incomplete, as geodesics are different when a positive or a negative curvature is considered. Positive mass locally induces positive curvature in spacetime, i.e. where the sum of angles of a triangle > 180°); although negative mass locally induces negative curvature in spacetime where the sum of angles of a triangle < 180° in such a hyperbolic space the shape of a horse saddle:

(https://i.imgur.com/vy2P76Z.gif)

So keeping in mind that in the Janus model, positive mass there induces negative curvature in the opposite metric, therefore some matter (in yellow below) flowing from one metric to the other (in purple) through a bridge located at the center of a destabilized neutron star (Schwarzschild black hole) can be represented in this 2D animation showing the evolution of conjugate curvatures through the process:

(http://ayuba.fr/janus/conjugate_curvatures/images/conjugate_curvatures.gif)

More explanations there (http://ayuba.fr/janus/conjugate_curvatures/) to prevent this message from becoming too long.

Again, you see a mass is never intrinsically negative. Topology produces only apparent and relative negative curvatures. Instead of introducing "negative mass in cosmology" the Janus model explains the nature of negative spacetime curvature as being a relative concept between two metrics, so everything follows from topology. And is still described by field equations.

Quote
There is no physical evidence for such a cosmological unconventional model composed by positive and negative energy (and mass if they own) particles, respectively described separate metrics g(+)µν and g(−)µν

So, they replace one problem deep inside the event horizon of a black hole (the singularity at r=0) with another problem (2 separate metrics, and existence of negative energy) for the whole naked Universe, -which we can see- for which we have no cosmological experimental evidence of existence (aside from a very narrow context: an interpretation of the Casimir effect).

The existence of singularities are a problem.
The introduction of negative energy in cosmology is not a problem: it is rather the non-observation of theoretically possible negative energy states that is a problem.
Although being theoretically predicted, scientists are satisfied deciding that negative mass does not exist in physics, not only because it is not observed directly, but because of the preposterous Runaway motion paradox arising in general relativity, as described by Hermann Bondi in 1957. It is easier that way, otherwise too much problem.

But the complete Poincaré group describes negative energy and negative mass particles as being real, they are simply the counterpart of all known positive energy particles: electrons, protons, neutrons, photons, neutrinos, etc. but with a negative energy. Discarding this possibility on the altar of Occam's razor is too easy. On the contrary, WIMPs superparticles following from supersymmetry (SuSy) should now be detected already. 40 years AWOL but still considered as "almost around the corner" and "the most plausible explanation for dark matter".

As for the lack of "evidence", your mileage may vary. Any respectable theory has to:
1- be mathematically sound
2- be in agreement with observations
3- make successful predictions
4- be falsifiable with experiments

If a theory agrees with these four points, it should be considered and evaluated accordingly.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 10/26/2017 06:44 pm
...
Both the cancellation of the central singularity (using the proper change of variable) and the finite-time transit (due to radial frame-dragging) are disconnected from the Janus cosmological model roots and could still be used in other frameworks (such as the brane cosmology you and others cited many times in these threads).

...
But (http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/2015-ModPhysLettA.pdf) the spatial coordinate transformation of the central singularity starts with the preamble:

Quote
Now, let us focus on the space part of Schwarzschild’s line element, limited to {r, ϕ} coordinate
(Eq. 9).

and eventually recognize that

Quote
We have to deal with 4D spacetime, not 3D spacetime, which is just a didactic image of such geometric structure.

In General Relativity 4D spacetime is a connected unity (you said previously that what matters is ds). In order to consider 4D spacetime they have to consider the Janus cosmological model bimetric, which includes the negative energy.  So the cancellation of the singularity in 4D spacetime [what we are interested in, in the real universe] needs the assumption of  the Janus cosmological model bimetric, including the negative energy.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 10/26/2017 07:11 pm
...
Both the cancellation of the central singularity (using the proper change of variable) and the finite-time transit (due to radial frame-dragging) are disconnected from the Janus cosmological model roots and could still be used in other frameworks (such as the brane cosmology you and others cited many times in these threads).

...
But (http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/2015-ModPhysLettA.pdf) the spatial coordinate transformation of the central singularity starts with the preamble:

Quote
Now, let us focus on the space part of Schwarzschild’s line element, limited to {r, ϕ} coordinate
(Eq. 9).

and eventually recognize that

Quote
We have to deal with 4D spacetime, not 3D spacetime, which is just a didactic image of such geometric structure.

In General Relativity 4D spacetime is a connected unity (you said previously that what matters is ds). In order to consider 4D spacetime they have to consider the Janus cosmological model bimetric, which includes the negative energy.  So the cancellation of the singularity in 4D spacetime [what we are interested in, in the real universe] needs the assumption of  the Janus cosmological model bimetric, including the negative energy.

You are right. At first, since the change of variable simply boils down in 2D to going from a surface the shape of a sphere, to a surface the shape of a half-torus (sort of) I was thinking that this trick could be used with any model, including a wormhole connecting two distant regions of the universe.

I read again the paper and in this model, this particular topology triggers at least PT-symmetry (both space and time inversions are tightly related) when crossing the throat. And probably complete CPT-symmetry (as suggested by Sakharov) as it has been shown elsewhere that this is indeed the case when one also includes the electric charge (charge conjugation or matter-antimatter symmetry) in a 5D spacetime, using the 5th Kaluza dimension.

Therefore in this model it is a matter of whether or not one considers that the physical meaning of T-symmetry is energy inversion (as showed with dynamical group theory) or if a particle with an opposite arrow of time is still a positive energy particle going backward in time. If T-symmetry physically reverses the mass of particles, and the bridge naturally (topologically) triggers such T-symmetry, then yes, the bridge triggers mass inversion.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 10/26/2017 07:19 pm
...
Therefore in this model it is a matter of whether or not one considers that the physical meaning of T-symmetry is energy inversion (as showed with dynamical group theory) or if a particle with an opposite arrow of time is still a positive energy particle going backward in time. If T-symmetry physically reverses the mass of particles, and the bridge naturally (topologically) triggers such T-symmetry, then yes, the bridge triggers mass inversion.
It is a very interesting discussion, thank you   :) ,  all part of:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/The_Scientific_Method_as_an_Ongoing_Process.svg/450px-The_Scientific_Method_as_an_Ongoing_Process.svg.png)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 10/26/2017 07:39 pm
...
Let's re-capitulate the versions of Mach's Principle listed by Samuel and Bondi:

Mach0: The universe, as represented by the average motion of distant galaxies, does not appear to rotate relative to local inertial frames.

Goedel's metric violates this



Mach7: If you take away all matter, there is no more space.

This is violated by all vacuum solutions, and is particularly violated by Ozsváth and Schücking's because it contains no singularities behind which matter can hide


PS: The discussion above is purely within General Relativity.  When you talk about your EM ZPF you are discussing a different theory.  In General Relativity there is no such thing as Quantum Vacuum.  Quantum Mechanics is separate from General Relativity.   If you consider the EM ZPF to have a ground state with non-zero-density or a fluctuating density around this ground state, then according to General Relativity, the EM ZPF is not a vacuumAccording to General Relativity a vacuum has constant zero density. This is what is meant by Ozsváth and Schücking's solution: it is a solution for a universe with constant zero density.

"constant zero density", are you referring to Mass Density or Energy Density?

An EM field has zero rest mass, which could be interpreted as zero "mass" density, but it has non-zero energy density. The QV has non-zero Spectral Energy Density and we know this to be true "everywhere". So there is no "vacuum solution" that agrees with QED.

It seems to be, both GR and Mach's principle are flawed and outdated, given what we know about the QV. If there is no hope to modify GR without calling it a "different theory", then I have to admit, I profess to disagree with GR. "Nothing can't be curved!"


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 10/26/2017 07:49 pm
...
"constant zero density", are you referring to Mass Density or Energy Density?

An EM field has zero rest mass, which could be interpreted as zero "mass" density, but it has non-zero energy density. The QV has non-zero Spectral Energy Density and we know this to be true "everywhere". So there is no "vacuum solution" that agrees with QED.

It seems to be, both GR and Mach's principle are flawed and outdated, given what we know about the QV. If there is no hope to modify GR without calling it a "different theory", then I have to admit, I profess to disagree with GR. "Nothing can't be curved!"
All  types of energy gravitate (electromagnetic energy gravitates: energy density, Maxwell stress tensor and Poynting vector are all in the stress-energy tensor and hence they count as E/c^2 , as pressure also does).  The only energy not included is the gravitational potential energy.

Yes, given what is known about Quantum Mechanics a unified theory with GR is necessary to understand the Big Bang, what is inside Black Holes, probably to understand Dark Energy and many other things  ;)

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/27/2017 12:32 am
Kinetic energy is not frame invariant, it is a function of velocity which is obviously not frame invariant. It is also not a linear function of velocity, so differences in kinetic energy also cannot be frame invariant.

The change in KE and work done can be frame invarient as follows.

Acceleration causes a change in velocity, which is frame invarient. All frames observe the same change in velocity, the same dV.

Using the dV, the change in KE can be calculated as dKE = m dV^2 / 2. Work done is then equal to dKE.
I am guessing you haven't studied calculus, that is the incorrect way to take a derivative.

The correct answer is dKe/dV = m*v, which is  a function of velocity, not difference in velocity, so by the third or fourth different method, it is still not frame invariant.

Please note, that at this point further "proofs" from you are pointless unless you directly point out something wrong with all of the proofs I have provided. My proofs include directly calculating kinetic energy using the equation for kinetic energy, and I also linked you to a first principles derivation of this equation.

Hi Meberbs,

Change in velocity = final velocity after acceleration - initial velocity before acceleration is frame invarient. Agree?

Therefore the work done to cause the velocity change and associated KE change of the accelerated mass is J = m dV^2 / 2, which is frame invarient.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 10/27/2017 02:07 am
....
What about r = 0, that is to say R = Rs  ?

It has been shown (reference (http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/2015-ModPhysLettA.pdf)) that a change of coordinates can eliminate this "true" singularity, because such singularity is not really "true" it is caused by a wrong choice of local topology.

The "magical" change of variable is to take:

r = Rs (1 + Log ch ρ)

...

Unfortunately they (http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/2015-ModPhysLettA.pdf) don't achieve this simply by a "magical" change in variables in a conventional metric cosmology.

There is a heavy price to pay.

It is not just topology of conventional spacetime manifolds that others were unable to see.

Instead the way they manage to eliminate the singularity is by using a very unconventional "Janus" Cosmological Model of the universe composed by positive and negative energy (and mass if they own) particles, respectively described separate metrics g(+)µν and g(−)µν , solutions of a coupled field equation system.  https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43501.msg1709505#msg1709505

Two distincts things there.

The authors indeed propose both a cosmological model involving negative mass; and a black hole model where the central singularity is eliminated with a change of variable. Both models are of course compatible (i.e. when used together) but one or the other can also exist without the other one being true.

Yes, the "diabolo topology" strongly militates for a connection of two distinct spacetimes. But it could also describe the connection of two distant regions of the same spacetime. Although the second proposition may seem problematic at first due to the lack of any observable white fountain in the universe, this is not such a problem anymore when the process is considered as ephemeral, as radial frame-dragging implies a finite (and quite fast) process.

Both the cancellation of the central singularity (using the proper change of variable) and the finite-time transit (due to radial frame-dragging) are disconnected from the Janus cosmological model roots and could still be used in other frameworks (such as the brane cosmology you and others cited many times in these threads).

So again, the change of variable can be particularly interpreted as a mass inversion process in a finite time transit through an orbifold acting as a one-way membrane triggering CPT symmetry between two spacetimes in the framework of the Janus cosmological model, after Sakharov-Souriau-Petit. But such black hole model with no central singularity is not restricted to this particular cosmological model. They just fit well together and the paper you and I are referring to (Cancellation of the central singularity of the Schwarzschild solution with natural mass inversion process (http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/2015-ModPhysLettA.pdf) indeed makes use of the two models in an interweaved way, as implied by its title).

Quote
Their model implies injection of negative energy (and mass if they own) particles in spacetime, considered as a manifold plus two metrics .  They also had to assume that particles of opposite masses do not interact neither by electromagnetic forces nor strong or weak forces.

This is because gravity is different in essence (Hinted already (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1721974#msg1721974). But you do not agree (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1722265#msg1722265). Although there may be different interpretations (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1722316#msg1722316)?). Gravity is spacetime curvature. Gravity is not mediated by particles following geodesics of spacetime, like photons. Consider models of gravity where one (not two!) manifold includes several metrics. Not a problem for mathematicians. Let's say there are only two metrics: in physics this is a particular form of bimetric gravity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bimetric_gravity) (also called "bigravity"). Negative energy photons and positive energy photons follow null-geodesics of their own metric, that preclude any electromagnetic interaction. This is different for gravity. Being part of the same universe, but not the same metric, positive and negative masses induce spacetime curvature that is felt by both species:

(http://ayuba.fr/janus/conjugate_curvatures/images/curved_spacetime.png)

There you can understand that a mass is not intrinsically "negative" as a mass always induces a positive curvature in its own metric. The negative nature of gravity is also a relativity concept, as a mass is felt as being "negative" only from the point of view of an observer in the opposite metric (a hypothetical red observer made of "negative" mass in the image above would feel the blue Earth, although invisible, as being a concentration of negative mass, from his own point of view). This phenomenon can be described as "conjugate curvatures" or "conjugate geometries": Positive mass here, induces negative mass there.

But the 2D didactic image of a flat bedsheet or wire mesh being distorted is incomplete, as geodesics are different when a positive or a negative curvature is considered. Positive mass locally induces positive curvature in spacetime, i.e. where the sum of angles of a triangle > 180°); although negative mass locally induces negative curvature in spacetime where the sum of angles of a triangle < 180° in such a hyperbolic space the shape of a horse saddle:

(https://i.imgur.com/vy2P76Z.gif)

So keeping in mind that in the Janus model, positive mass there induces negative curvature in the opposite metric, therefore some matter (in yellow below) flowing from one metric to the other (in purple) through a bridge located at the center of a destabilized neutron star (Schwarzschild black hole) can be represented in this 2D animation showing the evolution of conjugate curvatures through the process:

(http://ayuba.fr/janus/conjugate_curvatures/images/conjugate_curvatures.gif)

More explanations there (http://ayuba.fr/janus/conjugate_curvatures/) to prevent this message from becoming too long.

Again, you see a mass is never intrinsically negative. Topology produces only apparent and relative negative curvatures. Instead of introducing "negative mass in cosmology" the Janus model explains the nature of negative spacetime curvature as being a relative concept between two metrics, so everything follows from topology. And is still described by field equations.

Quote
There is no physical evidence for such a cosmological unconventional model composed by positive and negative energy (and mass if they own) particles, respectively described separate metrics g(+)µν and g(−)µν

So, they replace one problem deep inside the event horizon of a black hole (the singularity at r=0) with another problem (2 separate metrics, and existence of negative energy) for the whole naked Universe, -which we can see- for which we have no cosmological experimental evidence of existence (aside from a very narrow context: an interpretation of the Casimir effect).

The existence of singularities are a problem.
The introduction of negative energy in cosmology is not a problem: it is rather the non-observation of theoretically possible negative energy states that is a problem.
Although being theoretically predicted, scientists are satisfied deciding that negative mass does not exist in physics, not only because it is not observed directly, but because of the preposterous Runaway motion paradox arising in general relativity, as described by Hermann Bondi in 1957. It is easier that way, otherwise too much problem.

But the complete Poincaré group describes negative energy and negative mass particles as being real, they are simply the counterpart of all known positive energy particles: electrons, protons, neutrons, photons, neutrinos, etc. but with a negative energy. Discarding this possibility on the altar of Occam's razor is too easy. On the contrary, WIMPs superparticles following from supersymmetry (SuSy) should now be detected already. 40 years AWOL but still considered as "almost around the corner" and "the most plausible explanation for dark matter".

As for the lack of "evidence", your mileage may vary. Any respectable theory has to:
1- be mathematically sound
2- be in agreement with observations
3- make successful predictions
4- be falsifiable with experiments

If a theory agrees with these four points, it should be considered and evaluated accordingly.

My computer is broken so writing from my phone.  Limited in what I can do but wanted to throw in some examples of known negative energy in our vacuum.   https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_energy .  They go over some phenomena like the negative energy associated with gravity, squeezed light, Hawking radiation, quantum field effects, it's seeming necessity for warp drive, ECT.  I wanted to add to it the wierdness in behavior of virtual particles and the time reversal behavior inherent in Feynman diagrams.  The nature of time travel inherent in the Lorentz contraction.  David's video I posted a bit back where a relativistic solution for a charge shows an exotic (negative) mass associated with either a positive or negative charge where large electric fields can give rise to gravitational fields.  A video of an experiment that may be a confirmation of such a field and should be replicatable.  This association of negative mass with a charge sounds a lot like polarization of something in the vacuum that has exotic mass. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 10/27/2017 03:50 am
I am guessing you haven't studied calculus, that is the incorrect way to take a derivative.

The correct answer is dKe/dV = m*v, which is  a function of velocity, not difference in velocity, so by the third or fourth different method, it is still not frame invariant.

Please note, that at this point further "proofs" from you are pointless unless you directly point out something wrong with all of the proofs I have provided. My proofs include directly calculating kinetic energy using the equation for kinetic energy, and I also linked you to a first principles derivation of this equation.

Hi Meberbs,

Change in velocity = final velocity after acceleration - initial velocity before acceleration is frame invarient. Agree?

Therefore the work done to cause the velocity change and associated KE change of the accelerated mass is J = m dV^2 / 2, which is frame invarient.
You are using an equation that both me and Bob012345 explained was wrong from different perspectives (I interpreted your use of variables like dv to be differentials, since that is standard notation. Bob012345 explained it from the perspective that you intended to be writing Δv = change in velocity as you just defined it, which probably was your intention. Note the first post in this thread has a link to help with writing math symbols and Greek letters)

From either perspective, it appears that you did not read our posts since you are still using the equation that we demonstrated was wrong.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/27/2017 04:53 am
I am guessing you haven't studied calculus, that is the incorrect way to take a derivative.

The correct answer is dKe/dV = m*v, which is  a function of velocity, not difference in velocity, so by the third or fourth different method, it is still not frame invariant.

Please note, that at this point further "proofs" from you are pointless unless you directly point out something wrong with all of the proofs I have provided. My proofs include directly calculating kinetic energy using the equation for kinetic energy, and I also linked you to a first principles derivation of this equation.

Hi Meberbs,

Change in velocity = final velocity after acceleration - initial velocity before acceleration is frame invarient. Agree?

Therefore the work done to cause the velocity change and associated KE change of the accelerated mass is J = m dV^2 / 2, which is frame invarient.
You are using an equation that both me and Bob012345 explained was wrong from different perspectives (I interpreted your use of variables like dv to be differentials, since that is standard notation. Bob012345 explained it from the perspective that you intended to be writing Δv = change in velocity as you just defined it, which probably was your intention. Note the first post in this thread has a link to help with writing math symbols and Greek letters)

From either perspective, it appears that you did not read our posts since you are still using the equation that we demonstrated was wrong.

Hi Meberbs,

The calculation of the work needed to be done on the mass to achieve the dV change is correct.

It is also frame invarient and does not need to calc fuel potential energy, fuel mass exhausted nor the fuel mass exhaust velocity.

For a P-P  drive, the equations and method works fine.

So far I know of 4 P-P drive types

1) Shawyer EmDrive
2) Fetta drive
3) White QV drive
4) Woodward MEGA drive

All feature the same effect. Propulsion without needing to exhaust mass. if you still desire to believe none of the 4 work, maybe tell Dr. Rodal the MEGA drive doesn't work.

As I see it, there are 2 ways to calc the work done by P-P drives when they accelerate mass:

1) Work = (N^2 t^2) / 2 m.
2) Work = change in KE via change in velocity.

I prefer the 1st equation as it doesn't need to know velocity.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 10/27/2017 05:05 am
Kinetic energy is not frame invariant, it is a function of velocity which is obviously not frame invariant. It is also not a linear function of velocity, so differences in kinetic energy also cannot be frame invariant.

The change in KE and work done can be frame invarient as follows.

Acceleration causes a change in velocity, which is frame invarient. All frames observe the same change in velocity, the same dV.

Using the dV, the change in KE can be calculated as dKE = m dV^2 / 2. Work done is then equal to dKE.
I am guessing you haven't studied calculus, that is the incorrect way to take a derivative.

The correct answer is dKe/dV = m*v, which is  a function of velocity, not difference in velocity, so by the third or fourth different method, it is still not frame invariant.

Please note, that at this point further "proofs" from you are pointless unless you directly point out something wrong with all of the proofs I have provided. My proofs include directly calculating kinetic energy using the equation for kinetic energy, and I also linked you to a first principles derivation of this equation.

Hi Meberbs,

Change in velocity = final velocity after acceleration - initial velocity before acceleration is frame invarient. Agree?

Therefore the work done to cause the velocity change and associated KE change of the accelerated mass is J = m dV^2 / 2, which is frame invarient.

Do you mean;

d(V2) or (dV)2 ?

The way you write it is not conventional, and it is not at all obvious to be one or the other. Parenthesis do amazing things!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 10/27/2017 05:26 am
All  types of energy gravitate (electromagnetic energy gravitates: energy density, Maxwell stress tensor and Poynting vector are all in the stress-energy tensor and hence they count as E/c^2 , as pressure also does).  The only energy not included is the gravitational potential energy.

Yes, given what is known about Quantum Mechanics a unified theory with GR is necessary to understand the Big Bang, what is inside Black Holes, probably to understand Dark Energy and many other things  ;)

"The only energy not included is the gravitational potential energy." (emphasis mine)

Now I get it! These are vacuum solutions because they do not require any source, no particles, no field, nothing at all. Schwarzschild excludes the mass or singularity and gravitational waves are waves in "empty" space. For some insane reason, someone had this notion that nothingness can have a shape and somehow matter will "know" what that shape is and follow it.

In my QG model, Flat space-time is equilibrium between; matter, the ZPF and the URRF (Universal Radiation Reaction Field). A gradient in this equilibrium "IS" a gravitational field. Therefore, in the model, the ONLY energy in the model "IS" the gravitational potential energy. That is what I'm describing.

So it is exactly that which is excluded in GR. Where, space-time curvature is interpreted as "causative" rather than "descriptive". Is precisely where my model describes the QM of what is happening.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: wicoe on 10/27/2017 05:37 am

The calculation of the work needed to be done on the mass to achieve the dV change is correct.


Regardless of how many times you repeat the same thing, it does not become true.  Your calculation is NOT correct, as has been shown many times.  The work needed to be done to accelerate a mass by dv equals the change in kinetic energy, which is "KE after" minus "KE before", i.e. m*(v0+dv)^2/2 - m*v0^2/2.  This cannot be approximated by m*(dv)^2/2 if v0 is non-zero.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/27/2017 05:44 am
Do you mean;

d(V2) or (dV)2 ?

The way you write it is not conventional, and it is not at all obvious to be one or the other. Parenthesis do amazing things!

Hi WT,

Joules of work done by a P-P drive to alter mass velocity = mass in kgs TIMES (change in velocity (m/sec) squared) DVIDED by 2

Here is an example:

Take the MEGA interstellar ship, mass = 35t. It does a 1km/sec velocity change to match velocity to some object in space. How much work was needed to be done on the ship's mass to achieve the velocity change?

35,000 x (1,000^2) / 2 = 17.5 x10^9 Joules of work was done by the P-P MEGA drive on the ship's mass to achieve the 1km/sec velocity change.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/27/2017 05:53 am

The calculation of the work needed to be done on the mass to achieve the dV change is correct.


Regardless of how many times you repeat the same thing, it does not become true.  Your calculation is NOT correct, as has been shown many times.  The work needed to be done to accelerate a mass by dv equals the change in kinetic energy, which is "KE after" minus "KE before", i.e. m*(v0+dv)^2/2 - m*v0^2/2.  This cannot be approximated by m*(dv)^2/2 if v0 is non-zero.

Hi Wicoe,

Please refer to my example to WT and calc the work needed to be done by a P-P MEGA drive on the 35t ship's mass to achieve a 1km/sec velocity change, so as to match velocity with some object in space.

Using an initial velocity of another rest frame, will generate a different KE change and work done in every rest frame. As there is no fuel mass and no potential energy change of the fuel mass, nor exhaust mass nor mass exhaust velocity to adjust the KE change, how to make each frame see the same change in KE?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Eusa on 10/27/2017 06:40 am
The last gravitational and luminal observations of merging neutron stars falsified bigravity (https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.06394 & https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.07785). Instead of dipole membranes there can be "bigravitational" emergent mechanisms in the Einsteinian monogravity: the info signals of gravitational changes can occur as bias of spherical symmetry in parts of sum curvature. Info signals carries energy and can affect extra or lack of gravitational hyper liquid current in vacuum implicating dark mass or dark energy phenomena.

In the regularly changing galaxial systems info signals form loop structure (spiral galaxies, galaxy clusters, bullet cluster) consisting energy i.e. mass. Between galaxial systems there can be lack of loop structures in respect of vacuum average. Modified gravity without differing gravity scalar-tensor function or acceleration function but with genuine mass, not particle-based but big-loop-based...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 10/27/2017 07:12 am
The calculation of the work needed to be done on the mass to achieve the dV change is correct.
It seems by "the calculation" you are referring to your calculation and you are still ignoring everything that everyone else has said.

I would greatly appreciate it if you could write a post that actually responds to things that you have been told, rather than repeating things repeatedly demonstrated to be wrong.

So far I know of 4 P-P drive types
...
All feature the same effect. Propulsion without needing to exhaust mass. if you still desire to believe none of the 4 work, maybe tell Dr. Rodal the MEGA drive doesn't work.
There are precisely 0 drives demonstrated with propellantless propulsion that have been conclusively demonstrated. I am also fairly certain that Rodal has never claimed that the MEGA drive works via true propellantless propulsion.

As I see it, there are 2 ways to calc the work done by P-P drives when they accelerate mass:

1) Work = (N^2 t^2) / 2 m.
2) Work = change in KE via change in velocity.

I prefer the 1st equation as it doesn't need to know velocity.
The first equation only works in the initial rest frame of the object. I have already demonstrated that fact.
The second is simply not an equation. If by change in velocity, you mean an equation that involves (v2-v1)^2 you are simply wrong. If the equation involves (v2^2) - (v1^2) then it is correct.

Either way, kinetic energy cannot be calculated in a special way for a propellantless drive. Objects do not carry around a flag saying what method was used to accelerate them, so kinetic energy is calculated them same way for all of them, 0.5*m*v^2, and your methods are simply incompatible with this fundamental equation.

35,000 x (1,000^2) / 2 = 17.5 x10^9 Joules of work was done by the P-P MEGA drive on the ship's mass to achieve the 1km/sec velocity change.
This is only true if the ship starts at rest in the relevant frame.

Using an initial velocity of another rest frame, will generate a different KE change and work done in every rest frame. As there is no fuel mass and no potential energy change of the fuel mass, nor exhaust mass nor mass exhaust velocity to adjust the KE change, how to make each frame see the same change in KE?
You are finally starting to see the problem. There is no way to make a true propellantless propulsion obey conservation of energy, since the same work will generate a different kinetic energy in every frame, and there is no propellant to balance this. Your repeated attempts to do so simply result in you using equations that simply give wrong and inconsistent answers.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 10/27/2017 12:51 pm
The last gravitational and luminal observations of merging neutron stars falsified bigravity (https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.06394 & https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.07785).

Let's make it clear that there are two kinds of bimetric gravity theories. "Bigravity" in these papers is about massive gravitons; whereas the "negative mass bigravity" I talked previously is about two coupled metrics with conjugate geometries in a single Riemannian manifold.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 10/27/2017 12:58 pm
Regarding Phil (TheTraveller)'s discussion bringing up the MEGA drive into the fore, the official explanation for the energy generation in the MEGA drive is contained here:

http://ssi.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/SSI_NIAC2017_QandA.pdf

Quote
Q5. Why doesn’t the MEGA drive result in free energy, and therefore used for energy
generation?

The MEGA drive does not violate energy conservation. The kinetic energy comes from the
gravitational field, not from the electrical power applied to the device. There is a large
gravitational potential in the universe we are tapping into to gain kinetic energy of the
device. If we take a small amount of energy, practically no loss will be noticed by the
whole universe. There are far more efficient ways of extracting energy, for example, from
nuclear or solar power. Trying to extract energy from gravitation via the Mach effect is very
inefficient.
The benefit of Mach effect propulsion is to avoid carrying propellant for long space
missions, particularly for interstellar missions.

For emphasis:  << The kinetic energy [of the center of mass of the spaceship] comes from the gravitational field, not from the electrical power applied to the device.>>

This is completely opposed to Roger Shawyer's explanation for the EM Drive, for which Shawyer claims that 100% of the kinetic energy of the [center of mass of a spaceship driven by the] EM Drive comes from electric power supplied to the EM Drive.

Thus it is up to Shawyer to explain (and TT if he wishes) how can the EM Drive result in propellantless propulsion kinetic energy that eventually (after a certain time) must exceed the input electric power, and to address the frame-dependence problem.  This cannot be done on the basis of a completely different model that argues that none of the kinetic energy  [of the center of mass of the spaceship] comes for the electrical power applied to the device.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 10/27/2017 05:04 pm
...
The whole issue reminds me of a quote from, “Thinking fast and slow“, by Daniel Kahneman
...

When you say with certainty that, no acceleration can occur without interacting with something outside the frustum, you are saying you know everything there is to know. If your argument had been phrased as, this is what I believe, rather than as a certainty that implies we already know all there is to know, it would have been better, the way I read your comments.


Daniel Kanehman has a Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, "the dismal science" so called for many reasons (including the fact that one cannot have well-controlled experiments in Economics), including that this prize has the dubious distinction that it has been conferred on the same year to people having diametrically different economic opinions.

What I am saying is not (like you incorrectly claim) that I know everything (I never said that), but that I am confident enough to place a financial bet with you that it will turn out as I wrote concerning conservation of momentum, internal and external fields.  Unfortunately there is no option market to place such a bet at the moment, as I think that it would be a good financially rewarding bet to place  ;) (of course it would be a matter of what would be the odds in such a market...)

....

Dr. Rodal,

I think I must apologize. After your post above I had to go back and re-read the post string leading up to this point. When I used the words, “... you are saying you know everything there is to know.“ I had not intended it as a personal comment. Both in that post and my earlier post where I said, “... This last sentence is once again an arrogant statement...”, I had intended to be referring to the general “voice” I read in the comments I was responding to. I was attempting to point out a difference between statements of certainty, as opposed to generally accepted or as you phrased it above when you said, “... I am confident enough...”.

These are largely theoretical discussions often spanning boundaries between more than one theoretical model. Discussions about the details of interactions which would be taking place under conditions we have not yet experimentally observed in sufficient detail, to know with certainty just what we can know with certainty....

To your offer of a bet, first I am not sure I was challenging CoM, as much as suggesting that we may not know enough to say we know all there is to know about how CoM and CoE fit into the larger context, of some aspects of the heavily theoretical discussions within this thread. Still, I have already placed a significant bet in support of DIY EmDrive experiments, not because I know or even believe there is any useable thrust, but because I saw enough reason to believe there was and remains merit in finding out... one way or the other.

Daniel Kanehman has a PhD in Psychology, not economics where he received a Nobel prize. And his book, “Thinking fast and slow” is about the psychology of critical thinking and decision making. I include again the following quote from his book, "... Which describes a puzzling limitation of our mind: our excessive confidence in what we believe we know, and our apparent inability to acknowledge the full extent of our ignorance and the uncertainty of the world we live in.", because I thought it captured a bit of the point I was attempting to make. An importance in understanding the difference between what we know as a matter of certainty (past experience and observation) and what we believe or think we know, as we project conclusions based on past experience to situations and conditions beyond our experience. Until we power up a functional EmDrive and send it off on a long deep space journey, we cannot know with any certainty, the answer to many of the issues being debated. And even then finding answers will depend on whether whatever we send off into the void is equipped to attempt to answer those questions.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 10/27/2017 07:02 pm
There are precisely 0 drives demonstrated with propellantless propulsion that have been conclusively demonstrated. I am also fairly certain that Rodal has never claimed that the MEGA drive works via true propellantless propulsion.

I'd say some have been shown fairly convincingly if not yet conclusively. But what exactly constitutes a 'true' PP drive? Are you basically saying a 'true' PP drive violates physics or that if it can be explained by an interaction with the universe or some such thing, it's not really a PP drive. Is that part of your basic operating definition? What would you call a working EMdrive, a pseudo, a virtual or an effective PP?

Using an initial velocity of another rest frame, will generate a different KE change and work done in every rest frame. As there is no fuel mass and no potential energy change of the fuel mass, nor exhaust mass nor mass exhaust velocity to adjust the KE change, how to make each frame see the same change in KE?
You are finally starting to see the problem. There is no way to make a true propellantless propulsion obey conservation of energy, since the same work will generate a different kinetic energy in every frame, and there is no propellant to balance this. Your repeated attempts to do so simply result in you using equations that simply give wrong and inconsistent answers.

In answer to both, there is another way. The total change in KE if you include the 'exhaust', however that is interpreted, is invariant but the change in ship KE depends on observer if you include both parts I showed. The 'exhaust' comes from realizing that any force truly operating from within a reference frame is acting like that reference frame has infinite inertia. You can model the situation by assuming the EMDrive conserves momentum with a really really big mass, the reference frame it's in, and let that mass go to infinity in the limit which balances everything out for all observers.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 10/27/2017 07:39 pm
The last gravitational and luminal observations of merging neutron stars falsified bigravity (https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.06394 & https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.07785).

Let's make it clear that there are two kinds of bimetric gravity theories. "Bigravity" in these papers is about massive gravitons; whereas the "negative mass bigravity" I talked previously is about two coupled metrics with conjugate geometries in a single Riemannian manifold.
The bigravity theory made a prediction (now apparently falsified, see EUSA's post: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1742543#msg1742543 ) regarding gravitational waves.

For a fair comparison, one needs detailed time-dependent predictions regarding gravitational waves from the bimetric gravitational theory using the Janus cosmology model.  It is very unclear to me (at least) what are the detailed features of the gravitational waves predicted by this theory.  For another comparison, scalar-tensor gravitational theories have also made (falsifiable) predictions about gravitational waves.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 10/27/2017 07:47 pm
There are precisely 0 drives demonstrated with propellantless propulsion that have been conclusively demonstrated. I am also fairly certain that Rodal has never claimed that the MEGA drive works via true propellantless propulsion.

I'd say some have been shown fairly convincingly if not yet conclusively. But what exactly constitutes a 'true' PP drive? Are you basically saying a 'true' PP drive violates physics or that if it can be explained by an interaction with the universe or some such thing, it's not really a PP drive. Is that part of your basic operating definition? What would you call a working EMdrive, a pseudo, a virtual or an effective PP?
Propellantless propulsion by definition is something accelerating without pushing on anything else. This by definition violates Newton's third law and conservation of momentum, and it is simple to go from there and show it also violates conservation of energy.

I can't answer your question of what to call a working emDrive without knowing how it works. It is much more likely that a working emDrive pushes on something unknown than violates conservation of momentum. It is much more likely than either of those that there is no such thing as a working emDrive, and it is just an experimental artifact.

Using an initial velocity of another rest frame, will generate a different KE change and work done in every rest frame. As there is no fuel mass and no potential energy change of the fuel mass, nor exhaust mass nor mass exhaust velocity to adjust the KE change, how to make each frame see the same change in KE?
You are finally starting to see the problem. There is no way to make a true propellantless propulsion obey conservation of energy, since the same work will generate a different kinetic energy in every frame, and there is no propellant to balance this. Your repeated attempts to do so simply result in you using equations that simply give wrong and inconsistent answers.

In answer to both, there is another way. The total change in KE if you include the 'exhaust', however that is interpreted, is invariant but the change in ship KE depends on observer if you include both parts I showed. The 'exhaust' comes from realizing that any force truly operating from within a reference frame is acting like that reference frame has infinite inertia. You can model the situation by assuming the EMDrive conserves momentum with a really really big mass, the reference frame it's in, and let that mass go to infinity in the limit which balances everything out for all observers.
I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Specifically, I can't parse the phrase "any force truly operating from within a reference frame " in any meaningful way.

Your description of the emDrive at the endbasically is saying that there is something the emDrive is pushing against to balance out energy and momentum. You are referring to what it is pushing against as a "reference frame" but this doesn't make sense because a reference frame is a mathematical construct, not a physical object.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 10/27/2017 07:58 pm
Propellantless propulsion by definition is something accelerating without pushing on anything else. This by definition violates Newton's third law and conservation of momentum, and it is simple to go from there and show it also violates conservation of energy.

I can't answer your question of what to call a working emDrive without knowing how it works. It is much more likely that a working emDrive pushes on something unknown than violates conservation of momentum. It is much more likely than either of those that there is no such thing as a working emDrive, and it is just an experimental artifact.

This is why Rodal explained many times in these threads the difference between a closed system i.e. a true reactionless drive (which could not exist without violating laws of conservation of momentum) VS an open system as represented by a propellantless drive (in the sense the drive would not carry any propellant, i.e. nothing would be thrown off the back of the spacecraft from something stored in a tank aboard; but still this drive would exchange momentum with external mass-energy through a field). That kind of propellantless drive, which would not be reactionless, representing an open system, used to be referred to as field propulsion.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Jim Davis on 10/27/2017 09:00 pm
I have attached his book here...

I note the copyright date is 1995 and it is still available for sale on Amazon and no doubt elsewhere.

I don't think we should be attaching copyrighted material so cavalierly.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 10/27/2017 09:15 pm
"Field Propulsion." That reminds me of a short book that goes into a detailed analysis of "unconventional flying objects." The author, a professional in the field of aerospace, concludes that said objects must utilize a gravitational-like field for propulsion. I have attached his book here, in the hope that it might spur someone to think along a track only slightly different than has been long discussed in this thread, and maybe bring us closer to the resolution of the EM drive conundrum.

Enjoy.

In this book, the author considers the technical feasibility of objects of several tons able to fly silently at very high speeds, at high altitude bur also in dense air, or levitate near the ground without noticing air moving around them. The second proposition disqualifies MHD propulsion (magnetohydrodynamics, also called magnetoplasmadynamics when ionized gas is involved or magnetoaerodynamics in the case of ionized air) that the author simply calls "ion propulsion" and "magnetojet propulsion" because such propulsion system would displace much air around, like a helicopter. So the author thinks that "negative gravity" (i.e. antigravity) is the key.

The problem is, to levitate an object with antigravity in the Earth gravitational field, one would have to make a negative gravitational potential the same magnitude as the local positive gravitational potential produced by the whole Earth. This seems enormous, especially as gravity seems so weak force compared to electromagnetism.

But if negative mass is a bimetric effect of the universe as the hypothesis I presented earlier, an object would not have to create an enormous antigravitational field of the same intensity as Earth gravity to levitate. Such an hypothetical device able to invert its own mass would be attracted by the Earth when its mass is positive but repulsed when its mass is negative. Quickly alternating between positive and negative mass inversions, the object would fall down then up at a rapid pace. One could set the frequency of the mass inversion cycles, either to come down gently or climb the sky, or let the craft hover fixedly above the ground.

Obviously, even if negative bigravity was real, can the mass of a whole object be really inverted, and is the total required energy for such mass inversion relatively limited or necessarily huge… this remain to be answered of course.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 10/27/2017 09:57 pm
The last gravitational and luminal observations of merging neutron stars falsified bigravity (https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.06394 & https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.07785). Instead of dipole membranes there can be "bigravitational" emergent mechanisms in the Einsteinian monogravity: the info signals of gravitational changes can occur as bias of spherical symmetry in parts of sum curvature. Info signals carries energy and can affect extra or lack of gravitational hyper liquid current in vacuum implicating dark mass or dark energy phenomena.

In the regularly changing galaxial systems info signals form loop structure (spiral galaxies, galaxy clusters, bullet cluster) consisting energy i.e. mass. Between galaxial systems there can be lack of loop structures in respect of vacuum average. Modified gravity without differing gravity scalar-tensor function or acceleration function but with genuine mass, not particle-based but big-loop-based...
Is it correct that what has been falsified are theories that predict some gravitational waves travelling at a speed different than c, for example any theory (like bigravity) having massive gravitons, or any kind of massive particle involved in gravitation (that would necessarily imply a gravitational wave speed < c). But theories that involve massless  particles, for example scalar-tensor theories that have dilatons (mass zero, spin zero, closed strings) like Jordan-Brans-Dicke are not necessarily falsified because gravitational waves due to dilatons will also travel at speed c.  Since the Brans-Dicke coupling constant omega > 40,000, the energy involved in such scalar-field dilaton waves would be too small for present gravitational wave detectors to be able to detect.  So scalar-tensor gravitational field theories are still alive.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Stormbringer on 10/28/2017 12:24 am
There is an article out today on physorg about a practical test of quantum gravity. not results; but an outline of how to conduct a test using present day equipment. also in the bottom part with related past articles shows a similar article from about 2012 0r 2013.

https://phys.org/news/2017-10-physicists-quantum-gravity-current-technology.html

And the older article:

https://phys.org/news/2012-01-physicists-loop-quantum-gravity.html#nRlv
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: aero on 10/28/2017 01:43 am
I have attached his book here...

I note the copyright date is 1995 and it is still available for sale on Amazon and no doubt elsewhere.

I don't think we should be attaching copyrighted material so cavalierly.

No, I shouldn't have. How do I un-attach it?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: aero on 10/28/2017 02:53 am
I have attached his book here...

I note the copyright date is 1995 and it is still available for sale on Amazon and no doubt elsewhere.

I don't think we should be attaching copyrighted material so cavalierly.

No, I shouldn't have. How do I un-attach it?

The original post is removed because I don't want to knowingly violate copyright. Others don't seem to have that problem.

http://redwheelweiser.com/downloads/unconventionalflyingobjects.pdf (http://redwheelweiser.com/downloads/unconventionalflyingobjects.pdf)

Original Post.

Propellantless propulsion by definition is something accelerating without pushing on anything else. This by definition violates Newton's third law and conservation of momentum, and it is simple to go from there and show it also violates conservation of energy.

I can't answer your question of what to call a working emDrive without knowing how it works. It is much more likely that a working emDrive pushes on something unknown than violates conservation of momentum. It is much more likely than either of those that there is no such thing as a working emDrive, and it is just an experimental artifact.

This is why Rodal explained many times in these threads the difference between a closed system i.e. a true reactionless drive (which could not exist without violating laws of conservation of momentum) VS an open system as represented by a propellantless drive (in the sense the drive would not carry any propellant, i.e. nothing would be thrown off the back of the spacecraft from something stored in a tank aboard; but still this drive would exchange momentum with external mass-energy through a field). That kind of propellantless drive, which would not be reactionless, representing an open system, used to be referred to as field propulsion.

"Field Propulsion." That reminds me of a short book that goes into a detailed analysis of "unconventional flying objects." The author, a professional in the field of aerospace, concludes that said objects must utilize a gravitational-like field for propulsion. I have linked the book above, in the hope that it might spur someone to think along a track only slightly different than has been long discussed in this thread, and maybe bring us closer to the resolution of the EM drive conundrum.

Enjoy.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 10/28/2017 10:32 am
Warptech - I wouldn't be so hard on GR. Recall the field equation is G=0 in free space. So the vacuum is as you might wish (Ricci) flat, or as flat as it can be given the boundary condition to mesh it with spacetime elsewhere which is locally distorted by the local stress-energy tensor. It is not a stretch to imagine objects responding to the residual distortions of free space which are detectable locally, eg the 'time dilation gradient'.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 10/28/2017 04:32 pm
Warptech - I wouldn't be so hard on GR. Recall the field equation is G=0 in free space. So the vacuum is as you might wish (Ricci) flat, or as flat as it can be given the boundary condition to mesh it with spacetime elsewhere which is locally distorted by the local stress-energy tensor. It is not a stretch to imagine objects responding to the residual distortions of free space which are detectable locally, eg the 'time dilation gradient'.

I think GR is a totally fine "descriptive" theory. It makes falsifiable predictions, and has led to enormous advances in math, physics and geometry.

However, my contention is that it should ONLY be considered as descriptive, not "causative". It is the notion that "empty" space can be curved even where the stress-energy tensor says there should not be "anything" at all! That's what I disagree with and why it's been so difficult for others to quantize the theory. As I said previously, it is that which GR intentionally excludes under the theory of space-time curvature, where the quantum mechanical exchange of energy & momentum takes place. Hence, it is imperative that in order to understand QG, one must reject the notion of space-time curvature as being causative, and realize it is nothing more than ONE interpretation that "describes" the motion of celestial bodies based on the data at hand, but there is nothing conclusively causative about it. I find the hardest part of conveying my model of QG, is that people stubbornly adhere to the idea that space-time has to be curved as a cause, rather than an alternative interpretation.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 10/28/2017 05:02 pm
There are precisely 0 drives demonstrated with propellantless propulsion that have been conclusively demonstrated. I am also fairly certain that Rodal has never claimed that the MEGA drive works via true propellantless propulsion.

I'd say some have been shown fairly convincingly if not yet conclusively. But what exactly constitutes a 'true' PP drive? Are you basically saying a 'true' PP drive violates physics or that if it can be explained by an interaction with the universe or some such thing, it's not really a PP drive. Is that part of your basic operating definition? What would you call a working EMdrive, a pseudo, a virtual or an effective PP?
Propellantless propulsion by definition is something accelerating without pushing on anything else. This by definition violates Newton's third law and conservation of momentum, and it is simple to go from there and show it also violates conservation of energy.

I can't answer your question of what to call a working emDrive without knowing how it works. It is much more likely that a working emDrive pushes on something unknown than violates conservation of momentum. It is much more likely than either of those that there is no such thing as a working emDrive, and it is just an experimental artifact.

Using an initial velocity of another rest frame, will generate a different KE change and work done in every rest frame. As there is no fuel mass and no potential energy change of the fuel mass, nor exhaust mass nor mass exhaust velocity to adjust the KE change, how to make each frame see the same change in KE?
You are finally starting to see the problem. There is no way to make a true propellantless propulsion obey conservation of energy, since the same work will generate a different kinetic energy in every frame, and there is no propellant to balance this. Your repeated attempts to do so simply result in you using equations that simply give wrong and inconsistent answers.

In answer to both, there is another way. The total change in KE if you include the 'exhaust', however that is interpreted, is invariant but the change in ship KE depends on observer if you include both parts I showed. The 'exhaust' comes from realizing that any force truly operating from within a reference frame is acting like that reference frame has infinite inertia. You can model the situation by assuming the EMDrive conserves momentum with a really really big mass, the reference frame it's in, and let that mass go to infinity in the limit which balances everything out for all observers.
I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Specifically, I can't parse the phrase "any force truly operating from within a reference frame " in any meaningful way.

Your description of the emDrive at the endbasically is saying that there is something the emDrive is pushing against to balance out energy and momentum. You are referring to what it is pushing against as a "reference frame" but this doesn't make sense because a reference frame is a mathematical construct, not a physical object.

Thanks for your definition of PP which is not what I mean by the term. I assume a reaction with something. As to my phrase, if I push an object giving it a constant acceleration I must increase my power to maintain that acceleration or it will not continue. If every step I take to push it is from a massive platform co-moving with the object then every step takes the same power and increases the speed by the same amount. If I'm expending the energy I'd rather do it always in the reference frame co-moving with the object. Of course the concept of a reference frame is a construct but a very useful one. There may be no real perfect physical embodiments of reference frames as moving massive platforms one can react against but the jet stream, ocean or river currents carrying ships are practical examples. Launching rockets from a planet already moving with respect to another is also a example meaning you launch from earth and the Moon in certain directions to take advantage of their relative motion. Certainly the concept of the entire universe, if you can react against that, comes the closest.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 10/28/2017 05:24 pm
Definition:

Propellant:  "a substance, usually a mixture of fuel and oxidizer, for propelling a rocket."
" a chemical substance used in the production of energy or pressurized gas that is subsequently used to create movement of a fluid or to generate propulsion of a vehicle, projectile, or other object."



(https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr-marc-technology/rocket_captioned.jpg)

(https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/Images/srockth.gif)

(http://discovermagazine.com/~/media/Images/Issues/2014/May/how-it-works.jpg)

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-upt02kcwS4Q/Uqs-ksFZVuI/AAAAAAAAAp4/pkswe_nlb54/s640/Mf+tank+walls.jpg)

Thus, a propellantless rocket can be understood to be one that does not eject internally stored propellant.

In this definition commonly used by aerospace engineers, solar sails, magnetic tethers, externally directed energy probes (by laser), etc. are propellantless because they do not rely on ejecting (internally stored) propellant, and instead they rely on external fields.

Under this definition, propellantless space drives already exist (examples given above) and respect classical physics. 

These propellantless space drives obey conservation of momentum and conservation of energy.

The examples given rely on external fields.  What makes them propellantless is simply that the acceleration is achieved without ejecting internally stored propellant.

(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/475897main_080421-earthsail_3023x2006.jpg)

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/JIg5t9RYdnM/maxresdefault.jpg)

(https://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/1000_1x_/public/DEEP-laser-sail.png?itok=mfriIGcj)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 10/28/2017 06:15 pm
Warptech - just one part of what you said catches my ear. It seems wrong to expect that space will be minkowski flat, just because stress energy there is zero. Matter is creating real physical effects in its locality, which by continuity at least are present nearby. If the physical effects local to matter are interpreted as spacetime curvature, then the nearby physical effects will/may also seem like curvature.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: mboeller on 10/28/2017 07:22 pm
I have not followed the EM-drive threads closely so I have a question:

was the "photonic" EM-Drive proposal from Travis Taylor already discussed?

I have read about his proposal in the latest issue of the JBIS ( Vol. 70 No. 7) last week.

The article is:  Propulsive Forces using High-Q Asymmetric High Energy Laser Resonators.


I was a little bit flabbergasted about the high Thrust from this proposal (up to 100N/KW of Laser Energy, or 30-50N/KW of electrical energy depending how good the efficiency of Lasers will be in the future). The Proposal is based on the theory from McCulloch.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 10/28/2017 11:45 pm
First time I hear about that paper. And volume 70 no. 7 isn't available on JBIS website yet.

Recalls me some comments I saw in Mike McCulloch's site, referring that some people have been talking to him about his theory's predictions, and thinking about doing experiments with visible light lasers in an optical fiber loop, instead of microwaves in a cavity. A concept called LEmdrive, if I recall correctly, that he proposed on his site some time ago.

I think this is the overall idea description:

http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.mx/2016/07/lemdrive.html
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Augmentor on 10/29/2017 01:08 am
tchernik,

If a light version of the emdrive (actually, just e will do, m is induced), and one used a big laser array such as a Lubin array (UCSB)as the source, and a very large optical circulatory system. one might be able to sail to the stars limited only by the melting point of the mirrors.

DavidM
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 10/29/2017 01:24 am
An update on Jakub and his EmDrive builder team in Poland.

Jamie, Roger and myself are now working with Jakub to ensure his test data is as rock solid as it can be as we know the reception it will receive.

He has done vertical testing and horizontal testing. Vertical testing exhibits strong thrust that gives a result in agreement with the SPR thrust equation. Horizontal testing shows very little thrust.

Further testing is being arranged.

For those wishing to run the resonance numbers, here are the, as manufactured, internal cavity dimensions plus a few images of the test setup and schematic, which is based on the system Jamie has developed and is using the same 30W Rf amp.

Additionally Jakub uses a wireless data link, as can be seen in the horizontal test setup image.

Can add the test rig seems to be very stable and capable of sub 10uN force resolution. It uses 2 ceramic bearings on the centre bar of the balance beam.

Comments most welcome.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 10/29/2017 03:06 am
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.177201

Control of Chiral Magnetism Through Electric Fields in Multiferroic Compounds above the Long-Range Multiferroic Transition

Quote from: Abstract
Polarized neutron scattering experiments reveal that type-II multiferroics allow for controlling the spin chirality by external electric fields even in the absence of long-range multiferroic order. In the two prototype compounds TbMnO3 and MnWO4, chiral magnetism associated with soft overdamped electromagnons can be observed above the long-range multiferroic transition temperature TMF, and it is possible to control it through an electric field. While MnWO4 exhibits chiral correlations only in a tiny temperature interval above TMF, in TbMnO3 chiral magnetism can be observed over several kelvin up to the lock-in transition, which is well separated from TMF.


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 10/29/2017 11:34 am
An update on Jakub and his EmDrive builder team in Poland.

Jamie, Roger and myself are now working with Jakub to ensure his test data is as rock solid as it can be as we know the reception it will receive.

Thank you for this. You don't deliver your own pictures, but sure you help with the data of others.

Quote
For those wishing to run the resonance numbers, here are the, as manufactured, internal cavity dimensions

The internal cavity dimensions lack the internal length of the constant diameter section "cup" at small end. What length this cup is?

In a previous post you deduced from a (quite blurry) freeze-frame of the YouTube video:
Looks to be based on Roger's Demonstrator EmDrive.
Even has the short constant diameter section at the big end, which in the Demonstrator is 1/4 guide wave long.
[…]
This technique was also used by Prof Yang.

Do you confirm or disconfirm that Jakub Jędrzejewski's drive use a short constant diameter section at big end? In the dimension diagram "engine.png" you provided, such constant diameter section after big end is absent.

Knowing all lengths precisely and the operating resonant frequency, does the small end operate "below Shawyer's cutoff" (as you implied in a previous post (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1741101#msg1741101) last week) or not? It seems the estimated dimensions you used to conclude "the small end is below cutoff diameter" were different to the ones you have just provided, so that question is still open.

Then, what is the calculated Df and your predicted thrust force?

Quote
He has done vertical testing and horizontal testing. Vertical testing exhibits strong thrust that gives a result in agreement with the SPR thrust equation. Horizontal testing shows very little thrust.

In which direction does his thruster move: Small or Big end leading?

Assuming it is small end leading for now. Is that vertical thrust "strong" only when small end is pointing upwards (this would be normal, as the buoyancy of the "hot air balloon" effect would make the drive lighter, and heated air convection currents circulating from bottom to top outside the device would slightly help to push it upwards) or also when small end is pointing downwards?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SteveD on 10/30/2017 03:46 am
An update on Jakub and his EmDrive builder team in Poland.

Jamie, Roger and myself are now working with Jakub to ensure his test data is as rock solid as it can be as we know the reception it will receive.

He has done vertical testing and horizontal testing. Vertical testing exhibits strong thrust that gives a result in agreement with the SPR thrust equation. Horizontal testing shows very little thrust.




Comments most welcome.

Have they measured an actual (not net) downward force?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Ricvil on 10/30/2017 03:32 pm
Hi,

This article shows a very interesting relationship between electromagnetic duality and gravitational fields.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5852e579be659442a01f27b8/t/5919d2c929687fd2ca129e68/1494864586253/Agullo_Rio_Navarro_2017.pdf

A special atention to eq (7).

Basically, a change on conservation os state of polarization of light can be linked to the curvature tensor ( Chern-Pontryagin topological density).

I think, this can be a link between a oscilation between TE and TM polarizations states and generation of gravitational fields if, of course, the relation pointed in (7) is always respected.

:)     
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 10/30/2017 04:52 pm
In the typical EMDrive cavity, what typical values of radiation pressure exist on the endplates? I'm guessing it's something on the order of Q* (power/c )/area where area is average area of the endplates. Is that anywhere close to being reasonable? I'm asking about pressure, not thrust. Thanks.

I found my answer here:

http://casa.jlab.org/publications/viewgraphs/USPAS2016/L_10_Fundam_RF_Cav.pdf

For the conditions of the cavity in this tutorial, it's about 3000N/m^2.

Perhaps this tutorial may be if some use to those readers like myself who are not experts in RF.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: oyzw on 11/01/2017 02:29 am
An update on Jakub and his EmDrive builder team in Poland.

Jamie, Roger and myself are now working with Jakub to ensure his test data is as rock solid as it can be as we know the reception it will receive.

He has done vertical testing and horizontal testing. Vertical testing exhibits strong thrust that gives a result in agreement with the SPR thrust equation. Horizontal testing shows very little thrust.

Further testing is being arranged.

For those wishing to run the resonance numbers, here are the, as manufactured, internal cavity dimensions plus a few images of the test setup and schematic, which is based on the system Jamie has developed and is using the same 30W Rf amp.

Additionally Jakub uses a wireless data link, as can be seen in the horizontal test setup image.

Can add the test rig seems to be very stable and capable of sub 10uN force resolution. It uses 2 ceramic bearings on the centre bar of the balance beam.

Comments most welcome.
 
Hello. How much vertical thrust has been achieved?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 11/01/2017 04:48 am
It's a little strange how people working on these experiments are following the same patterns of behavior. Initial efforts are clearly visible, they get to the domain of being ready to actually test something... ...and then they quietly fade away. Every single builder has stopped reporting in after measuring an ambiguous signal - if they don't cease before reporting any test data at all. This has happened far too many times for the past few years now. What's going on, guys?  ???
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 11/01/2017 11:14 am
It's a little strange how people working on these experiments are following the same patterns of behavior. Initial efforts are clearly visible, they get to the domain of being ready to actually test something... ...and then they quietly fade away. Every single builder has stopped reporting in after measuring an ambiguous signal - if they don't cease before reporting any test data at all. This has happened far too many times for the past few years now. What's going on, guys?  ???
Indeed, that 'they quietly fade away' is not a good sign. I would say it is because making the microwave system work is difficult enough, but setting up a good experiment to measure the forces reliably and doing clever measurements and report about them in a clear way, is even harder.

I probably fall into the category 'if they don't cease before reporting any test data at all'. I 'only have to put the parts in the attached picture together on the torsion balance'. It takes a lot of measurements to know the system well, though. Still problems with measuring the delivered power to the resonant cavity in a reliable way, and a dozen other questions to answer before it is useful to put it on the torsion balance. If only I had a few weeks to work full-time on it...  ::)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 11/01/2017 11:26 am
I guess this quote from Collins and Pinch also applies to the EmDrive work:

'Reporting an experimental result is itself not enough to give credibility to an unusual claim. If such a claim is to be taken sufficiently seriously for other scientists even to try to refute it then it must be presented very clearly and with great ingenuity.'
H. Collins & T. Pinch, The Golem, Cambridge Univ. Press; 2 ed. (March 30, 2012).
[in pdf: http://cstpr.colorado.edu/students/envs_5110/collins_the_golem.pdf]
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/01/2017 12:31 pm
Indeed, that 'they quietly fade away' is not a good sign. I would say it is because making the microwave system work is difficult enough, but setting up a good experiment to measure the forces reliably and doing clever measurements and report about them in a clear way, is even harder.

I work on it until i'm frustrated and sick of it, then I usually take a break for a couple of weeks. Other pauses are that I don't have the time because of other projects or vacation.

I'm dealing with two issues right now before I can continue: more natural convection and an antenna self-resonating problem.

Adding the insulation to the draft enclosure greatly reduced the natural convection. But as the on-board electrical components begin to heat up, they cause natural convection of ~3uN after about 15 minutes. So most recently I've added a hefty heatsink to the on-board computer and moved it to the top of the torsional pendulum beam rather than attached to the side. I also want to add a better heatsink to the RF amplifier - perhaps even use the same phase change wax NASA is using. I also need to wrap all the aluminum below and to the sides of the pendulum arm with insulation, which I will probably do today.

In the image below I have the cavity removed so I can work on the antenna.  Roger Shawyer thinks my antenna design, which the Polish group is also using, is self-resonating at a certain frequency rather than exciting the cavity. This makes a lot of sense as Jakub and I are both showing the same ~2.409Ghz -40dB return loss. This is highly unlikely since we have very different geometric dimensions. This was unlucky for me as the spherical end-plate frustum is designed to resonate at 2.405Ghz with mode TE013.  As that may be too close to the resonate frequency of the antenna, it looks like I will need a different antenna. The antenna should still work in the flat end-plate frustum as that cavity was designed to resonate at 2.45Ghz.  My simulations of Jakub's cavity show TE012 at 2.369Ghz, so he is going to try that next instead of 2.404Ghz - though it looks like the small end is a little below cut-off (second image below).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 11/01/2017 12:58 pm
Indeed, that 'they quietly fade away' is not a good sign. I would say it is because making the microwave system work is difficult enough, but setting up a good experiment to measure the forces reliably and doing clever measurements and report about them in a clear way, is even harder.

I work on it until i'm frustrated and sick of it, then I usually take a break for a couple of weeks. Other pauses are that I don't have the time because of other projects or vacation.
...

I didn't had you in mind when I wrote that, Jamie! I know it usually take a couple of weeks before one has something new to report.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 11/01/2017 02:58 pm
I've had to take a break from working on the lab and drive because of health issues. I so wanted to finish my testing and reporting on it. I'm on the mend and will resume in the near future. I don't want chat about my health issues on this forum, it's not the place.

It has been very frustrating for me to step back for a while when so close.

My Very Best,
Shell

It's a little strange how people working on these experiments are following the same patterns of behavior. Initial efforts are clearly visible, they get to the domain of being ready to actually test something... ...and then they quietly fade away. Every single builder has stopped reporting in after measuring an ambiguous signal - if they don't cease before reporting any test data at all. This has happened far too many times for the past few years now. What's going on, guys?  ???
Indeed, that 'they quietly fade away' is not a good sign. I would say it is because making the microwave system work is difficult enough, but setting up a good experiment to measure the forces reliably and doing clever measurements and report about them in a clear way, is even harder.

I probably fall into the category 'if they don't cease before reporting any test data at all'. I 'only have to put the parts in the attached picture together on the torsion balance'. It takes a lot of measurements to know the system well, though. Still problems with measuring the delivered power to the resonant cavity in a reliable way, and a dozen other questions to answer before it is useful to put it on the torsion balance. If only I had a few weeks to work full-time on it...  ::)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: aero on 11/01/2017 04:36 pm
Welcome back, Shell!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: aero on 11/01/2017 05:03 pm
Do we have any measured temperature data from the surface of an operating EM drive frustum? One with corresponding thrust estimates? I would like to see the actual temperature rise during operation if possible.

I know those thrust measurements are rare, and I'm not asking about the temperature of the enclosure, rather, I am asking about the temperature rise in the copper that can be attributed to RF energy loss from the frustum. A thermal video perhaps? Further, a complete map of the surface temperature from an operating frustum would be truly useful. I know that there is a rough data point in the peer-reviewed EW paper. Unfortunately, it doesn't show the end temperatures, and it is from after the conclusion of the run as I understand it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 11/01/2017 06:00 pm
Welcome back, Shell!
Bless your heart Aero... Thanks.

My Very Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThinkerX on 11/02/2017 01:22 am
I've had to take a break from working on the lab and drive because of health issues. I so wanted to finish my testing and reporting on it. I'm on the mend and will resume in the near future. I don't want chat about my health issues on this forum, it's not the place.

It has been very frustrating for me to step back for a while when so close.

My Very Best,
Shell

It's a little strange how people working on these experiments are following the same patterns of behavior. Initial efforts are clearly visible, they get to the domain of being ready to actually test something... ...and then they quietly fade away. Every single builder has stopped reporting in after measuring an ambiguous signal - if they don't cease before reporting any test data at all. This has happened far too many times for the past few years now. What's going on, guys?  ???
Indeed, that 'they quietly fade away' is not a good sign. I would say it is because making the microwave system work is difficult enough, but setting up a good experiment to measure the forces reliably and doing clever measurements and report about them in a clear way, is even harder.

I probably fall into the category 'if they don't cease before reporting any test data at all'. I 'only have to put the parts in the attached picture together on the torsion balance'. It takes a lot of measurements to know the system well, though. Still problems with measuring the delivered power to the resonant cavity in a reliable way, and a dozen other questions to answer before it is useful to put it on the torsion balance. If only I had a few weeks to work full-time on it...  ::)

Welcome back! :)

I hope your health improves soon.

Do you intend to report your results here or elsewhere?  Perhaps have Doctor Rodal do a paper?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: chongma on 11/02/2017 06:48 am
Do we have any measured temperature data from the surface of an operating EM drive frustum? One with corresponding thrust estimates? I would like to see the actual temperature rise during operation if possible.

Both rfmwguy and monomorphic took temperature readings from their frustums during operation.  I am sure monomorphic will take some readings during his next tests if you have a good idea for how to use the data
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 11/02/2017 07:25 am
I work on it until i'm frustrated and sick of it, then I usually take a break for a couple of weeks. Other pauses are that I don't have the time because of other projects or vacation.

Jamie, life always comes first :) and then, by the way, taking a break and "unplugging" ourselves is often useful to reorganize ideas and find solutions; in my experience, solutions come to mind when you aren't thinking at a problem ;)

Adding the insulation to the draft enclosure greatly reduced the natural convection. But as the on-board electrical components begin to heat up, they cause natural convection of ~3uN after about 15 minutes. So most recently I've added a hefty heatsink to the on-board computer and moved it to the top of the torsional pendulum beam rather than attached to the side. I also want to add a better heatsink to the RF amplifier - perhaps even use the same phase change wax NASA is using. I also need to wrap all the aluminum below and to the sides of the pendulum arm with insulation, which I will probably do today.

How long it takes before the rig gets back to normal temperature ? Also, did you consider adding "something" (just thinking loud) to the rig to help cooling down faster after each test run ? I mean fans of whatever to be used after the test run (so that they won't introduce noise) which would help bringing down the temperature at faster rate ?

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 11/02/2017 07:28 am
Do we have any measured temperature data from the surface of an operating EM drive frustum? One with corresponding thrust estimates? I would like to see the actual temperature rise during operation if possible.

I know those thrust measurements are rare, and I'm not asking about the temperature of the enclosure, rather, I am asking about the temperature rise in the copper that can be attributed to RF energy loss from the frustum. A thermal video perhaps? Further, a complete map of the surface temperature from an operating frustum would be truly useful. I know that there is a rough data point in the peer-reviewed EW paper. Unfortunately, it doesn't show the end temperatures, and it is from after the conclusion of the run as I understand it.

If my brain serves me, Jamie (monomorphic) posted some pics of his rig taken using a thermal camera; I can't find them right now, but if you look at Jamie's posts you may find them easily, I think

[edit]

Ok, found the messages, but they weren't related to full runs but to "tap tests" with powered on devices, here we go

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1651022#msg1651022

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1652413#msg1652413

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/02/2017 11:17 am
If my brain serves me, Jamie (monomorphic) posted some pics of his rig taken using a thermal camera; I can't find them right now, but if you look at Jamie's posts you may find them easily, I think

[edit]

Ok, found the messages, but they weren't related to full runs but to "tap tests" with powered on devices, here we go

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1651022#msg1651022

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1652413#msg1652413

Those are old thermal images. These are more recent with the new equipment, but still shows the CPU mounted to the side, which was moved to the top.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star-Drive on 11/02/2017 01:02 pm
Do we have any measured temperature data from the surface of an operating EM drive frustum? One with corresponding thrust estimates? I would like to see the actual temperature rise during operation if possible.

I know those thrust measurements are rare, and I'm not asking about the temperature of the enclosure, rather, I am asking about the temperature rise in the copper that can be attributed to RF energy loss from the frustum. A thermal video perhaps? Further, a complete map of the surface temperature from an operating frustum would be truly useful. I know that there is a rough data point in the peer-reviewed EW paper. Unfortunately, it doesn't show the end temperatures, and it is from after the conclusion of the run as I understand it.

Aero:

I published experimental thermal temp rise data for the Eagleworks TM212 frustum in this forum back in the spring of 2015.  See attached samples from same.  Is that the kind of data you are looking for or something else?

Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 11/02/2017 01:22 pm
I've had to take a break from working on the lab and drive because of health issues. I so wanted to finish my testing and reporting on it. I'm on the mend and will resume in the near future. I don't want chat about my health issues on this forum, it's not the place.

It has been very frustrating for me to step back for a while when so close.

My Very Best,
Shell

It's a little strange how people working on these experiments are following the same patterns of behavior. Initial efforts are clearly visible, they get to the domain of being ready to actually test something... ...and then they quietly fade away. Every single builder has stopped reporting in after measuring an ambiguous signal - if they don't cease before reporting any test data at all. This has happened far too many times for the past few years now. What's going on, guys?  ???
Indeed, that 'they quietly fade away' is not a good sign. I would say it is because making the microwave system work is difficult enough, but setting up a good experiment to measure the forces reliably and doing clever measurements and report about them in a clear way, is even harder.

I probably fall into the category 'if they don't cease before reporting any test data at all'. I 'only have to put the parts in the attached picture together on the torsion balance'. It takes a lot of measurements to know the system well, though. Still problems with measuring the delivered power to the resonant cavity in a reliable way, and a dozen other questions to answer before it is useful to put it on the torsion balance. If only I had a few weeks to work full-time on it...  ::)

Welcome back! :)

I hope your health improves soon.

Do you intend to report your results here or elsewhere?  Perhaps have Doctor Rodal do a paper?
Thanks.

I'll do my paper and report here, as I've always intended. As far as Dr. Rodal, I can't speak for him.

My Very Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 11/02/2017 01:49 pm
If my brain serves me, Jamie (monomorphic) posted some pics of his rig taken using a thermal camera; I can't find them right now, but if you look at Jamie's posts you may find them easily, I think

[edit]

Ok, found the messages, but they weren't related to full runs but to "tap tests" with powered on devices, here we go

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1651022#msg1651022

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1652413#msg1652413

Those are old thermal images. These are more recent with the new equipment, but still shows the CPU mounted to the side, which was moved to the top.

I suppose the pics are referred to an "unpowered" (cavity) test, since neither the cavity nor the dummy load show heat signatures

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: aero on 11/02/2017 08:57 pm
Do we have any measured temperature data from the surface of an operating EM drive frustum? One with corresponding thrust estimates? I would like to see the actual temperature rise during operation if possible.

I know those thrust measurements are rare, and I'm not asking about the temperature of the enclosure, rather, I am asking about the temperature rise in the copper that can be attributed to RF energy loss from the frustum. A thermal video perhaps? Further, a complete map of the surface temperature from an operating frustum would be truly useful. I know that there is a rough data point in the peer-reviewed EW paper. Unfortunately, it doesn't show the end temperatures, and it is from after the conclusion of the run as I understand it.

Aero:

I published experimental thermal temp rise data for the Eagleworks TM212 frustum in this forum back in the spring of 2015.  See attached samples from same.  Is that the kind of data you are looking for or something else?

Best, Paul M.

Yes, Thanks, Paul.

It is likely not enough for detailed calculations. (I forgot to ask about the quality factor, was it on the order of 7000 for these runs?) That's OK because I'm not sure how to run the calculations anyway. But it is enough to illustrate the thought and question that I want to ask about.

The thing is, the frustum is warmer at the big end than the small end so RF energy is being dissipated preferentially at the big end. Inside the frustum, doesn't that mean that the reflection coefficient is lower at the big end than the small end? If I'm reading the images right, the big end temperature rise is 6.6 K while the small end temperature is effectively unchanged. I will assume from this that the reflection coefficient at the small end is near enough to one as to make no difference while at the large end something on the order of 100 watts is being dissipated.

Now, I know that there are many ways to cause the reflection coefficient to differ end to end, one way is to use different end materials for example. Another way is to highly buff one end only.  But that is not the case with this data. It seems to me from the temperature data, that another way to make the reflection coefficient differ is to operate one end of the frustum near the cut-off frequency.

The reflection coefficient is a wave phenomenon. Proceeding with the thought and using Q = energy stored/energy lost per second gives Q = power stored/power lost, so power stored = Q * power lost. With Q = 7000 and drive power (power lost) = 100W, power stored = a big number. 0.7 MW.  If the reflection coefficient at the small end = 1, then the reflection coefficient at the big end seems to equal (power stored - power lost)/power stored which is (1 - 1/Q), or in this case 0.99986.

Taking a step further out on the limb, using radiation pressure, P = Ef/c (Ef is radiation intensity) and for a perfectly reflected wave, P = 2*Ef/c and introducing the reflection coefficient,  Γ, calculate the internal pressures on the ends of the frustum as:
Pressure Force, P = 2 *Γ *Ef/c . I have arbitrarily introduced the reflection coefficient as it seems right to me.

But I must take another step. Ef is defined as radiation intensity, in units of N/m^2 and I have E on the ends of the frustum. I'm guessing that the frustum end diameters are:   inside big dia.   = 0.25552668 ;   inside small dia. = 0.15875 from my meep control file for the Brady cavity. Those numbers give A_be = 0.0513 and A_se = 0.0198 m^2. This gives
big end intensity, Ef_be = 1.37E+7 and
small end intensity, Ef_se = 3.54 E+7
Factoring these parameters into the pressure force equation and using differential pressure, delta P = P_se - P_be gives
delta P = 2 * ( Ef_se - Γ * Ef_be)/c . This is now in units of N/m^2 though and I need total. Maybe the best shot is simply to use total stored energy and not factor areas into then back out of the equation and call it Thrust.

Thrust = 2 * 0.7E+6* (1 - Γ ) / c

This number calculates to 0.667 micro-N. That is different than 83.6 micro-Newtons from Paul's temperature image data.

Lots of problems here. It gives the wrong answer by 2 orders of magnitude. That could be due to miss treatment of the areas of the two ends, or perhaps the Q value is wrong, or maybe the experimental force number is not the right data point to use, or maybe the temperatures were measured too long after power-off allowing too much heat to be conducted away/lost from the ends which would give the wrong ratio of reflection coefficients.  Or maybe there is nothing to it at all. Lots of models can easily fit one data point. Still, I would like some input from the forum.

I found some related stuff here - https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1310.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1310.pdf)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 11/02/2017 11:28 pm
Interesting discussion starting at around 19:11. It's about cone geodesics. A straight line on the surface of the cone looks curved to us but not to something on the cone. A good intuition builder I suppose if one wants to think about things this way.

https://youtu.be/Xc4xYacTu-E

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/03/2017 12:36 am
More progress on the insulation. All components have been placed back onto the torsional pendulum after some testing with the antenna indicates that it is not self-resonating, and there is a reasonable field in the cavity.

I would still like to improve the heat sink on the main amplifier.  :-[
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tleach on 11/03/2017 12:57 am

Yes, Thanks, Paul.

It is likely not enough for detailed calculations. (I forgot to ask about the quality factor, was it on the order of 7000 for these runs?) That's OK because I'm not sure how to run the calculations anyway. But it is enough to illustrate the thought and question that I want to ask about.

The thing is, the frustum is warmer at the big end than the small end so RF energy is being dissipated preferentially at the big end. Inside the frustum, doesn't that mean that the reflection coefficient is lower at the big end than the small end? If I'm reading the images right, the big end temperature rise is 6.6 K while the small end temperature is effectively unchanged. I will assume from this that the reflection coefficient at the small end is near enough to one as to make no difference while at the large end something on the order of 100 watts is being dissipated.

Now, I know that there are many ways to cause the reflection coefficient to differ end to end, one way is to use different end materials for example. Another way is to highly buff one end only.  But that is not the case with this data. It seems to me from the temperature data, that another way to make the reflection coefficient differ is to operate one end of the frustum near the cut-off frequency.

The reflection coefficient is a wave phenomenon. Proceeding with the thought and using Q = energy stored/energy lost per second gives Q = power stored/power lost, so power stored = Q * power lost. With Q = 7000 and drive power (power lost) = 100W, power stored = a big number. 0.7 MW.  If the reflection coefficient at the small end = 1, then the reflection coefficient at the big end seems to equal (power stored - power lost)/power stored which is (1 - 1/Q), or in this case 0.99986.

Taking a step further out on the limb, using radiation pressure, P = Ef/c (Ef is radiation intensity) and for a perfectly reflected wave, P = 2*Ef/c and introducing the reflection coefficient,  Γ, calculate the internal pressures on the ends of the frustum as:
Pressure Force, P = 2 *Γ *Ef/c . I have arbitrarily introduced the reflection coefficient as it seems right to me.

But I must take another step. Ef is defined as radiation intensity, in units of N/m^2 and I have E on the ends of the frustum. I'm guessing that the frustum end diameters are:   inside big dia.   = 0.25552668 ;   inside small dia. = 0.15875 from my meep control file for the Brady cavity. Those numbers give A_be = 0.0513 and A_se = 0.0198 m^2. This gives
big end intensity, Ef_be = 1.37E+7 and
small end intensity, Ef_se = 3.54 E+7
Factoring these parameters into the pressure force equation and using differential pressure, delta P = P_se - P_be gives
delta P = 2 * ( Ef_se - Γ * Ef_be)/c . This is now in units of N/m^2 though and I need total. Maybe the best shot is simply to use total stored energy and not factor areas into then back out of the equation and call it Thrust.

Thrust = 2 * 0.7E+6* (1 - Γ ) / c

This number calculates to 0.667 micro-N. That is different than 83.6 micro-Newtons from Paul's temperature image data.

Lots of problems here. It gives the wrong answer by 2 orders of magnitude. That could be due to miss treatment of the areas of the two ends, or perhaps the Q value is wrong, or maybe the experimental force number is not the right data point to use, or maybe the temperatures were measured too long after power-off allowing too much heat to be conducted away/lost from the ends which would give the wrong ratio of reflection coefficients.  Or maybe there is nothing to it at all. Lots of models can easily fit one data point. Still, I would like some input from the forum.

I found some related stuff here - https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1310.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1310.pdf)

I came across this a couple of weeks ago. I don't remember if I ever saw it brought up on the forums and the math is way beyond me, but the author's conclusion is that the radiation pressure always ends up canceling out once all of the factors are accounted for.

Might be worth it for you to take a look at if you're headed down this particular rabbit hole  ;)

http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html (http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html)

Quote
Proof of zero force for any shape of cavity

Despite the asymmetry of our truncated spherical cone along the z-axis, the net force from radiation pressure on its walls is zero. How can we be sure, though, that there isn’t some other shape that will yield a non-zero net force?

To see what the net force will be in a resonant cavity of a completely arbitrary shape, we need to construct the stress tensor [10] for the electromagnetic field. This can be defined as a three-by-three matrix T with components:

Tij = (ε0 / 2) [ (E2 + c2 B2) δij – 2 EiEj – 2 c2 BiBj ]
The subscripts i and j range from 1 to 3, and correspond to the Cartesian x, y and z coordinates. The symbol δij is the Kronecker delta, equal to 1 if i=j, and 0 otherwise.

If we have a small area whose unit normal vector is n, then the force per unit area due to the electromagnetic field in a region that n points away from is equal to Tn, where we multiply the matrix T and the vector n in the usual way. A careful analysis of any scenario involving an electromagnetic field will yield a force in agreement with this formula [11] (but note that there are other sign conventions in use, where T is defined to be the opposite of the matrix given here, and the force is measured across a surface element facing in the opposite direction).

Now, suppose we take one of the rows of T, and, treating it as a vector field, compute its divergence. For example, if we take the first row:

div T1 = ∂T11 / ∂x + ∂T12 / ∂y + ∂T13 / ∂z
It’s a tedious but straightforward calculation to evaluate this as:

div T1 = ε0 [ – E1 (div E) + E2 (curl E)3 – E3 (curl E)2 – c2 B1 (div B) + c2 B2 (curl B)3 – c2 B3 (curl B)2 ]
We get similar results for the divergence of the other rows, and we can package all three results quite compactly as:

div T = ε0 [ E × (curl E) + c2 B × (curl B) – (div E) E – c2 (div B) B ]
where “×” here indicates the vector cross product.

Maxwell’s equations tell us that div B is zero everywhere, and that in the absence of charges (as in the interior of our cavity) div E is also zero. The curls of B and E, in the absence of currents (which again holds true in the interior of our cavity), are linked to the rates of change of E and B:

c2 curl B = ∂E / ∂t
curl E = –∂B / ∂t
So we have:

div T = ε0 [ –E × (∂B / ∂t) + B × (∂E / ∂t) ]
= –ε0 ∂[E × B] / ∂t
= –(1/c2) ∂S / ∂t
where S = c2 ε0 E × B
The vector field S is known as the Poynting vector, and it describes the rate of flow of energy per unit area in an electromagnetic field. The quantity S/c2 gives the momentum per unit volume contained in the field.

If we apply Gauss’s Theorem to the integral over the walls of an arbitrarily-shaped cavity of any one of the rows of T, say Ti, we obtain:

(Net force)i = ∫wall Ti · dA = ∫interior div Ti dV = –(1/c2) ∫interior (∂Si / ∂t) dV
If the cavity contains a standing wave, then the fields will have a harmonic time dependence of the form sin(ωt) or cos(ωt), and over one complete cycle of the mode, a period of 2π/ω, all the fields will return to their origin values. So at each point in the interior of the cavity, we will have:

∫cycle (∂Si / ∂t) dt = Si(t0+2π/ω) – Si(t0) = 0
So, averaged over a complete cycle in the same way, each component of the net force on the wall will sum to zero.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: aero on 11/03/2017 02:46 am

Yes, Thanks, Paul.

It is likely not enough for detailed calculations. (I forgot to ask about the quality factor, was it on the order of 7000 for these runs?) That's OK because I'm not sure how to run the calculations anyway. But it is enough to illustrate the thought and question that I want to ask about.

The thing is, the frustum is warmer at the big end than the small end so RF energy is being dissipated preferentially at the big end. Inside the frustum, doesn't that mean that the reflection coefficient is lower at the big end than the small end? If I'm reading the images right, the big end temperature rise is 6.6 K while the small end temperature is effectively unchanged. I will assume from this that the reflection coefficient at the small end is near enough to one as to make no difference while at the large end something on the order of 100 watts is being dissipated.

Now, I know that there are many ways to cause the reflection coefficient to differ end to end, one way is to use different end materials for example. Another way is to highly buff one end only.  But that is not the case with this data. It seems to me from the temperature data, that another way to make the reflection coefficient differ is to operate one end of the frustum near the cut-off frequency.

The reflection coefficient is a wave phenomenon. Proceeding with the thought and using Q = energy stored/energy lost per second gives Q = power stored/power lost, so power stored = Q * power lost. With Q = 7000 and drive power (power lost) = 100W, power stored = a big number. 0.7 MW.  If the reflection coefficient at the small end = 1, then the reflection coefficient at the big end seems to equal (power stored - power lost)/power stored which is (1 - 1/Q), or in this case 0.99986.

Taking a step further out on the limb, using radiation pressure, P = Ef/c (Ef is radiation intensity) and for a perfectly reflected wave, P = 2*Ef/c and introducing the reflection coefficient,  Γ, calculate the internal pressures on the ends of the frustum as:
Pressure Force, P = 2 *Γ *Ef/c . I have arbitrarily introduced the reflection coefficient as it seems right to me.

But I must take another step. Ef is defined as radiation intensity, in units of N/m^2 and I have E on the ends of the frustum. I'm guessing that the frustum end diameters are:   inside big dia.   = 0.25552668 ;   inside small dia. = 0.15875 from my meep control file for the Brady cavity. Those numbers give A_be = 0.0513 and A_se = 0.0198 m^2. This gives
big end intensity, Ef_be = 1.37E+7 and
small end intensity, Ef_se = 3.54 E+7
Factoring these parameters into the pressure force equation and using differential pressure, delta P = P_se - P_be gives
delta P = 2 * ( Ef_se - Γ * Ef_be)/c . This is now in units of N/m^2 though and I need total. Maybe the best shot is simply to use total stored energy and not factor areas into then back out of the equation and call it Thrust.

Thrust = 2 * 0.7E+6* (1 - Γ ) / c

This number calculates to 0.667 micro-N. That is different than 83.6 micro-Newtons from Paul's temperature image data.

Lots of problems here. It gives the wrong answer by 2 orders of magnitude. That could be due to miss treatment of the areas of the two ends, or perhaps the Q value is wrong, or maybe the experimental force number is not the right data point to use, or maybe the temperatures were measured too long after power-off allowing too much heat to be conducted away/lost from the ends which would give the wrong ratio of reflection coefficients.  Or maybe there is nothing to it at all. Lots of models can easily fit one data point. Still, I would like some input from the forum.

I found some related stuff here - https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1310.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1310.pdf)

I came across this a couple of weeks ago. I don't remember if I ever saw it brought up on the forums and the math is way beyond me, but the author's conclusion is that the radiation pressure always ends up canceling out once all of the factors are accounted for.

Might be worth it for you to take a look at if you're headed down this particular rabbit hole  ;)

http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html (http://www.gregegan.net/SCIENCE/Cavity/Cavity.html)

Quote
Proof of zero force for any shape of cavity

Despite the asymmetry of our truncated spherical cone along the z-axis, the net force from radiation pressure on its walls is zero. How can we be sure, though, that there isn’t some other shape that will yield a non-zero net force?

To see what the net force will be in a resonant cavity of a completely arbitrary shape, we need to construct the stress tensor [10] for the electromagnetic field. This can be defined as a three-by-three matrix T with components:

Tij = (ε0 / 2) [ (E2 + c2 B2) δij – 2 EiEj – 2 c2 BiBj ]
The subscripts i and j range from 1 to 3, and correspond to the Cartesian x, y and z coordinates. The symbol δij is the Kronecker delta, equal to 1 if i=j, and 0 otherwise.

If we have a small area whose unit normal vector is n, then the force per unit area due to the electromagnetic field in a region that n points away from is equal to Tn, where we multiply the matrix T and the vector n in the usual way. A careful analysis of any scenario involving an electromagnetic field will yield a force in agreement with this formula [11] (but note that there are other sign conventions in use, where T is defined to be the opposite of the matrix given here, and the force is measured across a surface element facing in the opposite direction).

Now, suppose we take one of the rows of T, and, treating it as a vector field, compute its divergence. For example, if we take the first row:

div T1 = ∂T11 / ∂x + ∂T12 / ∂y + ∂T13 / ∂z
It’s a tedious but straightforward calculation to evaluate this as:

div T1 = ε0 [ – E1 (div E) + E2 (curl E)3 – E3 (curl E)2 – c2 B1 (div B) + c2 B2 (curl B)3 – c2 B3 (curl B)2 ]
We get similar results for the divergence of the other rows, and we can package all three results quite compactly as:

div T = ε0 [ E × (curl E) + c2 B × (curl B) – (div E) E – c2 (div B) B ]
where “×” here indicates the vector cross product.

Maxwell’s equations tell us that div B is zero everywhere, and that in the absence of charges (as in the interior of our cavity) div E is also zero. The curls of B and E, in the absence of currents (which again holds true in the interior of our cavity), are linked to the rates of change of E and B:

c2 curl B = ∂E / ∂t
curl E = –∂B / ∂t
So we have:

div T = ε0 [ –E × (∂B / ∂t) + B × (∂E / ∂t) ]
= –ε0 ∂[E × B] / ∂t
= –(1/c2) ∂S / ∂t
where S = c2 ε0 E × B
The vector field S is known as the Poynting vector, and it describes the rate of flow of energy per unit area in an electromagnetic field. The quantity S/c2 gives the momentum per unit volume contained in the field.

If we apply Gauss’s Theorem to the integral over the walls of an arbitrarily-shaped cavity of any one of the rows of T, say Ti, we obtain:

(Net force)i = ∫wall Ti · dA = ∫interior div Ti dV = –(1/c2) ∫interior (∂Si / ∂t) dV
If the cavity contains a standing wave, then the fields will have a harmonic time dependence of the form sin(ωt) or cos(ωt), and over one complete cycle of the mode, a period of 2π/ω, all the fields will return to their origin values. So at each point in the interior of the cavity, we will have:

∫cycle (∂Si / ∂t) dt = Si(t0+2π/ω) – Si(t0) = 0
So, averaged over a complete cycle in the same way, each component of the net force on the wall will sum to zero.

I respect Greg Egan, and I am familiar with the quoted paper. In this case the statement - quoting

 "If the cavity contains a standing wave, then the fields will have a harmonic time dependence of the form sin(ωt) or cos(ωt), and over one complete cycle of the mode, a period of 2π/ω, all the fields will return to their origin values. So at each point in the interior of the cavity, we will have:
     ∫cycle (∂Si / ∂t) dt = Si(t0+2π/ω) – Si(t0) = 0
So, averaged over a complete cycle in the same way, each component of the net force on the wall will sum to zero."

does not agree in the general case with the paper
arXiv:0807.1310v5  [physics.class-ph]  21 Nov 2008
The Lorentz Force and the Radiation Pressure of Light
Tony Rothman∗ and Stephen Boughn†

Which I linked. Again https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1310.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1310.pdf)

Check equation 2.3 and figures 2 and 3 of this link. The authors show that the pressure parallel to the z-axis averages to zero only in the special case where the phase angle equals pi/2. Even in that case, there is a non-zero average force in the off-axis direction. But if you read the linked paper from the beginning you will quickly understand why knowledgeable people with training in EM physics make this mistake.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tleach on 11/03/2017 03:07 am

I respect Greg Egan, and I am familiar with the quoted paper. In this case the statement - quoting

 "If the cavity contains a standing wave, then the fields will have a harmonic time dependence of the form sin(ωt) or cos(ωt), and over one complete cycle of the mode, a period of 2π/ω, all the fields will return to their origin values. So at each point in the interior of the cavity, we will have:
     ∫cycle (∂Si / ∂t) dt = Si(t0+2π/ω) – Si(t0) = 0
So, averaged over a complete cycle in the same way, each component of the net force on the wall will sum to zero."

does not agree in the general case with the paper
arXiv:0807.1310v5  [physics.class-ph]  21 Nov 2008
The Lorentz Force and the Radiation Pressure of Light
Tony Rothman∗ and Stephen Boughn†

Which I linked. Again https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1310.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1310.pdf)

Check equation 2.3 and figures 2 and 3 of this link. The authors show that the pressure parallel to the z-axis averages to zero only in the special case where the phase angle equals pi/2. Even in that case, there is a non-zero average force in the off-axis direction. But if you read the linked paper from the beginning you will quickly understand why knowledgeable people with training in EM physics make this mistake.

Thanks for pointing out that link again. I was reading on my phone at Dairy Queen while "helping" my daughter eat her strawberry sundae... Didn't even see the link, let alone read it, let alone understand it. So, I'll at least try to read it before I put my foot in my mouth again.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: aero on 11/03/2017 03:22 am
@ tleach
No foot in mouth - Egan's conclusion is completely understandable in light of the information from the linked paper. It is rare that anyone questions the basics that they learned their freshman year. Fortunately, it is also rare that they were taught an erroneous, or more charitably, an oversimplified solution to a basic phenomenon.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 11/03/2017 03:29 am
Indeed, that 'they quietly fade away' is not a good sign. I would say it is because making the microwave system work is difficult enough, but setting up a good experiment to measure the forces reliably and doing clever measurements and report about them in a clear way, is even harder.

I work on it until i'm frustrated and sick of it, then I usually take a break for a couple of weeks. Other pauses are that I don't have the time because of other projects or vacation.

I'm dealing with two issues right now before I can continue: more natural convection and an antenna self-resonating problem.

Adding the insulation to the draft enclosure greatly reduced the natural convection. But as the on-board electrical components begin to heat up, they cause natural convection of ~3uN after about 15 minutes. So most recently I've added a hefty heatsink to the on-board computer and moved it to the top of the torsional pendulum beam rather than attached to the side. I also want to add a better heatsink to the RF amplifier - perhaps even use the same phase change wax NASA is using. I also need to wrap all the aluminum below and to the sides of the pendulum arm with insulation, which I will probably do today.

In the image below I have the cavity removed so I can work on the antenna.  Roger Shawyer thinks my antenna design, which the Polish group is also using, is self-resonating at a certain frequency rather than exciting the cavity. This makes a lot of sense as Jakub and I are both showing the same ~2.409Ghz -40dB return loss. This is highly unlikely since we have very different geometric dimensions. This was unlucky for me as the spherical end-plate frustum is designed to resonate at 2.405Ghz with mode TE013.  As that may be too close to the resonate frequency of the antenna, it looks like I will need a different antenna. The antenna should still work in the flat end-plate frustum as that cavity was designed to resonate at 2.45Ghz.  My simulations of Jakub's cavity show TE012 at 2.369Ghz, so he is going to try that next instead of 2.404Ghz - though it looks like the small end is a little below cut-off (second image below).

Jamie - are you using a loop antenna?   Sorry but I have forgotten. 

 If so it can likely be analyzed as a single coil inductor - probably treated as a helical transmission line since typically above 1Ghz lumped components must usually be addressed as transmission lines.   In any case it should be  relatively simple to move the self resonance frequency (SRF) with a bit of capacitance (treat this as an  open circuit transmission line).   

If you are using a 1/4 lambda spike or wheel antenna that is somewhat different. 
Herman
graybeardsyseng
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 11/03/2017 04:29 am
this site seems to have been updated

any views on what Richard Banduric proposes?

http://electricspacecraft.org/

Hi Amit.  I was thinking about the possibility.  At the moment I think the propulsion (spinning charged disk with non-spinning charged disk) may be possible to describe with a classical understanding of E&M though I remain uncertain of the propulsion possibility.  Any motion through an existing electric field gives a magnetic field.  First I have my reasons to believe this magnetic field does not rotate via my thesis experiments, but 1st I will later introduce a possible alternative via a time helix leading to non-charge conservation (I don't think this likely - there are some tight restrictions on charge conservation - thermal charge of the atom for instance) and 2nd - pancaking of charge electric fields with out pancaking of the disk. 

This magnetic field via moving through the static charge field describes the relativistic aspects of the charges that give off their electric field.  Motion through this induced magnetic field via motion through the electric field (-v x E = B) then (v x B = E) describes the Lorentz contraction of the object holding the charges. 

The rotating disk is rotating through the electric field from the disk below so it sees a relativistic length contraction of the non-rotating disk but each charge in this rotating disk sees a different length contracted non-rotating disk because each charge has a different direction of velocity.  So the "oval" of the non-rotating Lorentz contracted disk changes in orientation depending on the observing charge. 

As a result the entire rotating disk experiences a greater electric field than the disk below.  The reason the disk below should not see the increased E field is because it is not rotating through the above disks non-rotating magnetic field which means no relativistic effects. 

As a result there is a non-symmetric extra force on the rotating disk where there is a lack of an equal and opposite force on the non-rotating disk. 

If such a configuration did experience a thrust it would indicate this may be what is happening. 

However, if there is no extra thrust force then there are some other possibilities.  The first I consider shaky which I will go over first.  The 1st possibility is a time helix, which may introduce extra charge.  This may possibly describe a rotating magnetic field which I would be fascinated to observe.  I think only possible with rotating space time but that is for another time.

The rotating disk with charge would appear to the non-rotating disk below to acquire extra charge via extra charge from the past (time helix).  This would indicate some form of non-charge conservation and it may cancel/partly-cancel out thrust effects but that would need to be determined by experiment. 

I may have observed such a time helix possibly in my thesis experiment.  It didn't effect my measurement of if the magnetic field was axially rotating, so I didn't bother with it.  At the time I didn't know exactly what it was but now I realize it may have been such a helix or the 2nd possibility.  (I did a prediction on the 2nd possibility and it was close didn't do the time helix.)

I had a solenoid surrounded by a very large low capacitance capacitor (with high resistance volt-meter) and when I would turn on the current in the non-rotating solenoid it would get what appeared to be a very observable change in charge.  This change in charge remained as long as I had the current running and would drop when I stopped the current so it wasn't -dB/dt because it was a constant current.  If I ran the current in the opposite direction I again see a similar jump in charge but at a different magnitude.  Only the negative charges were moving around the solenoid so 1st possibility time helix.  The 2nd possibility I estimated and it came close but I had difficulty resolving the change in magnitude depending on current direction so I left the prediction out if I remember correct.

This 2nd possibility may also cancel thrust which I think is more likely than a time helix.  It is the Lorentz contraction of the electric fields of the charges in the spinning disk.  As a result this intensifies the vertical electric field of the disk with out changing the charge (so charge conservation remains.)  Basically it deflects the disks moving charges electric field lines via what Edward Purcell called electric field pancaking.  This changes the orientation of the electric field lines of a charge to intensify the electric field above and below the disk while lowering it at the sides.  While the charges in the non-rotating disk will "not" see a Lorentz contracted spinning disk they will see Lorentz contracted electric fields from the "individual" charges in the spinning disk. 

This would correspond to a magnetic field that follows each individual charge in the rotating disk that describes the pancaking of their electric fields possibly canceling thrust or only partially.  One might describe this as a rotating magnetic field but I like to think of it as radiating away from the charge as its orientation/position changes via light speed limits.  This may have been the cause of the strange change in charge I observed during my experiment with a non axially rotating solenoid (only starting up the current). 

Hopefully this isn't too convoluted.  This was only concerning their charged spinning/non-spinning disk propulsion.  I will need to look into them further to see if what they are actually proposing is this or something more complicated.  Not really sure it would be related to EM drives or Mach effects. 

-Dustin
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 11/03/2017 04:32 am
I respect Greg Egan, and I am familiar with the quoted paper. In this case the statement - quoting

 "If the cavity contains a standing wave, then the fields will have a harmonic time dependence of the form sin(ωt) or cos(ωt), and over one complete cycle of the mode, a period of 2π/ω, all the fields will return to their origin values. So at each point in the interior of the cavity, we will have:
     ∫cycle (∂Si / ∂t) dt = Si(t0+2π/ω) – Si(t0) = 0
So, averaged over a complete cycle in the same way, each component of the net force on the wall will sum to zero."

does not agree in the general case with the paper
arXiv:0807.1310v5  [physics.class-ph]  21 Nov 2008
The Lorentz Force and the Radiation Pressure of Light
Tony Rothman∗ and Stephen Boughn†
You either linked the wrong paper or completely misunderstood the paper. The paper is dealing with a single electron, not a closed cavity. Eagan's result and that paper are consistent. Trying to say otherwise is making a very similar mistake to what the paper is pointing out about the "Freshman argument," applying basic results without going through the full details.

If you look at your own result you will find not coincidentally that you got 2 times a photon rocket. This is from not including the reaction of the antenna, and probably a factor of 2 that I think is likely related to how you inserted gamma which you admitted was arbitrary, and I think isn't quite correct.

I don't really feel like delving into any more details of your math right now since Maxwell's equations quite clearly will not produce a force consistent with a working emDrive.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 11/03/2017 09:16 am
More progress on the insulation. All components have been placed back onto the torsional pendulum after some testing with the antenna indicates that it is not self-resonating, and there is a reasonable field in the cavity.

that's very good news, indeed :D !

I would still like to improve the heat sink on the main amplifier.  :-[

This would probably mean going for a phase-change heat sink, but this in turn would mean modifying the amplifier since if I'm not wrong, the heatsink is part of the RF amp structure... and making change to it may cause issues  ::) <sigh> I was looking at this (http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/HY180-PHASE-CHANGE-GEL-THERMAL-PAD-MATERIAL-40MM-2-5-w-m-k-for-IC-or-Heatsink-/263252543287) but I'm not sure it (or something like it) may be appropriate for your device and won't introduce noise (edit: more stuff here (https://www.chomerics.com/products/thermal/phase-change/index.html))

On the other hand, as I already wrote, you may consider adding something to cool it down quickly, for example, you may have a couple fans mounted on the top of the box with pipes pointing toward the heatsink, a fan could then blow cold air toward the heatsink while the other could pump out heat; such a thing, used after each test may help cooling down the amplifier faster so allowing to run more test in a given interval of time ... or am I missing something  ??? ?


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 11/03/2017 09:25 am
Jamie - are you using a loop antenna?   Sorry but I have forgotten. 

 If so it can likely be analyzed as a single coil inductor - probably treated as a helical transmission line since typically above 1Ghz lumped components must usually be addressed as transmission lines.   In any case it should be  relatively simple to move the self resonance frequency (SRF) with a bit of capacitance (treat this as an  open circuit transmission line).   

If you are using a 1/4 lambda spike or wheel antenna that is somewhat different. 
Herman
graybeardsyseng

Herman, check out this

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1698864#msg1698864

if I'm not wrong the above is the antenna Jamie is currently using




Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 11/03/2017 10:30 am
Jamie - are you using a loop antenna?   Sorry but I have forgotten. 

 If so it can likely be analyzed as a single coil inductor - probably treated as a helical transmission line since typically above 1Ghz lumped components must usually be addressed as transmission lines.   In any case it should be  relatively simple to move the self resonance frequency (SRF) with a bit of capacitance (treat this as an  open circuit transmission line).   

If you are using a 1/4 lambda spike or wheel antenna that is somewhat different. 
Herman
graybeardsyseng

Herman, check out this

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1698864#msg1698864

if I'm not wrong the above is the antenna Jamie is currently using

I'm not sure if that is the loop Jamie is using. He did a lot of different testing with different styles. Although he should be using a
(https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nidal_Abutahoun/publication/236232604/figure/fig2/AS:299367677349892@1448386224538/Figure-3-Capacitive-loaded-loop-antenna-and-equivalent-circuit-diagram.png)
Loop antenna that couples to the magnetic field. like the loop in EagleWorks test frustum. (see attached)

It should have both ends of the loop coupled to the coax feed.
(https://www.nonstopsystems.com/radio/img-ant/antenna-mag-loop-coupling-unshielded.jpg)
https://www.nonstopsystems.com/radio/frank_radio_antenna_magloop.htm

This is a very nice site for referencing loop antennas.

My Very Best,
Shell



Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: kenny008 on 11/03/2017 10:48 am
More progress on the insulation. All components have been placed back onto the torsional pendulum after some testing with the antenna indicates that it is not self-resonating, and there is a reasonable field in the cavity.

I would still like to improve the heat sink on the main amplifier.  :-[
Wonderful progress!

I believe a phase change heat sink has the potential of introducing additional errors, depending on the design.  The ones I see in my searches show the heat sink material flowing and moving within the device as it heats up.  Wouldn't this movement change the balance on your beam a tiny amount?  I wouldn't think you'd want any mass flowing on any part of the apparatus attached to your beam.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/03/2017 11:24 am
Jamie - are you using a loop antenna?   Sorry but I have forgotten. 

 If so it can likely be analyzed as a single coil inductor - probably treated as a helical transmission line since typically above 1Ghz lumped components must usually be addressed as transmission lines.   In any case it should be  relatively simple to move the self resonance frequency (SRF) with a bit of capacitance (treat this as an  open circuit transmission line).   

If you are using a 1/4 lambda spike or wheel antenna that is somewhat different. 

It's a simple antenna design. The polish group is also using the same design. It had the same coupling as a standard loop in FEKO.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 11/03/2017 12:59 pm
Jamie - are you using a loop antenna?   Sorry but I have forgotten. 

 If so it can likely be analyzed as a single coil inductor - probably treated as a helical transmission line since typically above 1Ghz lumped components must usually be addressed as transmission lines.   In any case it should be  relatively simple to move the self resonance frequency (SRF) with a bit of capacitance (treat this as an  open circuit transmission line).   

If you are using a 1/4 lambda spike or wheel antenna that is somewhat different. 
Herman
graybeardsyseng

Herman, check out this

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1698864#msg1698864

if I'm not wrong the above is the antenna Jamie is currently using

I'm not sure if that is the loop Jamie is using. He did a lot of different testing with different styles. Although he should be using a
(https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nidal_Abutahoun/publication/236232604/figure/fig2/AS:299367677349892@1448386224538/Figure-3-Capacitive-loaded-loop-antenna-and-equivalent-circuit-diagram.png)
Loop antenna that couples to the magnetic field. like the loop in EagleWorks test frustum. (see attached)

It should have both ends of the loop coupled to the coax feed.
(https://www.nonstopsystems.com/radio/img-ant/antenna-mag-loop-coupling-unshielded.jpg)
https://www.nonstopsystems.com/radio/frank_radio_antenna_magloop.htm

This is a very nice site for referencing loop antennas.

My Very Best,
Shell

Shell -

EXCELLENT reference for mag loops - I had not seen that site before but it is now in my favorites for both EMdrive and Ham Radio.   

Concur completely with your comments! 

I remember that open "loop" antenna (i.e. only one end connected) but as you mention I thought Jamie had decided to go with a full loop.   As you said - a true loop antenna has both ends connected to the coax - one to the center conductor and one to the shield.   If it is open as in

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1437399;image)

it is NOT a loop and it must be analyzed differently - probably as a vertical (or so-called spike) with a capacity hat or a primitive form of wheel antenna (with only one lobe).   see below for a picture of a more common 3 lobe wheel antenna. 

(http://www.wa5vjb.com/images/Wheels%20%201296.jpg)  In any case that antenna is NOT a loop and should not be analyzed as a loop for SRF determination.   Nor is the pattern of radiation anything like a loop. 

Normally the self resonance frequency is where the capacitance (usually parasitic) and the inductance of an inductor are in  resonance such that the antenna (or any inductor really) will have a very high impedance and appear like an open circuit.   I don't personally recall seeing a SRF calculated for such an antenna - I will research that as time permits.

Herman
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 11/03/2017 02:49 pm
Jamie - are you using a loop antenna?   Sorry but I have forgotten. 

 If so it can likely be analyzed as a single coil inductor - probably treated as a helical transmission line since typically above 1Ghz lumped components must usually be addressed as transmission lines.   In any case it should be  relatively simple to move the self resonance frequency (SRF) with a bit of capacitance (treat this as an  open circuit transmission line).   

If you are using a 1/4 lambda spike or wheel antenna that is somewhat different. 

It's a simple antenna design. The polish group is also using the same design. It had the same coupling as a standard loop in FEKO.
K

Jamie -

I hadn't seen your post when I answered Shell.   Couple of comments - in no way was I trying to say that this isn't a good antenna (the one you and the Polish group are using).  it is - I was just addressing calculation of SRF and whether or not it constituted a loop antenna.    And I'm not sure why FEKO treats it as a loop.   I am going to try digging deeper into this design a bit.

Herman
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 11/03/2017 02:58 pm
Jamie - are you using a loop antenna?   Sorry but I have forgotten. 

 If so it can likely be analyzed as a single coil inductor - probably treated as a helical transmission line since typically above 1Ghz lumped components must usually be addressed as transmission lines.   In any case it should be  relatively simple to move the self resonance frequency (SRF) with a bit of capacitance (treat this as an  open circuit transmission line).   

If you are using a 1/4 lambda spike or wheel antenna that is somewhat different. 
Herman
graybeardsyseng

Herman, check out this

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1698864#msg1698864

if I'm not wrong the above is the antenna Jamie is currently using

I'm not sure if that is the loop Jamie is using. He did a lot of different testing with different styles. Although he should be using a
(https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nidal_Abutahoun/publication/236232604/figure/fig2/AS:299367677349892@1448386224538/Figure-3-Capacitive-loaded-loop-antenna-and-equivalent-circuit-diagram.png)
Loop antenna that couples to the magnetic field. like the loop in EagleWorks test frustum. (see attached)

It should have both ends of the loop coupled to the coax feed.
(https://www.nonstopsystems.com/radio/img-ant/antenna-mag-loop-coupling-unshielded.jpg)
https://www.nonstopsystems.com/radio/frank_radio_antenna_magloop.htm

This is a very nice site for referencing loop antennas.

My Very Best,
Shell

Shell -

EXCELLENT reference for mag loops - I had not seen that site before but it is now in my favorites for both EMdrive and Ham Radio.   

Concur completely with your comments! 

I remember that open "loop" antenna (i.e. only one end connected) but as you mention I thought Jamie had decided to go with a full loop.   As you said - a true loop antenna has both ends connected to the coax - one to the center conductor and one to the shield.   If it is open as in

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1437399;image)

it is NOT a loop and it must be analyzed differently - probably as a vertical (or so-called spike) with a capacity hat or a primitive form of wheel antenna (with only one lobe).   see below for a picture of a more common 3 lobe wheel antenna. 

(http://www.wa5vjb.com/images/Wheels%20%201296.jpg)  In any case that antenna is NOT a loop and should not be analyzed as a loop for SRF determination.   Nor is the pattern of radiation anything like a loop. 

Normally the self resonance frequency is where the capacitance (usually parasitic) and the inductance of an inductor are in  resonance such that the antenna (or any inductor really) will have a very high impedance and appear like an open circuit.   I don't personally recall seeing a SRF calculated for such an antenna - I will research that as time permits.

Herman
Herman,
You're spot on, better than I could have said. Although that open loop antenna design like Jamie's design will generate a Circular Wave Pattern similar to a helical but I'm not sure how the near field generation on the open loop will look or couple into the magnetic field of the frustum which is important for a TExxx mode.

That's the reason for a ~1/10 WL closed loop antenna is to couple into the TE013 H-Field in the frustum. 
(http://www.tpub.com/neets/book11/0057.GIF)
It needs to be a current driven coil to produce the highest magnetic fields. You externally "tune" these closed loops with a small variable capacitor. A Magnetic Loop Antenna is basically just a resonant circuit using an copper wire coil and an adjustable capacitor in this case ~ a 1-10pf (pico-farad) adjustable.  If the coil has a circumference of much less than, say, 1/10th of a wavelength, then the efficiency of the antenna will suffer.  If the circumference approaches ¼ of a wavelength or more the antenna is accurately characterized as an electrical loop antenna, with characteristics similar to those of a dipole.

Jamie's isn't wrong but I don't think FEKO allows you to create a "tuned circuit" current loop antenna to give you a good VWSR.

My Very Bet,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 11/03/2017 03:01 pm
Jamie - are you using a loop antenna?   Sorry but I have forgotten. 

 If so it can likely be analyzed as a single coil inductor - probably treated as a helical transmission line since typically above 1Ghz lumped components must usually be addressed as transmission lines.   In any case it should be  relatively simple to move the self resonance frequency (SRF) with a bit of capacitance (treat this as an  open circuit transmission line).   

If you are using a 1/4 lambda spike or wheel antenna that is somewhat different. 

It's a simple antenna design. The polish group is also using the same design. It had the same coupling as a standard loop in FEKO.
K

Jamie -

I hadn't seen your post when I answered Shell.   Couple of comments - in no way was I trying to say that this isn't a good antenna (the one you and the Polish group are using).  it is - I was just addressing calculation of SRF and whether or not it constituted a loop antenna.    And I'm not sure why FEKO treats it as a loop.   I am going to try digging deeper into this design a bit.

Herman
Same here Herman. FEKO just didn't allow Jamie to see all the options to couple into the frustum.
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/03/2017 03:17 pm
The antenna excites the TE01x modes and is very simple to construct. It was designed and impedance matched in FEKO before it was constructed. There are a number of different antennas that will work for TE01x modes, but few that are as easy to build.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 11/03/2017 03:20 pm
Jamie - are you using a loop antenna?   Sorry but I have forgotten. 

 If so it can likely be analyzed as a single coil inductor - probably treated as a helical transmission line since typically above 1Ghz lumped components must usually be addressed as transmission lines.   In any case it should be  relatively simple to move the self resonance frequency (SRF) with a bit of capacitance (treat this as an  open circuit transmission line).   

If you are using a 1/4 lambda spike or wheel antenna that is somewhat different. 
Herman
graybeardsyseng

Herman, check out this

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1698864#msg1698864

if I'm not wrong the above is the antenna Jamie is currently using

I'm not sure if that is the loop Jamie is using. He did a lot of different testing with different styles. Although he should be using a
(https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nidal_Abutahoun/publication/236232604/figure/fig2/AS:299367677349892@1448386224538/Figure-3-Capacitive-loaded-loop-antenna-and-equivalent-circuit-diagram.png)
Loop antenna that couples to the magnetic field. like the loop in EagleWorks test frustum. (see attached)

It should have both ends of the loop coupled to the coax feed.
(https://www.nonstopsystems.com/radio/img-ant/antenna-mag-loop-coupling-unshielded.jpg)
https://www.nonstopsystems.com/radio/frank_radio_antenna_magloop.htm

This is a very nice site for referencing loop antennas.

My Very Best,
Shell

Shell -

EXCELLENT reference for mag loops - I had not seen that site before but it is now in my favorites for both EMdrive and Ham Radio.   

Concur completely with your comments! 

I remember that open "loop" antenna (i.e. only one end connected) but as you mention I thought Jamie had decided to go with a full loop.   As you said - a true loop antenna has both ends connected to the coax - one to the center conductor and one to the shield.   If it is open as in

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1437399;image)

it is NOT a loop and it must be analyzed differently - probably as a vertical (or so-called spike) with a capacity hat or a primitive form of wheel antenna (with only one lobe).   see below for a picture of a more common 3 lobe wheel antenna. 

(http://www.wa5vjb.com/images/Wheels%20%201296.jpg)  In any case that antenna is NOT a loop and should not be analyzed as a loop for SRF determination.   Nor is the pattern of radiation anything like a loop. 

Normally the self resonance frequency is where the capacitance (usually parasitic) and the inductance of an inductor are in  resonance such that the antenna (or any inductor really) will have a very high impedance and appear like an open circuit.   I don't personally recall seeing a SRF calculated for such an antenna - I will research that as time permits.

Herman
Herman,
You're spot on, better than I could have said. Although that open loop antenna design like Jamie's design will generate a Circular Wave Pattern similar to a helical but I'm not sure how the near field generation on the open loop will look or couple into the magnetic field of the frustum which is important for a TExxx mode.

That's the reason for a ~1/10 WL closed loop antenna is to couple into the TE013 H-Field in the frustum. 
(http://www.tpub.com/neets/book11/0057.GIF)
It needs to be a current driven coil to produce the highest magnetic fields. You externally "tune" these closed loops with a small variable capacitor. A Magnetic Loop Antenna is basically just a resonant circuit using an copper wire coil and an adjustable capacitor in this case ~ a 1-10pf (pico-farad) adjustable.  If the coil has a circumference of much less than, say, 1/10th of a wavelength, then the efficiency of the antenna will suffer.  If the circumference approaches ¼ of a wavelength or more the antenna is accurately characterized as an electrical loop antenna, with characteristics similar to those of a dipole.

Jamie's isn't wrong but I don't think FEKO allows you to create a "tuned circuit" current loop antenna to give you a good VWSR.

My Very Bet,
Shell
Shell - Concur absolutely - good discussion!  Thanks!

Here is a link to an IEEE article  I have found which discusses open loop  antennas for use at high UHF frequencies.   I have skimmed but have to head out of office in just a minute so I am posting them if anyone wants to dive in more fully.   

http://repo.lib.hosei.ac.jp/bitstream/10114/3846/1/37_TAP%28Circularly%29.pdf

I still haven't found a reference to finding the SRF for such a loop.  I will try to model such an antenna tonight with NEC and see what I can find. 

I don't know nor have access to FEKO so I really can't comment more about that. 

Herman
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 11/03/2017 03:27 pm
Can people please trim quotes, especially removing embedded pictures? The massive quote trees make this thread really hard to read.

From the first post in the thread:
In order to minimize bandwidth and maximize information content, when quoting, one can use an ellipsis (...) to indicate the clipped material.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 11/03/2017 03:32 pm
The antenna excites the TE01x modes and is very simple to construct. It was designed and impedance matched in FEKO before it was constructed. There are a number of different antennas that will work for TE01x modes, but few that are as easy to build.

Jamie -

Roger all that - I think its likely a great antenna and of course construction ease or difficulty is a major factor.  I was concerned more with how to analyze it and what patterns you would get.    I am glad FEKO supports analysis of it - as I said I don't know FEKO very well nor have access to it.     Does it provide the self resonance frequency as an output?    That is what I was most interested in based on you concern over the SRF being very close to your frustum resonance.   

I think your build is outstanding and can hardly wait for powered flight . . . err . . .  tests. heh heh . 

Herman
 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 11/03/2017 03:45 pm
Jamie - are you using a loop antenna?   Sorry but I have forgotten. 

 If so it can likely be analyzed as a single coil inductor - probably treated as a helical transmission line since typically above 1Ghz lumped components must usually be addressed as transmission lines.   In any case it should be  relatively simple to move the self resonance frequency (SRF) with a bit of capacitance (treat this as an  open circuit transmission line).   

If you are using a 1/4 lambda spike or wheel antenna that is somewhat different. 
Herman
graybeardsyseng

Herman, check out this

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1698864#msg1698864

if I'm not wrong the above is the antenna Jamie is currently using

I'm not sure if that is the loop Jamie is using. He did a lot of different testing with different styles. Although he should be using a
(https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nidal_Abutahoun/publication/236232604/figure/fig2/AS:299367677349892@1448386224538/Figure-3-Capacitive-loaded-loop-antenna-and-equivalent-circuit-diagram.png)
Loop antenna that couples to the magnetic field. like the loop in EagleWorks test frustum. (see attached)

It should have both ends of the loop coupled to the coax feed.
(https://www.nonstopsystems.com/radio/img-ant/antenna-mag-loop-coupling-unshielded.jpg)
https://www.nonstopsystems.com/radio/frank_radio_antenna_magloop.htm

This is a very nice site for referencing loop antennas.

My Very Best,
Shell

Very useful site, Shell. Thanks!

Only, at the frequency ranges we use, a 1/10 WL circumference of the loop is not reachable, I think.
Say 2.5 GHz => 12 cm WL => 12 mm loop circ => 3.8 mm diameter loop. So, for practical dimensions we are more in the 1/4 WL range.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SteveD on 11/03/2017 04:34 pm
Is there a workshop/conference concerning the EM drive going on shortly?  I remember Jamie was trying to finish in time to present.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/03/2017 04:36 pm
Roger all that - I think its likely a great antenna and of course construction ease or difficulty is a major factor.  I was concerned more with how to analyze it and what patterns you would get.    I am glad FEKO supports analysis of it - as I said I don't know FEKO very well nor have access to it.     Does it provide the self resonance frequency as an output?    That is what I was most interested in based on you concern over the SRF being very close to your frustum resonance.   

I've had thoughts of modifying the design to be more like a closed loop as follows. This would still allow it to be impedance matched using the current z-axis tuning system.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/03/2017 04:43 pm
Is there a workshop/conference concerning the EM drive going on shortly?  I remember Jamie was trying to finish in time to present.

The conference has been going on the last three days, including today. I decided a couple of weeks ago to back out of this workshop to give me more time to solve a critical problem that was obscuring the data with ~5uN of noise. That ended up being natural convection from the walls of the enclosure as well as the on-board electronics. I've continued to work on the problem, having good results with lots of insulation and additional heat sinks.  Heidi Fearn said I can present at the next conference instead. I was told that will be some time later in 2018 again in Estes Park, CO.   :-\
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 11/03/2017 07:56 pm
Quote
MaxFEM
Description

MaxFEM is an open source software to solve electromagnetic problems in a numerical way by using the finite element method. The package brings together under a single interface different modules or applications that can address problems in electrostatics, direct current, magnetostatics, transient magnetics and eddy currents, in two and/or three dimensions and in cartesian and/or cylindrical coordinates.
The user can make internal changes to adapt to his/her needs both the interface and the contained calculus programs. Moreover, thanks to the modular structure of the interface is the possibility of incorporating other problems (eg, thermal coupled electromagnetic). Under the GPL license, anyone can include your own application and redistribute the software.
 
Multiplatform software

Two programming languages have been used to the codification of MaxFEM:
Python: to develop the graphical interface.
Fortran: to develop the calculus codes.
Besides, the fact of using Python gives MaxFEM the property of being multiplatform:
Windows
Linux
Mac OS

http://www.usc.es/en/proxectos/maxfem/installers.html

Just trying to get it working...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: rq3 on 11/04/2017 12:22 am
Jamie - are you using a loop antenna?   Sorry but I have forgotten. 

 If so it can likely be analyzed as a single coil inductor - probably treated as a helical transmission line since typically above 1Ghz lumped components must usually be addressed as transmission lines.   In any case it should be  relatively simple to move the self resonance frequency (SRF) with a bit of capacitance (treat this as an  open circuit transmission line).   

If you are using a 1/4 lambda spike or wheel antenna that is somewhat different. 

It's a simple antenna design. The polish group is also using the same design. It had the same coupling as a standard loop in FEKO.

A "loop" antenna can be either capacitively (voltage) coupled to it's ground plane (open loop), or magnetically (current) coupled to its voltage source (closed loop). Either is valid, depending upon the mode(s) you wish to excite. Since no-one knows which is "right", both/all/any methods are valid/invalid. Pick one. If the result does not meet your hypothesis, pick another. That's experimentation.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: john smith 19 on 11/04/2017 10:16 am
Maybe I'm totally off target but ... what if one modulates the signal injected into the cavity? I mean ... using different waveforms

Was this already experimented?
Not intentionally (not with the intention to achieve an express purpose) to my knowledge, except that magnetrons by their nature already contain amplitude, frequency and phase modulation
(http://198.74.50.173/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Magic-ChefMagnetronOven2.45GHzSpectra-1.jpg)(http://file.scirp.org/Html/8-9801080%5C7aa0f806-9c62-4bf5-ae30-1c09e7756ab9.jpg)
Dr. Rodal,

I go back to a time I learned the basics of electronics with tubes, transistors where the new wonder toy IC's were stuff of dreams. The magnetron is nothing but a tube that self excites to produce microwaves. This isn't rocket science but tube science. Tubes are still around and still are used in the semiconductor industry where signal splatter and jitter have to be tightly controlled.

This is the one of the first articles I ran across that reinforced what I knew of tubes and what caused issues. http://lea.hamradio.si/~s57uuu/mischam/magnetr/

I was able to build a thermally stabilized water cooled current and voltage controlled supply locked into Fo by the use of a waveguide > antenna this gave me a very stable signal with no AM jitters and side lobes.
(http://lea.hamradio.si/~s57uuu/mischam/magnetr/magn2.jpg)

It's not entirely true that a magnetron is nasty noisy and unusable as a RF device it's just tougher to do than a lower wattage SS device.
During the late 70's Ratheon and JPL did a lot of work on Satellite Solar Power stations. They needed a lot of Kw sized microwave sources to transmit the power to Earth and found that oven magnetrons could be phase locked. IIRC they shut down the heater when oscillation was self sustaining.

The work was written up in a series of reports on the NASA NTRS web site with JPL as the centre.

Wheather they are stable enough, or phase shiftable enough, for this task is another matter.

I had thought this was common knowledge and I rarely check this thread.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: aero on 11/04/2017 04:09 pm
I respect Greg Egan, and I am familiar with the quoted paper. In this case the statement - quoting

 "If the cavity contains a standing wave, then the fields will have a harmonic time dependence of the form sin(ωt) or cos(ωt), and over one complete cycle of the mode, a period of 2π/ω, all the fields will return to their origin values. So at each point in the interior of the cavity, we will have:
     ∫cycle (∂Si / ∂t) dt = Si(t0+2π/ω) – Si(t0) = 0
So, averaged over a complete cycle in the same way, each component of the net force on the wall will sum to zero."

does not agree in the general case with the paper
arXiv:0807.1310v5  [physics.class-ph]  21 Nov 2008
The Lorentz Force and the Radiation Pressure of Light
Tony Rothman∗ and Stephen Boughn†
You either linked the wrong paper or completely misunderstood the paper. The paper is dealing with a single electron, not a closed cavity. Eagan's result and that paper are consistent. Trying to say otherwise is making a very similar mistake to what the paper is pointing out about the "Freshman argument," applying basic results without going through the full details.

If you look at your own result you will find not coincidentally that you got 2 times a photon rocket. This is from not including the reaction of the antenna, and probably a factor of 2 that I think is likely related to how you inserted gamma which you admitted was arbitrary, and I think isn't quite correct.

I don't really feel like delving into any more details of your math right now since Maxwell's equations quite clearly will not produce a force consistent with a working emDrive.

I don't want a big argument here but this is the right paper - https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1310.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1310.pdf)
Perhaps you might check section 4 in which the authors move beyond the introductory electron case. And as for the for the value of force that I calculated being the same as a photon rocket, the factor of two notwithstanding, that is quite understandable as my approach in this case basically considered only the 100 Watt power loss. That detail may be hidden, but it is embedded.

But the pertinent question is asked earlier in my original post, please address this question:

"Does the preferential heating of the big end of the frustum imply that the internal reflection coefficient is lower at the big end?"

If the answer is "Yes," then I haven't seen any math by anyone that addresses the existing situation within the EM drive frustum.
If the answer is "No" then I'm finished.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 11/04/2017 06:08 pm
I don't want a big argument here but this is the right paper - https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1310.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1310.pdf)
Perhaps you might check section 4 in which the authors move beyond the introductory electron case.
First, you previously directly referenced the earlier sections which I stated are irrelevant. You are now changing your argument by referencing the later section 4, discussing a different situation. You should be explicitly admitting that you are changing your argument and admitting that your previous line of argument was wrong. **

Second, section 4 is a bit more relevant, but it still is in support of Egan's work, demonstrating the way charges currents and fields interact on the surface of a conductor to produce the forces. Egan doesn't go to that level, because he is using more generic results that apply for a general case and not just a straight on reflection.

And as for the for the value of force that I calculated being the same as a photon rocket, the factor of two notwithstanding, that is quite understandable as my approach in this case basically considered only the 100 Watt power loss. That detail may be hidden, but it is embedded.
I am not sure what you are trying to say here. It seems clear that your formulation depends on multiple unstated assumptions that in the end are equivalent to calculating the force that would be produced if a laser reflected off of a mirror. This basically happens by effectively assuming all of the photons start travelling uniformly in one direction but ignoring the force generated when they are emitted, and ignoring the momentum transfer when they get absorbed.

But the pertinent question is asked earlier in my original post, please address this question:

"Does the preferential heating of the big end of the frustum imply that the internal reflection coefficient is lower at the big end?"

If the answer is "Yes," then I haven't seen any math by anyone that addresses the existing situation within the EM drive frustum.
If the answer is "No" then I'm finished.
The answer is that your model is extremely simplified, so you have to define what you mean by "internal reflection coefficient." Photons aren't just being reflected back and forth perpendicularly, but are bouncing in all directions. Reflection coefficient is in general dependent on incident angle, but when all points of the cavity have overlapping photons moving in multiple directions this starts to be undefinable. To deal with this, you just look at the fields as a whole, and calculate the forces exerted by these fields on the walls, and the losses in the walls from the induced currents based on the material properties. Egan did this, and it is also part of all of the FEKO and other simulations that have been done on here.


**I am being a bit more direct (and therefore harsher sounding) than I would like, however this kind of goalpost moving is disturbingly common on this section of the forum, and the directness of what you just did makes this a good example. I hope that you can set an example for others here by owning your mistake.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 11/04/2017 11:20 pm
All,

The link is to some 'word salad' and a tentative equation which I have concocted in a sincere attempt to demystify some of my ravings on this forum. It proposes a mechanism by which the asymmetric distribution of charges within the emdrive frustum can act to accelerate it relative to the outside universe, without breaking conservation laws or inventing new interactions.

http://vixra.org/abs/1711.0115

Comments most welcome.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: aero on 11/04/2017 11:26 pm
I don't see any movement of the "Goal Posts." Where did I reference anything from the article more specifically than the whole article? Except in my latest post where I pointed you to section 4, and of course earlier, equation 2.4.

The reflection coefficient is a wave phenomenon. Is it even meaningful to speak of the reflection coefficient and photons in the same breath? One is classic, the other is quantum. Yes, photons bounce or ricochet all over but from the temperature profiles, there doesn't seem to be much energy lost to the sidewalls. Sidewall heating near the big end is, IMO, due to conduction from the big end because there isn't a corresponding temperature rise near the small end and ricochetting photons wouldn't be end selective.

But the pertinent question is asked earlier in my original post, please address this question:

"Does the preferential heating of the big end of the frustum imply that the internal reflection coefficient is lower at the big end?"

Ignore my simple model and look at Paul March's post of experimental temperature data. I am asking about the reflection coefficient of the inside big end of the frustum, verses the reflection coefficient of the inside of the small end, and not addressing sidewall issues. Don't worry about being critical, I've read most of your posts, and you seem to always be critical of new ideas. But at least you talk, others don't contribute at this level at all.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 11/05/2017 12:02 am
I don't see any movement of the "Goal Posts." Where did I reference anything from the article more specifically than the whole article? Except in my latest post where I pointed you to section 4, and of course earlier, equation 2.4.
You pointed to the early parts of the paper, which I pointed out was irrelevant and did not prove your point. Rather than acknowledging this, you just pointed to a different part of the paper. Changing your argument without acknowledging that your original argument was wrong is a form of moving the goalposts.

I then explained that section 4 of the paper also does not support your point, and still you make no counterargument or acknowledgment that you were wrong. Lets get this out of the way now: Are you willing to admit to being wrong? If not, please don't waste any more of anyone's time.

The reflection coefficient is a wave phenomenon. Is it even meaningful to speak of the reflection coefficient and photons in the same breath?
Yes, reflection coefficient is the chance that a specific wavelength photon incident at a specific angle will be reflected rather than absorbed.

Yes, photons bounce or ricochet all over but from the temperature profiles, there doesn't seem to be much energy lost to the sidewalls. Sidewall heating near the big end is, IMO, due to conduction from the big end because there isn't a corresponding temperature rise near the small end and ricochetting photons wouldn't be end selective.
This is science, opinions don't matter. The fact is that heating of the walls is related to local field strength.

But the pertinent question is asked earlier in my original post, please address this question:

"Does the preferential heating of the big end of the frustum imply that the internal reflection coefficient is lower at the big end?"
Read my last post again. I addressed this question. The problem is the question is kind of like asking "what flavor is the sky, sweet or sour?" The correct answer is that trying to specify a flavor for the sky is not a well defined question.

Ignore my simple model and look at Paul March's post of experimental temperature data. I am asking about the reflection coefficient of the inside big end of the frustum, verses the reflection coefficient of the inside of the small end, and not addressing sidewall issues.
The temperature data says nothing about a "reflection coefficient." It does say something about distribution of fields and field strength.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: aero on 11/05/2017 12:32 am
@meberbs
I an not "wrong," you have read much more into my posts than I actually wrote, you wrote nothing to further the answer to my question and You probably don't even realize that you are in full attack mode.

I don't need the aggravation, so in the future please don't ever again trouble yourself to reply to any of my posts.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tleach on 11/05/2017 01:28 am
Well, regardless of whether the question s
Is or is not specific enough,  it would seem to be the case that the EW frustum did show preferential heating of the large end plate. And, that also happens to be where Shawyer placed his YCBO and Sapphire in his most recent patent application (the rest of the cavity is silver plated if I recall). And didn't Todd's theory have something to say about a preference for which direction the waste heat was emmitted?

Have any of the other replicators metioned that particular asymmetry before?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: aero on 11/05/2017 02:09 am
Well, regardless of whether the question s
Is or is not specific enough,  it would seem to be the case that the EW frustum did show preferential heating of the large end plate. And, that also happens to be where Shawyer placed his YCBO and Sapphire in his most recent patent application (the rest of the cavity is silver plated if I recall). And didn't Todd's theory have something to say about a preference for which direction the waste heat was emmitted?

Have any of the other replicators metioned that particular asymmetry before?

And regardless of the details of how the energy of the RF is actually converted to waste heat, doesn't the simple fact that it is converted to waste heat mean that it is not reflected back into the frustum?  Waves or photons, the answer must be yes.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 11/05/2017 02:45 am
@meberbs
I an not "wrong," you have read much more into my posts than I actually wrote, you wrote nothing to further the answer to my question and You probably don't even realize that you are in full attack mode.
If you are not wrong, why did you not answer any of my objections to your statements?

I did answer your question, you just apparently don't like that the answer was not just a "yes" or "no."

I am not attacking, I am trying to respond to your misunderstandings. If you want to call what I did an attack, then your posts are an attack on Egan when you accuse him of making freshman level mistakes whithout actually pointing out anything actually wrong with what he did, and an attack on science when you try to use a paper arguing that radiation pressure should be calculated with rigorous analysis to support your non-rigorous analysis.

How about we agree not to use the word "attack" and instead have a friendly discussion which is what I thought we were doing?

I don't need the aggravation, so in the future please don't ever again trouble yourself to reply to any of my posts.
As long as people post wrong information I will respond with corrections so that those here interested in learning something can do so.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star One on 11/05/2017 03:11 pm
This thread seems to have slowed down and quite a few regulars appear to have disappeared most recently The Traveller? Also does the Reddit get much updating does anyone know, as the last time I looked it seemed fairly moribund?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 11/05/2017 03:46 pm
This thread seems to have slowed down and quite a few regulars appear to have disappeared most recently The Traveller? Also does the Reddit get much updating does anyone know, as the last time I looked it seemed fairly moribund?

As with navigating any sea there will always be doldrums. Most are awaiting test data or new discoveries on the theoretical front. I am keeping an eye about net polarization in vortices and the influence of harmonic frequencies on radiation and group behaviour across discontinuities in metallic lattices. I believe most behaviour of any closed cavity can be directly explained by the boundaries permitting or blocking certain frequencies which in turn will change the evolution of the charge/momentum along the wall. The old posts from Hyperplanck (a user who seems to have gotten completely engrossed in publishing an omnibus work on string theory last I heard) really should have gotten more traction. It's all about the phonons and interaction between walls via different layers of both free and bound electrons, in short.     
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 11/05/2017 05:56 pm
Well, regardless of whether the question s
Is or is not specific enough,  it would seem to be the case that the EW frustum did show preferential heating of the large end plate. And, that also happens to be where Shawyer placed his YCBO and Sapphire in his most recent patent application (the rest of the cavity is silver plated if I recall). And didn't Todd's theory have something to say about a preference for which direction the waste heat was emmitted?

Have any of the other replicators metioned that particular asymmetry before?

Yes, but in my model the "reflection coefficient" is irrelevant because, when the MW cavity is charged to a steady state maximum energy, the EM field will exert pressure on all sides. Unless, the small end is below cut-off, in which case the momentum in that direction will be imparted to the side walls. Either way, the power losses to the copper are directly proportional to the force exerted by the field. If the whole frustum is made of copper, then the forces should balance and cancel out.

However, my "theory" is that; IF there is a higher power dissipation at one end vs the other end, then there will be a NET flow of energy & momentum in that direction and the frustum should move the other way. On the other hand, without a dielectric or dissimilar metals, there is no reason (other than geometry) why the power dissipation would be different at one end vs the other. I've suggested using a different metal for the big end plate. Something with higher losses, like nickel or steel. Or, something with lower losses like silver or superconductor, depending on which way you want it to thrust.

Regarding the force, my "guess" is that it will be less than a photon rocket operating at the available power inside the frustum, i.e., < Q*Pin/c, and will not thrust in steady state. It must be pulsed, which lowers the average thrust.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThinkerX on 11/05/2017 08:37 pm
Well, regardless of whether the question s
Is or is not specific enough,  it would seem to be the case that the EW frustum did show preferential heating of the large end plate. And, that also happens to be where Shawyer placed his YCBO and Sapphire in his most recent patent application (the rest of the cavity is silver plated if I recall). And didn't Todd's theory have something to say about a preference for which direction the waste heat was emmitted?

Have any of the other replicators metioned that particular asymmetry before?

Yes, but in my model the "reflection coefficient" is irrelevant because, when the MW cavity is charged to a steady state maximum energy, the EM field will exert pressure on all sides. Unless, the small end is below cut-off, in which case the momentum in that direction will be imparted to the side walls. Either way, the power losses to the copper are directly proportional to the force exerted by the field. If the whole frustum is made of copper, then the forces should balance and cancel out.

However, my "theory" is that; IF there is a higher power dissipation at one end vs the other end, then there will be a NET flow of energy & momentum in that direction and the frustum should move the other way. On the other hand, without a dielectric or dissimilar metals, there is no reason (other than geometry) why the power dissipation would be different at one end vs the other. I've suggested using a different metal for the big end plate. Something with higher losses, like nickel or steel. Or, something with lower losses like silver or superconductor, depending on which way you want it to thrust.

Regarding the force, my "guess" is that it will be less than a photon rocket operating at the available power inside the frustum, i.e., < Q*Pin/c, and will not thrust in steady state. It must be pulsed, which lowers the average thrust.

Trying for clarity here.

Are you saying that your theory *IN GENERAL* predicts less movement from a 'well functioning' EM Drive than a 'perfect' photon rocket?

Or does the 'less movement than a photon rocket' apply ONLY to a single specific aspect of the EM Drive? Additional movement coming from 'elsewhere?'
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Flyby on 11/05/2017 08:38 pm
Well, regardless of whether the question s
Is or is not specific enough,  it would seem to be the case that the EW frustum did show preferential heating of the large end plate. And, that also happens to be where Shawyer placed his YCBO and Sapphire in his most recent patent application (the rest of the cavity is silver plated if I recall). And didn't Todd's theory have something to say about a preference for which direction the waste heat was emmitted?

Have any of the other replicators metioned that particular asymmetry before?

Yes, but in my model the "reflection coefficient" is irrelevant because, when the MW cavity is charged to a steady state maximum energy, the EM field will exert pressure on all sides. Unless, the small end is below cut-off, in which case the momentum in that direction will be imparted to the side walls. Either way, the power losses to the copper are directly proportional to the force exerted by the field. If the whole frustum is made of copper, then the forces should balance and cancel out.

However, my "theory" is that; IF there is a higher power dissipation at one end vs the other end, then there will be a NET flow of energy & momentum in that direction and the frustum should move the other way. On the other hand, without a dielectric or dissimilar metals, there is no reason (other than geometry) why the power dissipation would be different at one end vs the other. I've suggested using a different metal for the big end plate. Something with higher losses, like nickel or steel. Or, something with lower losses like silver or superconductor, depending on which way you want it to thrust.

Regarding the force, my "guess" is that it will be less than a photon rocket operating at the available power inside the frustum, i.e., < Q*Pin/c, and will not thrust in steady state. It must be pulsed, which lowers the average thrust.

I believe we touched that subject many, many pages ago, when the idea of having one of the endwalls in Metglas 2714A was brought up, no? In relation to magnetic permeability...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: aero on 11/05/2017 09:43 pm
As I see it, the reflection coefficient being different on the two ends of a cavity (not addressing the sidewalls, consider a cylinder) means that the internal radiation force is different on the two ends. Different, because on a reflecting surface, the radiation pressure is:

 Pressure = (1 + gamma) * power/c       and gamma does not have the same value at opposite ends.

That means that an internal, unbalanced force does exist which is a totally different situation than most on this forum admit to. Momentum must be conserved so the cavity must accelerate as a result. The nature of this unbalanced force is not similar to the reaction force accelerating a photon rocket although it's magnitude may or may not be.

Note that in this situation, averaging fields in the cavity will not produce the correct answer because the average removes the difference that we need to isolate. Averaging will give zero for the difference as has been calculated time and again.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 11/05/2017 10:25 pm
As I see it, the reflection coefficient being different on the two ends of a cavity (not addressing the sidewalls, consider a cylinder) means that the internal radiation force is different on the two ends. Different, because on a reflecting surface, the radiation pressure is:

 Pressure = (1 + gamma) * power/c       and gamma does not have the same value at opposite ends.

That means that an internal, unbalanced force does exist which is a totally different situation than most on this forum admit to. Momentum must be conserved so the cavity must accelerate as a result. The nature of this unbalanced force is not similar to the reaction force accelerating a photon rocket although it's magnitude may or may not be.

Note that in this situation, averaging fields in the cavity will not produce the correct answer because the average removes the difference that we need to isolate. Averaging will give zero for the difference as has been calculated time and again.
Just a difference in reflection coefficients between the two ends of the cavity cannot result in acceleration of the center of mass (solely by these means), just like you cannot accelerate a spacecraft by having one wall made of an inelastic material that will result in inelastic impact and having the opposite wall at the other end made from an elastic material and bouncing objects between the walls.  Draw a control volume around the spacecraft.  If all the energy and momentum is contained within the control volume, no acceleration of the center of mass will result.  The only way you can accelerate the center of mass is by energy-momentum exiting the control volume in a preferential (unbalanced) direction or for energy-momentum to enter the control volume in a preferential (unbalanced) direction.

(http://pillars.che.pitt.edu/files/course_10/figures/cv.gif)

If there is any ejection of energy-momentum out of the control volume in a preferential direction the force on the center of mass is only due to that energy-momentum ejection and one would have to justify (in the case of the EM Drive claims) why it would exceed the one of a photon rocket.

I write "energy-momentum" to be as general as possible, as energy and momentum are both contained in the stress-energy-momentum tensor Tij in general relativity.

PS:  The equation in <<Different, because on a reflecting surface, the radiation pressure is:

 Pressure = (1 + gamma) * power/c       and gamma does not have the same value at opposite ends.>> does not contain all the necessary terms in the electromagnetic equations of motion to satisfy conservation of electromagnetic momentum.

See:   https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1546438#msg1546438
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: aero on 11/05/2017 11:32 pm
Quote
Just a difference in reflection coefficients between the two ends of the cavity cannot result in acceleration of the center of mass

We do know (you and I, not the imperial "We") that there is more involved. We know that RF energy is thermalized and radiated away, but that resulting force has been analyzed only as a photon rocket. Maybe the analysis should include the effect of the reflection coefficient?

Quote
Pressure = (1 + gamma) * power/c       and gamma does not have the same value at opposite ends.>> does not contain all the necessary terms in the electromagnetic equations of motion to satisfy conservation of electromagnetic momentum.
I'll have to take your word for that. I read the link you included and came away cross-eyed.

Aside -  The EM drive seems to produce a force ... can it only be a result of some "Undiscovered Country" in physics, or is it possibly due to some simpler phenomenon that is hidden within the assumptions, like averaging, made in the mathematical analysis? I am qualified to look into the simpler phenomena at a level but not so much the heavy math of EM physics.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 11/05/2017 11:36 pm
(...)

Just a difference in reflection coefficients between the two ends of the cavity cannot result in acceleration of the center of mass (solely by these means), just like you cannot accelerate a spacecraft by having one wall made of an inelastic material that will result in inelastic impact and having the opposite wall at the other end made from an elastic material and bouncing objects between the walls.  Draw a control volume around the spacecraft.  If all the energy and momentum is contained within the control volume, no acceleration of the center of mass will result.  The only way you can accelerate the center of mass is by energy-momentum exiting the control volume in a preferential (unbalanced) direction or for energy-momentum to enter the control volume in a preferential (unbalanced) direction.

(http://pillars.che.pitt.edu/files/course_10/figures/cv.gif)

If there is any ejection of energy-momentum out of the control volume in a preferential direction the force on the center of mass is only due to that energy-momentum ejection and one would have to justify (in the case of the EM Drive claims) why it would exceed the one of a photon rocket.

I write "energy-momentum" to be as general as possible, as energy and momentum are both contained in the stress-energy-momentum tensor Tij in general relativity.

PS:  The equation in <<Different, because on a reflecting surface, the radiation pressure is:

 Pressure = (1 + gamma) * power/c       and gamma does not have the same value at opposite ends.>> does not contain all the necessary terms in the electromagnetic equations of motion to satisfy conservation of electromagnetic momentum.

See:   https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1546438#msg1546438
Rodal,
I agree, but in this case the frustum contains quanta at wavelengths of the same magnitude as the longitudinal separation of its end reflectors, and those reflectors are different sizes. If the reflections of those quanta involve conduction in those reflectors then the wider reflector will inevitably retain the momentum induced by that radiation pressure for longer than the other does.

This is the only clue we have for a force asymmetry within the frustum but it has no relevance to the motion of the whole device unless gravity or inertia have an electromagnetic origin, or electromagnetism acts by the dilation of time.

These may be hard and bitter pills to swallow but do you really prefer to wallow in paradox and to refuse to accept that there is any possibility of a solution?

My fear is that we will all cling onto our 19th century clock time until emdrive experimenters give up the fight and go away. Please lets look at other answers for how this might work, because it does seem to work. Folks are doing great work to prove the thrust readings beyond doubt but we are letting them down if we stick to a closed view of dynamics which forbids the necessity that inertia is a two way interaction with the universe.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThinkerX on 11/06/2017 01:17 am
Anymore, I find myself thinking of the early days of these threads. 

I joined immediately before our esteemed Doctor Rodal, and still remember his first post, where he stated the EM Drive would show some degree of movement in an atmosphere, a trace of movement if suspended in a vacuum chamber, but only rotational movement in space.  Thus far, I have seen little convincing evidence, theoretical or otherwise, that contradicts that assessment.

I also remember two observations made by a majority of the electrical and microwave engineers who deigned to comment in these threads:

1 - The EM Drive, whatever else it does, should generate large amounts of evanescent waves; and

2 - The EM Drive is 'capacitor-like.'  Most of them were careful to avoid calling it a capacitor, only that it (sort-of) acted like one.  Which brings me to -

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGN65lse5yE

and

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875389211005797

Quote
Abstract


The present work provides a detailed analysis of already published reports on the observation of an anomalous force in a vacuum associated with vacuum sparks in asymmetric capacitors charged with “constant” high voltages. Known experimental details of these experiments are put forward and propulsion performance is compared with the only known propulsion system known to exist in a vacuum associated with sparks: the vacuum arc thruster (VAT). VAT's are known for decades and work on principles of momentum conservation. They vaporize particles from the electrodes themselves through a high spark current in one direction in order to develop a thrust in the opposite direction. However, the known performance trend for these thrusters does not account for the vacuum spark force values published by NASA. Furthermore, they have not observed the electrode erosion usually associated with VAT operation, even after extended testing. Therefore it is possible that a new propulsion mechanism might be at work, but that should be verified and confirmed experimentally in the future in order to resolve the question.

Except, I can't fathom how the EM Drive could be doing this.

Sometimes, I think it's just trickery with electromagnetic force.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 11/06/2017 01:46 am
...Aside -  The EM drive seems to produce a force ...

...Please lets look at other answers for how this might work, because it does seem to work. ...

TU Dresden reported measuring a "force" of comparable magnitude with the EM Drive's longitudinal axis oriented along the arms of the torsional pendulum: a force perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the EM Drive:  a force parallel to the end walls.

In other words the experiments (which in several cases have resulted in forces in the opposite direction than predicted by theory) are also giving a force perpendicular (!) to the one predicted by theory. 

Can you make sense out of that as something that is not an artifact due to external magnetic fields?

The reported measured Q this time was between 40,000 to 500,000 (that is not a typo).  The force vs. time looked similar to what Monomorphic has been showing.

Monomorphic:

Todd (who also was at the workshop) and I really missed you !

does your setup allow you to also orient the EM Drive's longitudinal axis along the length of the arm of the pendulum?  In other words: can you orient the EM Drive perpendicular to its present direction?

Can you run the experiments with Helmholtz coils designed to isolate the experiment from the Earth's magnetic field?

Helmholtz coils (hoops) on three perpendicular axes used to cancel the Earth's magnetic field inside the vacuum tank in a 1957 electron beam experiment

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b6/Helmholtz_coils_in_free_radical_experiment_NBS_1957.jpg/660px-Helmholtz_coils_in_free_radical_experiment_NBS_1957.jpg)

http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Helmholtz_coil

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/62151/cancel-out-earths-magnetic-field

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/67822/current-to-cancel-earths-magnetic-field
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 11/06/2017 05:49 am
Anymore, I find myself thinking of the early days of these threads. 

I joined immediately before our esteemed Doctor Rodal, and still remember his first post, where he stated the EM Drive would show some degree of movement in an atmosphere, a trace of movement if suspended in a vacuum chamber, but only rotational movement in space.  Thus far, I have seen little convincing evidence, theoretical or otherwise, that contradicts that assessment.

I also remember two observations made by a majority of the electrical and microwave engineers who deigned to comment in these threads:

1 - The EM Drive, whatever else it does, should generate large amounts of evanescent waves; and

2 - The EM Drive is 'capacitor-like.'  Most of them were careful to avoid calling it a capacitor, only that it (sort-of) acted like one.  Which brings me to -

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGN65lse5yE

and

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875389211005797

Quote
Abstract


The present work provides a detailed analysis of already published reports on the observation of an anomalous force in a vacuum associated with vacuum sparks in asymmetric capacitors charged with “constant” high voltages. Known experimental details of these experiments are put forward and propulsion performance is compared with the only known propulsion system known to exist in a vacuum associated with sparks: the vacuum arc thruster (VAT). VAT's are known for decades and work on principles of momentum conservation. They vaporize particles from the electrodes themselves through a high spark current in one direction in order to develop a thrust in the opposite direction. However, the known performance trend for these thrusters does not account for the vacuum spark force values published by NASA. Furthermore, they have not observed the electrode erosion usually associated with VAT operation, even after extended testing. Therefore it is possible that a new propulsion mechanism might be at work, but that should be verified and confirmed experimentally in the future in order to resolve the question.

Except, I can't fathom how the EM Drive could be doing this.

Sometimes, I think it's just trickery with electromagnetic force.

Have they considered the attraction of the two wires because they were charged with different voltages?
Have they considered the Piezo effect of the material used in the capacitor?

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 11/06/2017 06:07 am
...
Regarding the force, my "guess" is that it will be less than a photon rocket operating at the available power inside the frustum, i.e., < Q*Pin/c, and will not thrust in steady state. It must be pulsed, which lowers the average thrust.

Trying for clarity here.

Are you saying that your theory *IN GENERAL* predicts less movement from a 'well functioning' EM Drive than a 'perfect' photon rocket?

Or does the 'less movement than a photon rocket' apply ONLY to a single specific aspect of the EM Drive? Additional movement coming from 'elsewhere?'

Yes, but not a photon rocket with thrust Pin/c, the fully charged frustum is capable of thrusts up to Q*Pin/c. The latter is much larger (momentary) thrust than the former.

With the EM Drive, I do not see a Mach effect (yet). It's plausible, but it has not been demonstrated in a way that really hits home for me.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThinkerX on 11/06/2017 07:30 am
Anymore, I find myself thinking of the early days of these threads. 

I joined immediately before our esteemed Doctor Rodal, and still remember his first post, where he stated the EM Drive would show some degree of movement in an atmosphere, a trace of movement if suspended in a vacuum chamber, but only rotational movement in space.  Thus far, I have seen little convincing evidence, theoretical or otherwise, that contradicts that assessment.

I also remember two observations made by a majority of the electrical and microwave engineers who deigned to comment in these threads:

1 - The EM Drive, whatever else it does, should generate large amounts of evanescent waves; and

2 - The EM Drive is 'capacitor-like.'  Most of them were careful to avoid calling it a capacitor, only that it (sort-of) acted like one.  Which brings me to -

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGN65lse5yE

and

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875389211005797

Quote
Abstract


The present work provides a detailed analysis of already published reports on the observation of an anomalous force in a vacuum associated with vacuum sparks in asymmetric capacitors charged with “constant” high voltages. Known experimental details of these experiments are put forward and propulsion performance is compared with the only known propulsion system known to exist in a vacuum associated with sparks: the vacuum arc thruster (VAT). VAT's are known for decades and work on principles of momentum conservation. They vaporize particles from the electrodes themselves through a high spark current in one direction in order to develop a thrust in the opposite direction. However, the known performance trend for these thrusters does not account for the vacuum spark force values published by NASA. Furthermore, they have not observed the electrode erosion usually associated with VAT operation, even after extended testing. Therefore it is possible that a new propulsion mechanism might be at work, but that should be verified and confirmed experimentally in the future in order to resolve the question.

Except, I can't fathom how the EM Drive could be doing this.

Sometimes, I think it's just trickery with electromagnetic force.

Have they considered the attraction of the two wires because they were charged with different voltages?
Have they considered the Piezo effect of the material used in the capacitor?

I have no idea. 

To me, the movement seemed minute and suspect.

But, if the wires had two different voltages, would that not constitute an asymmetry?  Something required to 'produce movement' according to most of the posters here?  Of course, it'd probably be the wrong sort of asymmetry. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThinkerX on 11/06/2017 07:34 am
...
Regarding the force, my "guess" is that it will be less than a photon rocket operating at the available power inside the frustum, i.e., < Q*Pin/c, and will not thrust in steady state. It must be pulsed, which lowers the average thrust.

Trying for clarity here.

Are you saying that your theory *IN GENERAL* predicts less movement from a 'well functioning' EM Drive than a 'perfect' photon rocket?

Or does the 'less movement than a photon rocket' apply ONLY to a single specific aspect of the EM Drive? Additional movement coming from 'elsewhere?'

Yes, but not a photon rocket with thrust Pin/c, the fully charged frustum is capable of thrusts up to Q*Pin/c. The latter is much larger (momentary) thrust than the former.

With the EM Drive, I do not see a Mach effect (yet). It's plausible, but it has not been demonstrated in a way that really hits home for me.

I find your response less than clear.  Lets try again:

According to your theory, which should produce the most 'movement' - a well designed and built EM Drive, or a well designed and built photon rocket?

Again, I am seeking clarity here.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/06/2017 11:27 am
Monomorphic:

Todd (who also was at the workshop) and I really missed you !

does your setup allow you to also orient the EM Drive's longitudinal axis along the length of the arm of the pendulum?  In other words: can you orient the EM Drive perpendicular to its present direction?

Can you run the experiments with Helmholtz coils designed to isolate the experiment from the Earth's magnetic field?

Helmholtz coils (hoops) on three perpendicular axes used to cancel the Earth's magnetic field inside the vacuum tank in a 1957 electron beam experiment

I'm sorry I couldn't make it. It would have been nice to meet in person. I'm looking forward to Estes Park or wherever the next one takes place!   ;D

The torsional pendulum was designed so cavities can be turned 90 degrees. However this TE013 cavity is so large, I would need to do a small modification to the bottom middle support. It would not be a problem for a smaller cavity.

As for adding Helmholtz coils, I don't see why not. It seems like it can be done economically, with simple coils of wire and a DC power source. Due to the shape of the draft enclosure I would have a hard time making the coils circular, so I would need to use square shaped coils.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tleach on 11/06/2017 02:01 pm
Just a difference in reflection coefficients between the two ends of the cavity cannot result in acceleration of the center of mass (solely by these means), just like you cannot accelerate a spacecraft by having one wall made of an inelastic material that will result in inelastic impact and having the opposite wall at the other end made from an elastic material and bouncing objects between the walls.  Draw a control volume around the spacecraft.  If all the energy and momentum is contained within the control volume, no acceleration of the center of mass will result.  The only way you can accelerate the center of mass is by energy-momentum exiting the control volume in a preferential (unbalanced) direction or for energy-momentum to enter the control volume in a preferential (unbalanced) direction.

(http://pillars.che.pitt.edu/files/course_10/figures/cv.gif)

If there is any ejection of energy-momentum out of the control volume in a preferential direction the force on the center of mass is only due to that energy-momentum ejection and one would have to justify (in the case of the EM Drive claims) why it would exceed the one of a photon rocket.

I write "energy-momentum" to be as general as possible, as energy and momentum are both contained in the stress-energy-momentum tensor Tij in general relativity.

PS:  The equation in <<Different, because on a reflecting surface, the radiation pressure is:

 Pressure = (1 + gamma) * power/c       and gamma does not have the same value at opposite ends.>> does not contain all the necessary terms in the electromagnetic equations of motion to satisfy conservation of electromagnetic momentum.

See:   https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1546438#msg1546438

Ok, yeah, you can't put velcro at one end of a spaceship and start throwing tennis balls and expect to get anywhere. Absolutely true! But photons aren't tennis balls...

What are photons? They're really just cute little packets of energy, right? What is energy? Energy is really just a way of writing down information (1 bit is about equal to 0.69 kT, where k is Boltzmann's constant and T is the temperature of the storage medium), right? I really think we need to think outside the box (or frustum) a little bit more than we have been. If the mass and energy of the frustum (and indeed of the universe itself) is just information, then by gosh, all we're trying to do is move around a bunch (a WHOLE bunch) of 1s and 0s.

As long as we stay below the speed of light, shouldn't be a problem ;-)

What if, and I know it's a big what if, but what if the holographic principle is true. What if Erik Verlinde (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.02269.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.02269.pdf)) is right, we're all just squiggles on the cosmic horizon, and gravity is an emergent phenomenon.

Quote
If we assume that the medium outside of the region where the volume is removed is incompressible, the change in volume is given by that of a thin shell with thickness u(r) and area A(r). The sign of u(r) determines whether the change in volume was positive or negative. We further assume that the change in volume is proportional to the removed entropy SM(r).

I think (and I freely admit that I could be very wrong) what he's saying is that information and entropy can have a direct, measurable, and considerably larger influence on gravitational fields than GR would imply. I was also struck by his use of the words "elastic" and "incompressible" in the paper... Maybe, just maybe, the asymmetry of the  frustum and the standing EM wave are manipulating the information/entropy content of the spherical volume around the drive.

If current models, which claim that 26.8% of the matter in the universe is dark matter (5x higher than baryonic matter), can be accounted for by treating gravity as an emergent phenomena of information and entropy gradients, then I think there's a very real possibility that this could be at least part of the "New Physics" required to fully understand the EM Drive.

Controversial new theory that could rewrite physics passes its first test:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4047500/Was-Einstein-WRONG-gravity-Controversial-new-theory-rewrite-physics-passes-test.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4047500/Was-Einstein-WRONG-gravity-Controversial-new-theory-rewrite-physics-passes-test.html)

First test of Verlinde’s theory of Emergent Gravity using Weak Gravitational Lensing measurements:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.03034.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.03034.pdf)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 11/06/2017 02:28 pm
does your setup allow you to also orient the EM Drive's longitudinal axis along the length of the arm of the pendulum?  In other words: can you orient the EM Drive perpendicular to its present direction?

Can you run the experiments with Helmholtz coils designed to isolate the experiment from the Earth's magnetic field?

Jose, while you're throwing very interesting ideas on the table, I think that, at the moment, it would be a better idea for Jamie to focus on his current setup and try running some batches of tests.

What I mean is that, Jamie was able to fine tune his torsional arm and reduce the noise; now, asking him to dismount all the rig to change the cavity orientation or add coils may (and probably will) introduce back noise and the need for further tuning and calibration, so, why throwing off the window the current (quite) good setup and spend more time redoing it all ?

I think that the first step should be some batches of powered runs and data collection using the current setup, next, once he'll have the data, he may decide how to move next; but starting back the whole calibration and problem solving process today, just to follow some (interesting, by the way) ideas, isn't in my humble opinion, so convenient at the moment
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 11/06/2017 03:08 pm
...Jose, while you're throwing very interesting ideas on the table, I think that, at the moment, it would be a better idea for Jamie to focus on his current setup and try running some batches of tests.
...
ThatOtherGuy, I am not randomly
Quote
throwing very interesting ideas on the table
, that just appeared in my mind.

On the contrary, I am informing Monomorphic (and anybody willing to listen) of the latest reported experimental data, from a university conducting scientific work, at a workshop, where the latest EM Drive test results were simply described [to somebody in the audience that wanted this described in simple words] as possibly "a magnetic needle".  For Monomorphic to stay current with the latest information, he would need to address this information (at whatever time he deems makes the most sense) and test the EM Drive at 90 degrees to its present orientation, to measure any force parallel to the end plates.

Sorry to be the messenger of bad news  ;) .

It is important to stay informed...

It would have been preferable if Monomorphic would have been at the workshop to hear this information first hand and to ask further questions, but Todd "WarpTech" was also there, so you could ask WarpTech (if you want to have another viewpoint) on what he heard, and what is his understanding.

(http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-the-first-principle-is-that-you-must-not-fool-yourself-and-you-are-the-easiest-person-to-fool-richard-feynman-61477.jpg)

 [conceptual image of an early version of Monomorphic's drive shown with the direction of the measured force at the university, for visualization purposes]


VIEW FROM ABOVE (plane of drawing parallel to ground)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RonM on 11/06/2017 03:17 pm
does your setup allow you to also orient the EM Drive's longitudinal axis along the length of the arm of the pendulum?  In other words: can you orient the EM Drive perpendicular to its present direction?

Can you run the experiments with Helmholtz coils designed to isolate the experiment from the Earth's magnetic field?

Jose, while you're throwing very interesting ideas on the table, I think that, at the moment, it would be a better idea for Jamie to focus on his current setup and try running some batches of tests.

What I mean is that, Jamie was able to fine tune his torsional arm and reduce the noise; now, asking him to dismount all the rig to change the cavity orientation or add coils may (and probably will) introduce back noise and the need for further tuning and calibration, so, why throwing off the window the current (quite) good setup and spend more time redoing it all ?

I think that the first step should be some batches of powered runs and data collection using the current setup, next, once he'll have the data, he may decide how to move next; but starting back the whole calibration and problem solving process today, just to follow some (interesting, by the way) ideas, isn't in my humble opinion, so convenient at the moment
ThatOtherGuy, I am not randomly
Quote
throwing very interesting ideas on the table
.

On the contrary, I am informing Monomorphic (and anybody willing to listen) of the latest experimental data, from a university conducting scientific work, at a workshop, where the EM Drive test results were simply described [to somebody in the audience that wanted this described in simple words] as "a magnetic needle" experimental artifact.

Sorry to be the messenger of bad news  ;) .

It is important to stay informed...

(http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-the-first-principle-is-that-you-must-not-fool-yourself-and-you-are-the-easiest-person-to-fool-richard-feynman-61477.jpg)

Jamie should do some runs now before any modifications. If the result is null, there's no need for changing the rig to prove it's not "a magnetic needle" experimental artifact.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 11/06/2017 03:45 pm
does your setup allow you to also orient the EM Drive's longitudinal axis along the length of the arm of the pendulum?  In other words: can you orient the EM Drive perpendicular to its present direction?

Can you run the experiments with Helmholtz coils designed to isolate the experiment from the Earth's magnetic field?

Jose, while you're throwing very interesting ideas on the table, I think that, at the moment, it would be a better idea for Jamie to focus on his current setup and try running some batches of tests.

What I mean is that, Jamie was able to fine tune his torsional arm and reduce the noise; now, asking him to dismount all the rig to change the cavity orientation or add coils may (and probably will) introduce back noise and the need for further tuning and calibration, so, why throwing off the window the current (quite) good setup and spend more time redoing it all ?

I think that the first step should be some batches of powered runs and data collection using the current setup, next, once he'll have the data, he may decide how to move next; but starting back the whole calibration and problem solving process today, just to follow some (interesting, by the way) ideas, isn't in my humble opinion, so convenient at the moment
ThatOtherGuy, I am not randomly
Quote
throwing very interesting ideas on the table
.

On the contrary, I am informing Monomorphic (and anybody willing to listen) of the latest experimental data, from a university conducting scientific work, at a workshop, where the EM Drive test results were simply described [to somebody in the audience that wanted this described in simple words] as "a magnetic needle" experimental artifact.

Sorry to be the messenger of bad news  ;) .

It is important to stay informed...

(http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-the-first-principle-is-that-you-must-not-fool-yourself-and-you-are-the-easiest-person-to-fool-richard-feynman-61477.jpg)

Jamie should do some runs now before any modifications. If the result is null, there's no need for changing the rig to prove it's not "a magnetic needle" experimental artifact.

Exactly my point

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 11/06/2017 04:07 pm
...Jose, while you're throwing very interesting ideas on the table, I think that, at the moment, it would be a better idea for Jamie to focus on his current setup and try running some batches of tests.
...
ThatOtherGuy, I am not randomly
Quote
throwing very interesting ideas on the table
, that just appeared in my mind.

On the contrary, I am informing Monomorphic (and anybody willing to listen) of the latest reported experimental data, from a university conducting scientific work, at a workshop, where the latest EM Drive test results were simply described [to somebody in the audience that wanted this described in simple words] as possibly "a magnetic needle".  For Monomorphic to stay current with the latest information, he would need to address this information (at whatever time he deems makes the most sense) and test the EM Drive at 90 degrees to its present orientation, to measure any force parallel to the end plates.

Sorry to be the messenger of bad news  ;) .

It is important to stay informed...

It would have been preferable if Monomorphic would have been at the workshop to hear this information first hand and to ask further questions, but Todd "WarpTech" was also there, so you could ask WarpTech (if you want to have another viewpoint) on what he heard, and what is his understanding.

(http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-the-first-principle-is-that-you-must-not-fool-yourself-and-you-are-the-easiest-person-to-fool-richard-feynman-61477.jpg)

 [conceptual image of an early version of Monomorphic's drive shown with the direction of the measured force at the university, for visualization purposes]


My 2015 arxiv paper hypothesized that the force measured by EW's 2014 experiment was caused by Lorentz force caused by DC ground loop currents interacting with the Earth's magnetic field, ie, "magnetic needle" effect. I'd suggest the authors of the new experiment to examine and remove DC ground loop currents in their system before they look at magnetic needle effect of the frustum itself.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/06/2017 04:19 pm
Jamie should do some runs now before any modifications. If the result is null, there's no need for changing the rig to prove it's not "a magnetic needle" experimental artifact.

Don't worry, I will be doing some test runs before any new major modifications. Adding a Helmholtz coil would be a pretty major addition and would require a lot of planning. The last remaining task I want to finish before performing more tests is to improve the heat sink on the main amplifier.

I also have the ability to move one of the laser displacement sensors to capture data along that axis, though it wont be as sensitive.   
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 11/06/2017 04:23 pm
...
My 2015 arxiv paper hypothesized that the force measured by EW's 2014 experiment was caused by Lorentz force caused by DC ground loop currents interacting with the Earth's magnetic field, ie, "magnetic needle" effect. I'd suggest the authors of the new experiment to examine and remove DC ground loop currents in their system before they look at magnetic needle effect of the frustum itself.
My understanding is that they did analyze, design, measure and conduct the experiment such as to remove such DC ground loop currents, but we will have to wait until we can see a formal written published report to assess the effectiveness of their efforts in this regard.  Meanwhile, it behooves anybody claiming EM Drive anomalous forces (at a time of their convenience) to (also) test their drive at 90 degrees to the longitudinal orientation.


 [conceptual image of an early version of Monomorphic's drive shown with the direction of the measured force at the university, for visualization purposes]

VIEW FROM ABOVE (plane of drawing parallel to ground)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SteveD on 11/06/2017 05:01 pm
Dr. Rodal I am completely lost here.  When you say a perpendicular force has been measured by TU Dresden are you talking about the paper several years ago that mentioned one or some new results from the conference?  When you are talking about Jamie's results are you talking about the prior 3W test or new data we have not yet seen.

If TU has new data showing a perpendicular force is that force at 90 degrees from a side injection as you show or at 180 degrees as the first TU paper be several years ago claimed?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 11/06/2017 05:48 pm
...
My 2015 arxiv paper hypothesized that the force measured by EW's 2014 experiment was caused by Lorentz force caused by DC ground loop currents interacting with the Earth's magnetic field, ie, "magnetic needle" effect. I'd suggest the authors of the new experiment to examine and remove DC ground loop currents in their system before they look at magnetic needle effect of the frustum itself.
My understanding is that they did analyze, design, measure and conduct the experiment such as to remove such DC ground loop currents, but we will have to wait until we can see a formal written published report to assess the effectiveness of their efforts in this regard.  Meanwhile, it behooves anybody claiming EM Drive anomalous forces (at a time of their convenience) to (also) test their drive at 90 degrees to the longitudinal orientation.


 [conceptual image of an early version of Monomorphic's drive shown with the direction of the measured force at the university, for visualization purposes]


While a potential sad ending, it's indeed a reasonable explanation. The force of the phenomenon is so low it could be explained by many environmental sources of similar magnitude.

Did Dr. Tajmar try to verify if such source of noise was indeed the cause of thrust (e.g. by shielding the device from the magnetic field), of is it still work in progress?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 11/06/2017 05:51 pm
Dr. Rodal I am completely lost here.  When you say a perpendicular force has been measured by TU Dresden are you talking about the paper several years ago that mentioned one or some new results from the conference?  ...
As I said, I am talking about the results presented last week, in thorough detail, over several presentations (including the PhD students) last week, at the workshop you were inquiring about.  The workshop were Monomorphic was scheduled to make a presentation, but he did not attend. 

Several years ago they had a Q<50 and now the Q is from 40,000 to 500,000.  They have addressed even the torsional balance used in the measurement which now is claimed to have a much lower noise ceiling.  A brand new isolation foundation, etc.


...Did Dr. Tajmar try to verify if such source of noise was indeed the cause of thrust (e.g. by shielding the device from the magnetic field), of is it still work in progress?
They did a very thorough job addressing a number of details that others apparently have not, but it is still a work in progress.  Only when they write a formal final report and a peer-reviewed paper it will be finalized.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SteveD on 11/06/2017 06:03 pm
Dr. Rodal I am completely lost here.  When you say a perpendicular force has been measured by TU Dresden are you talking about the paper several years ago that mentioned one or some new results from the conference?  ...
As I said, I am talking about the results presented last week, in thorough detail, over several presentations (including the PhD students) last week, at the workshop you were inquiring about.  The workshop were Monomorphic was scheduled to make a presentation, but he did not attend. 

Several years ago they had a Q<50 and now the Q is from 40,000 to 500,000.  They have addressed even the torsional balance used in the measurement which now is claimed to have a much lower noise ceiling.  A brand new isolation foundation, etc.


...Did Dr. Tajmar try to verify if such source of noise was indeed the cause of thrust (e.g. by shielding the device from the magnetic field), of is it still work in progress?
They did a very thorough job addressing a number of details that others apparently have not, but it is still a work in progress.  Only when they write a formal final report and a peer-reviewed paper it will be finalized.

And they found a downward movement but no directional movement and now think this is some form of compass (an admittedly plausible explanation involving interaction with an outside field).  Might I suggest a very simple test that would help to eliminate error sources that could not produce a downward movement. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 11/06/2017 06:06 pm
...

And they found a downward movement but no directional movement and now think this is some form of compass (an admittedly plausible explanation involving interaction with an outside field).  Might I suggest a very simple test that would help to eliminate error sources that could not produce a downward movement.
No.

As I said they found a "comparable magnitude" force in the perpendicular direction to the force measured in the longitudinal direction.  They measured forces along both directions.  None of the directions were "downward". 
They are using a torsional pendulum that can measure forces only in torsion, so both forces are parallel to the ground.

You have to view my drawing from above and not laterally.  The plane of the drawing is parallel to the plane of the ground.

The problem is that you have people here talking about strange theories of reflection at the ends, and other theories to explain the EM Drive that cannot even begin to explain a force in the perpendicular direction.

We have gone from theories that cannot even explain the direction (towards the small end or the large end) of the "force" to now having a force in the perpendicular direction which is in complete and utter conflict with the theories of Shawyer, McCulloch and others.

(https://kerrywills.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/breaking-laws-of-physics-cartoon.gif)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 11/06/2017 06:19 pm
But, besides the theoretical reasons, there is not a single reproducible experiment where someone has been able to extract energy from the Quantum Vacuum.

Consider the following thought experiment:

In the reference frame of a distant observer, outside of a gravity well, looking "down" into it. He sees an atom falling from height h1 to height h2 < h1. In doing so, the atom's oscillation transitions to and from the ground state becomes red-shifted, due to gravitational red shift.

Since the frequency of the atomic oscillations decreased, in the frame of the distant observer, the energy of the oscillator was also decreased;

h*f1 > h*f2
E1 > E2

In falling from h1 to h2, the atom lost energy. In this distant observer's frame, the atom's ground state energy is lower at h2 than it was at h1.

Given this example, and the fact that the ZPF sets the ground state energy of the atom. All Hydro-electric power is essentially extracting energy from the Quantum Vacuum.  8)

If in your view, as I understand it, the ZPF essentially supports all processes, is the field emanating from a charge or even a magnet a propagating field that must be continuously supplied by the ZPF? In other words, in your model is there really a continual flux from the ZPF keeping up appearances even in static situations? Thanks.  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 11/06/2017 06:42 pm
...

And they found a downward movement but no directional movement and now think this is some form of compass (an admittedly plausible explanation involving interaction with an outside field).  Might I suggest a very simple test that would help to eliminate error sources that could not produce a downward movement.
No.

As I said they found a "comparable magnitude" force in the perpendicular direction to the force measured in the longitudinal direction.  They measured forces along both directions.  None of the directions were "downward". 
They are using a torsional pendulum that can measure forces only in torsion, so both forces are parallel to the ground.

You have to view my drawing from above and not laterally.  The plane of the drawing is parallel to the plane of the ground.

The problem is that you have people here talking about strange theories of reflection at the ends, and other theories to explain the EM Drive that cannot even begin to explain a force in the perpendicular direction.

We have gone from theories that cannot even explain the direction (towards the small end or the large end) of the "force" to now having a force in the perpendicular direction which is in complete and utter conflict with the theories of Shawyer, McCulloch and others.

Do they know my ground loop paper? From your description and the drawing it sounds like they may have this exact problem in their system. (The drawing did not show that they deliberately isolated their frustum from the beam, a remedy of the groud loop problem)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 11/06/2017 06:45 pm
...

Do they know my ground loop paper? From your description and the drawing it sounds like they may have this exact problem in their system. (The drawing did not show that they deliberately isolated their frustum from the beam, a remedy of the groud loop problem)
As I explained, the drawing is NOT from them.  As I explained I just took a picture from Monomorphic, and I inserted a vector  to explain the direction of the force to the audience here.  You have no information whatsoever from this sketch of mine to ascertain whether or not they isolated their frustrum from the torsional arm, or anything else, as it is a drawing from Monomorphic, and nothing to do with them!

Their frustum does not have an adjustable constant cross-section at one end, their antenna was in a different place, etc. etc. etc.

As to your paper, I do not know who read or did not read your paper.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 11/06/2017 07:57 pm
...
They have much better Q's: 40,000 to 500,000 vs. less than 50 then.  ...

500k? Is that possible with conventional (not SC) cavities?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SteveD on 11/06/2017 07:57 pm

The problem is that you have people here talking about strange theories of reflection at the ends, and other theories to explain the EM Drive that cannot even begin to explain a force in the perpendicular direction.

Huh, my hacked together KISS theory predicted sidewall motion if the device was using side injection or a sidewalls mounted antenna.  Did the record an equal force for both endplates and sidewalls?  That would seem to indicate the compus hypothesis instead of thrust.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 11/06/2017 07:59 pm
...If TU has new data showing a perpendicular force is that force at 90 degrees from a side injection as you show ...
The EM Drive they made when they were working under the advice of Shawyer was very different.
They do NOT use a side injection waveguide anymore.  They now use an antenna.
They have much better Q's: 40,000 to 500,000 vs. less than 50 then.  They have excellent resonance now.
Their EM Drive is bigger now (remember that Q scales with geometrical size).
They have very good finite element analysis of the mode shapes now (do you remember what a mess was when the huge waveguide compared to the EM Drive before?).  They didn't use an adjustable constant cross-section for the new results that were reported: the construction of the EM Drive now is much better quality and it matches with excellent precision the calculated eigenfrequencies and eigenmodes.

They also reported that the Baby EM Drive tested at TU Dresden did not produce a signal above the noise floor (which was below a microNewton).



The problem is that you have people here talking about strange theories of reflection at the ends, and other theories to explain the EM Drive that cannot even begin to explain a force in the perpendicular direction.

Huh, my hacked together KISS theory predicted sidewall motion if the device was using side injection.  Did the record an equal force for both endplates and sidewalls?  That would seem to indicate the compus hypothesis instead of thrust.
No side wall injection ! No waveguide used this time !!!!!!!!!!!!

Not the EM Drive they made under advice from Shawyer

...
They have much better Q's: 40,000 to 500,000 vs. less than 50 then.  ...

500k? Is that possible with conventional (not SC) cavities?

I expressed my skepticism and they replied they were confident about it, but it was up to 500,000 only in a couple of measurements, and with TE0np mode shapes (the mode shapes that have highest Q).  More measurements between 40,000 to 100,000.

According to the particle accelerator physics literature Q in the lower hundred thousands has been achieved experimentally before in TE0np mode shapes, it is theoretically possible with the correct geometrical size, but it requires very good exactitude in geometrical shape, placement of antenna, coupling, etc.

There is no doubt from looking at their data that they have gone from embarrasingly low Q (the EM Drive with the huge waveguide made with Shawyer advice more than a year ago) to excellent Q now.

Oh, no magnetron now, solid state, and electronics is placed in torsional beam (addressing the issue found by Yang that defenestrated Yang's results).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 11/06/2017 08:09 pm
...
It is important to stay informed...

It would have been preferable if Monomorphic would have been at the workshop to hear this information first hand and to ask further questions, but Todd "WarpTech" was also there, so you could ask WarpTech (if you want to have another viewpoint) on what he heard, and what is his understanding.
...

Yes, it was jokingly stated that it's not a thruster, it's a compass. However, quite frankly, Jamie has gone to enormous lengths to get everything onto the thrust balance with a well modeled frustum and a low return loss (high Q). The need for this level of accuracy in the test setup is all dependent upon how much SIGNAL to NOISE he can get out of the thruster. Until he actually does some test runs to see what order of magnitude the thrust from his frustum puts out, he's just wasting time adding more features to his thrust balance. IMO, until we start getting some data and can start to actually see thrust in the mN rather than uN range, we're all just pretending it works.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 11/06/2017 10:02 pm
...
TU Dresden reported measuring a "force" of comparable magnitude with the EM Drive's longitudinal axis oriented along the arms of the torsional pendulum: a force perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the EM Drive:  a force parallel to the end walls.

In other words the experiments (which in several cases have resulted in forces in the opposite direction than predicted by theory) are also giving a force perpendicular (!) to the one predicted by theory. 

Can you make sense out of that as something that is not an artifact due to external magnetic fields?
...

Did they measure this "multi-directional force" with several different resonant modes? Or only with TE-modes?
Are they going to publish soon? Do you know anything about that?

It will make some simple diagnostics more difficult, if not impossible. I mean using different orientations of the frustum is the easiest way to get some idea of whether there is a real anomalous force or it is due to heating or magnetic forces. (Besides using a dummy load i.s.o. the frustum. And wrapping the cavity in heat isolation, like several layers of Al-foil.)

Peter
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 11/06/2017 10:18 pm
...
TU Dresden reported measuring a "force" of comparable magnitude with the EM Drive's longitudinal axis oriented along the arms of the torsional pendulum: a force perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the EM Drive:  a force parallel to the end walls.

In other words the experiments (which in several cases have resulted in forces in the opposite direction than predicted by theory) are also giving a force perpendicular (!) to the one predicted by theory. 

Can you make sense out of that as something that is not an artifact due to external magnetic fields?
...

Did they measure this "multi-directional force" with several different resonant modes? Or only with TE-modes?
Are they going to publish soon? Do you know anything about that?
They reported measuring the existence of the perpendicular force with several eigenmodes, which they can do by varying the eigenfrequency.
I don't know when they are going to publish, they are very methodical and they are in no hurry to do it.  I understand that one of the things they would like to add is to perform the experiments with Helmholtz coils to isolate the experiment from the external magnetic field.
Again, this is the advantage of attending such a workshop: you get to hear such work first hand, and to thoroughly discuss the data and experiments with the researchers.

I understand that the videos of the presentations, as well as the excellent questions and answers that followed the presentations that took place last week at the Advanced Propulsion Workshop at Aerospace Corporation (El Segundo) (including my presentation) will be available through the Space Studies Institute website (ssi.org) within a few weeks.  Just like the videos of the Estes conference are still available at that website.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: aero on 11/06/2017 10:22 pm
Dr. Rodal,
Would you please take a close look, as time permits, at the paper here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1310.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1310.pdf)
then tell us whether or not the authors are implying that we should expect a lateral force to be generated along with the longitudinal force? It seems to me to say "yes" but I wonder if sufficient rigor has been applied, and I wonder if their result is applicable to resonant cavities.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 11/06/2017 10:44 pm
Dr. Rodal,
Would you please take a close look, as time permits, at the paper here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1310.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1310.pdf)
then tell us whether or not the authors are implying that we should expect a lateral force to be generated along with the longitudinal force? It seems to me to say "yes" but I wonder if sufficient rigor has been applied, and I wonder if their result is applicable to resonant cavities.
You need an external directional field that can penetrate the walls of the EM Drive to interact with the internal electromagnetic fields, to produce any such force on the center of mass. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Ricvil on 11/07/2017 12:03 am
My "guess" is:
1- Must exist a coupling with another field to produce thrust, because the electromagnetic field per si is confined. The cadidate field? Gravity.
2- The coupling with gravity probaly result in gravitational waves, because would be more effective to carrier energy and moment this way, but would require a density of energy oscillating inside cavity.
3- Just one electromagnetic mode inside cavity is not able to produce a oscillating density of energy, because with just one mode, the energy is oscillating between electric field and magnetic field, and the result is always a stationary distribuition of energy inside cavity, then only a mixing of at least two major diferent interacting modes would be necessary to produce a oscillating distribuition of energy.
4- These two principal degenerated modes ( same resonant frequency), must have diferent center of mass, and must exchange energy by coupling. This is possible? I think YES.
4.1- Without the end plates, what one has is just a tappered conical waveguide, and it's natural modes (TE and TM) can be expressed by fractionary bessel and legendre functions plus exponential complex in spherical coordinate system.
4.2- With spherical end plates, all is perfect, the equations decouples for each orthogonal coordinate, and the spherical front waves find a easy matching of boundary conditions, and even in the case of existence of degenerated modes, they will not couple at all (they will not interact).
4.3- With flat end plates, one can not decouple the equations ( does not exist a orthogonal coordinate system to match all boundary conditions) , then only modes compatible with a "adiabatic evolution of a cylindrical equivalent mode" will not mixing.
4.4- There is another situation for flat end plates even more sutile, where each flat end can be considered a local deformation of a perfect spherical end, and in this case the "Slater formula" predicts a local change of frequency of a propagation mode, so a mode under cutoff condition for tappered waveguide, may becomes a propagating mode at neighborhood of end plate under favorable frequency conditions, and thus becomes a localized resonance.
5- The localized resonances, explained above, will be evanescent along cavity, then  it's center of mass of energy density will tend approach the end plates because of exponential decay, but the decay rate depends of the evanescent mode cutoff frequency by resulting dispersion relations.
6- One can see some this localized resonant modes at Frank Davies Comsol paper of frustum modes, and he calls some of these as "pants modes". My favourite is the "Tx3xx mode".
7- Some times, these localized modes are the same type on each end plate (TM-TM or TE-TE), and some times they are diferent (TE-TM), and some times there is only one localized mode very intense in just one side.
8- I'm interested in the case of two localized mode, because I think they can couple each other by tunneling between the "defects", because in fact at the end plates pratically all modes are presents as evanescent modes to match the boundary conditions, but they are very attenuated along cavity as far they are from the final resonant frequency ditacted by phase matching requirements of all boundary conditions.
9-If two localized resonant modes can couple by tunneling,  and one of them can interact with a adequated level of gain of a magnetron, then a kind of asymmetrical dimer can be formed.
10- In a dimer, two resonant systems exchange energy, and in some cases the energy is completaly transfered from one resonant system to the other in a oscillatory fashion, at a very high frequency, and in this cavity scenario with two degenerated localized resonant modes, the result will be a very fast oscillatory center of mass of energy density.
11-A electromagnetic dimer inside the cavity can be an efficient way to generate gravitational waves, but if they can generate a directional thrust, I don't know yet.
:)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/07/2017 12:03 am
...
They have much better Q's: 40,000 to 500,000 vs. less than 50 then.  ...

500k? Is that possible with conventional (not SC) cavities?

Hi Peter,

Yes it is possible to achieve a Qu of 500K without going cryo. Not easy but it is doable.

As Dr Rodal indicated, Q is mode related.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/07/2017 12:05 am
Dr. Rodal,
Would you please take a close look, as time permits, at the paper here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1310.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1310.pdf)
then tell us whether or not the authors are implying that we should expect a lateral force to be generated along with the longitudinal force? It seems to me to say "yes" but I wonder if sufficient rigor has been applied, and I wonder if their result is applicable to resonant cavities.
You need an external directional field that can penetrate the walls of the EM Drive to interact with the internal electromagnetic fields, to produce any such force on the center of mass.

Hi Jose,

That is one way to do it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 11/07/2017 12:20 am
Dr. Rodal,
Would you please take a close look, as time permits, at the paper here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1310.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1310.pdf)
then tell us whether or not the authors are implying that we should expect a lateral force to be generated along with the longitudinal force? It seems to me to say "yes" but I wonder if sufficient rigor has been applied, and I wonder if their result is applicable to resonant cavities.
You need an external directional field that can penetrate the walls of the EM Drive to interact with the internal electromagnetic fields, to produce any such force on the center of mass.

Hi Jose,

That is one way to do it.

Hi Phil,

Do you imply there are other ways?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/07/2017 12:28 am
Dr. Rodal,
Would you please take a close look, as time permits, at the paper here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1310.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1310.pdf)
then tell us whether or not the authors are implying that we should expect a lateral force to be generated along with the longitudinal force? It seems to me to say "yes" but I wonder if sufficient rigor has been applied, and I wonder if their result is applicable to resonant cavities.
You need an external directional field that can penetrate the walls of the EM Drive to interact with the internal electromagnetic fields, to produce any such force on the center of mass.

Hi Jose,

That is one way to do it.

Hi Phil,

Do you imply there are other ways?

Hi FC,

The EmDrive does not use external fields nor does it exhaust mass.

There are other ways for EmDrive mass to gain momentum than from throwing some of it's mass away.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 11/07/2017 12:32 am
Dr. Rodal,
Would you please take a close look, as time permits, at the paper here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1310.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1310.pdf)
then tell us whether or not the authors are implying that we should expect a lateral force to be generated along with the longitudinal force? It seems to me to say "yes" but I wonder if sufficient rigor has been applied, and I wonder if their result is applicable to resonant cavities.
You need an external directional field that can penetrate the walls of the EM Drive to interact with the internal electromagnetic fields, to produce any such force on the center of mass.

Hi Jose,

That is one way to do it.

Hi Phil,

Do you imply there are other ways?

Hi FC,

The EmDrive does not use external fields nor does it exhaust mass.

There are other ways for EmDrive mass to gain momentum than from throwing some of it's mass away.
Please follow the chain discussion, which as a reply to aero, had to do with producing a side force at 90 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the EM Drive (as reported last week by TU Dresden with high Q cavities having NO waveguide entrance, but instead excited with an antenna, and solid state) rather than "gaining momentum" for the EM Drive "without throwing its mass away".  My understanding is that even Roger Shawyer does not agree that Shawyer's formulas can lead to a side force at 90 degrees to the longitudinal axis!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: aero on 11/07/2017 12:36 am
Dr. Rodal,
Would you please take a close look, as time permits, at the paper here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1310.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1310.pdf)
then tell us whether or not the authors are implying that we should expect a lateral force to be generated along with the longitudinal force? It seems to me to say "yes" but I wonder if sufficient rigor has been applied, and I wonder if their result is applicable to resonant cavities.
You need an external directional field that can penetrate the walls of the EM Drive to interact with the internal electromagnetic fields, to produce any such force on the center of mass.

That's not quite the question I asked. The authors show that EM waves do, under the circumstances addressed, impart a longitudinal and a lateral force. Take that as given. Can their circumstances be generalized to a resonant cavity? Or the end plate of a resonant cavity because interaction must occur at the boundary. (Unless of course, the EM waves are interacting with a penetrating field as you suggest.)

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 11/07/2017 12:38 am
Dr. Rodal,
Would you please take a close look, as time permits, at the paper here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1310.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1310.pdf)
then tell us whether or not the authors are implying that we should expect a lateral force to be generated along with the longitudinal force? It seems to me to say "yes" but I wonder if sufficient rigor has been applied, and I wonder if their result is applicable to resonant cavities.
You need an external directional field that can penetrate the walls of the EM Drive to interact with the internal electromagnetic fields, to produce any such force on the center of mass.

That's not quite the question I asked. The authors show that EM waves do, under the circumstances addressed, impart a longitudinal and a lateral force. Take that as given. Can their circumstances be generalized to a resonant cavity? Or the end plate of a resonant cavity because interaction must occur at the boundary. (Unless of course, the EM waves are interacting with a penetrating field as you suggest.)
No.  If you think that such interpretation is even possible, you are mis-reading their paper.  There is nothing new in the fact that, under the correct conditions, you can have transverse shear Maxwell stresses at a surface (transverse shear stresses are just the non-diagonal components of the Maxwell stress tensor).  The authors do not imply or make a claim that what they are discussing applies to an axi-symmetric resonant closed cavity made of copper that is several times the thickness of the skin depth at the operating frequency.
And in any case, if it would be an open cavity, like a waveguide, such a force/unitPower would never be able to exceed the one of a photon rocket in any case, solely based on ejecting photons.
Meberbs' posts, addressing this very issue are correct.  I thought that had been settled, but since you are insisting, I cannot avoid giving you a more direct response.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 11/07/2017 01:02 am
...
In falling from h1 to h2, the atom lost energy. In this distant observer's frame, the atom's ground state energy is lower at h2 than it was at h1.
...

If in your view, as I understand it, the ZPF essentially supports all processes, is the field emanating from a charge or even a magnet a propagating field that must be continuously supplied by the ZPF? In other words, in your model is there really a continual flux from the ZPF keeping up appearances even in static situations? Thanks.  :)

It's not just my view. It's part of QED;

In section 3.3 of The Quantum Vacuum, Milonni [2] writes,
“The fact that an accelerating charge loses energy by radiating implies, according to classical ideas, that an electron should spiral into the nucleus and that atoms should not be stable. The balancing of the effects of radiation reaction and the vacuum field..., however, suggest that the stability of atoms might be attributable to the influence on the atom of the vacuum field.... We now know that the vacuum field is in fact formally necessary for the stability of atoms in quantum theory. As we saw..., radiation reaction will cause canonical commutators [x, px] to decay to zero unless the fluctuating vacuum field is included, in which case commutators are consistently preserved.”

In my own words: Atoms are in equilibrium with the vacuum fields. Where, the ZPF is the driving field that inflates them, and RR and/or the fields of all mater in the universe, is the damping field that contracts them. Any imbalance in these two fields will cause matter to seek a new equilibrium by moving in the direction which reduces its self-energy. This is the direction of increased damping, which results in gravitational length contraction and time dilation.

In answer to a question Dr. Rodal asked of one presenter: In the manner I described above, the two fields might have infinite energy and we are taking the difference between these two infinities, as is done elsewhere in QED. The imbalance is what "gravitates". If matter is in equilibrium, it is an inertial reference frame. However, the "strength" of the frame, as was discussed by Marc Mills, I equate to the spectral energy density of the fields in equilibrium. Hence, we can have gravitational effects such as time dilation and length contraction, in an inertial frame (of any strength), and we can have gravitational effects at the order of magnitude we are familiar with, without the fields themselves causing a 120 order of magnitude catastrophe for the ZPF. It's all in how I/we interpret what we have for data.  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/07/2017 01:03 am
Dr. Rodal,
Would you please take a close look, as time permits, at the paper here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1310.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1310.pdf)
then tell us whether or not the authors are implying that we should expect a lateral force to be generated along with the longitudinal force? It seems to me to say "yes" but I wonder if sufficient rigor has been applied, and I wonder if their result is applicable to resonant cavities.
You need an external directional field that can penetrate the walls of the EM Drive to interact with the internal electromagnetic fields, to produce any such force on the center of mass.

Hi Jose,

That is one way to do it.

Hi Phil,

Do you imply there are other ways?

Hi FC,

The EmDrive does not use external fields nor does it exhaust mass.

There are other ways for EmDrive mass to gain momentum than from throwing some of it's mass away.
Please follow the chain discussion, which as a reply to aero, had to do with producing a side force at 90 degrees to the longitudinal axis of the EM Drive (as reported last week by TU Dresden with high Q cavities having NO waveguide entrance, but instead excited with an antenna, and solid state) rather than "gaining momentum" for the EM Drive "without throwing its mass away".  My understanding is that even Roger Shawyer does not agree that Shawyer's formulas can lead to a side force at 90 degrees to the longitudinal axis!

Hi Jose,

You are making statements from a paper that none of us have access to. So what is the point in discussing this claimed result until the data is available to us all?

When it is published, I'll do an analysis vs known EmDrive operational characteristic and post it here.

BTW how is the thrust development going with the MEGA drive? Does the thrust still scale with the square of the power?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 11/07/2017 01:18 am
...
Hi Jose,

You are making statements from a paper that none of us have access to. So what is the point in discussing this claimed result until the data is available to us all?

When it is published, I'll do an analysis vs known EmDrive operational characteristic and post it here.

BTW how is the thrust development going with the MEGA drive? Does the thrust still scale with the square of the power?
Hi Phil, you are the one that appears to have misinterpreted what was being discussed.  Contrary to your statement I am discussing what what was presented at the workshop, I looked at the data.  You did not look at the data, which apparently you have not yet seen. The other person that was there was WarpTech, who can also give his opinion.  Since you were not there and apparently are unaware of this work you cannot comment on it until it gets released: on that we agree  ;)

You will get to see the videos in a few weeks at the SSI.org website.

As to the MEGA drive you are in the wrong thread, but the answer to your question
Quote
Does the thrust still scale with the square of the power?
is yes, it goes like the 4th power of the voltage.  This was also brought up by others to distinguish the EM Drive from the MEGA drive.  It may point to fundamental differences.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/07/2017 01:53 am
...
Hi Jose,

You are making statements from a paper that none of us have access to. So what is the point in discussing this claimed result until the data is available to us all?

When it is published, I'll do an analysis vs known EmDrive operational characteristic and post it here.

BTW how is the thrust development going with the MEGA drive? Does the thrust still scale with the square of the power?
Hi Phil, you are the that appears to have misinterpreted what was being discussed.  Contrary to your statement I am discussing what what was presented at the workshop, I looked at the data.  You did not look at the data, which apparently you have not yet seen. The other person that was there was WarpTech, who can also give his opinion.  Since you were not there and apparently are unaware of this work you cannot comment on it until it gets released: on that we agree  ;)

You will get to see the videos in a few weeks at the SSI.org website.

As to the MEGA drive you are in the wrong thread, but the answer to your question
Quote
Does the thrust still scale with the square of the power?
is yes, it goes like the 4th power of the voltage.  This was also brought up by others to distinguish the EM Drive from the MEGA drive.  It may point to fundamental differences.

Hi Jose,

My point was, AFAIK, you and Todd are the only forum members who have seen this data from Martin. So why engage in discussions in this forum when the data is only available to a few members of this forum? Why not wait to discuss when everyone has access to the same data?

I do trust SSI will be publishing ALL the conference papers and not just videos? As we know, the devil is in the details.

BTW the 1st cavity from Martin was not Roger's design. What Roger did was to try to help Martin obtain some force generation from a bad design.

As for Martin's current build, I trust the resonance used was not from coupler self resonance. Will be interesting to see the full test rig and understand why he decided to build a Roberval Balance.  It needs a lot of bearings, which may induce starting stiction and reduce sensitivity. My guess is to try to eliminate thermal expansion of the arms causing false force measurement. Do also trust there was enough external forces, vibration, to trigger Motor mode.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dglSqRTgFv8
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: aero on 11/07/2017 01:54 am
Dr. Rodal,
Would you please take a close look, as time permits, at the paper here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1310.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1310.pdf)
then tell us whether or not the authors are implying that we should expect a lateral force to be generated along with the longitudinal force? It seems to me to say "yes" but I wonder if sufficient rigor has been applied, and I wonder if their result is applicable to resonant cavities.
You need an external directional field that can penetrate the walls of the EM Drive to interact with the internal electromagnetic fields, to produce any such force on the center of mass.

That's not quite the question I asked. The authors show that EM waves do, under the circumstances addressed, impart a longitudinal and a lateral force. Take that as given. Can their circumstances be generalized to a resonant cavity? Or the end plate of a resonant cavity because interaction must occur at the boundary. (Unless of course, the EM waves are interacting with a penetrating field as you suggest.)
No.  If you think that such interpretation is even possible, you are mis-reading their paper.  There is nothing new in the fact that, under the correct conditions, you can have transverse shear Maxwell stresses at a surface (transverse shear stresses are just the non-diagonal components of the Maxwell stress tensor).  The authors do not imply or make a claim that what they are discussing applies to an axi-symmetric resonant closed cavity made of copper that is several times the thickness of the skin depth at the operating frequency.
And in any case, if it would be an open cavity, like a waveguide, such a force/unitPower would never be able to exceed the one of a photon rocket in any case, solely based on ejecting photons.
Meberbs' posts, addressing this very issue are correct.  I thought that had been settled, but since you are insisting, I cannot avoid giving you a more direct response.

Thank you.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 11/07/2017 02:03 am
...
Hi Jose,

My point was, AFAIK, you and Todd are the only forum members who have seen this data from Martin. So why engage in discussions in this forum when the data is only available to a few members of this forum? Why not wait to discuss when everyone has access to the same data?

....
Phil, I am discussing data that was presented at a workshop, for public release, and that was heard by all attendees, some of which are also reading these posts (besides WarpTech) but do not wish to be identified as to their pen name.   This is not private data or confidential information.  It will be shortly available in ssi.org.  One benefit of discussing these things ahead of time, is that when the videorecordings are made available, you know ahead of time what to look for. In the past when other members have been at a public conference, for example the AIAA Propulsion and Power conference, where TU Dresden first presented EM Drive paper, just to name one of them, we all appreciated having a first hand report on what was presented at such a public conference, although many of us were not able to attend the paper presentations.

By the way, talking about confusions, TU Dresden has NOT used a Roverbal balance.  Where did you get such a wrong and strange idea? 
Certainly not from me.  Neither WarpTech or I ever used the term "Roverbal balance".  I have repeatedly stated that TU Dresden used a torsional pendulum.

Quote from: TheTraveller
Will be interesting to see the full test rig and understand why he decided to build a Roberval Balance. 

Wrong!

Please pay attention to the thread chains to avoid such confusion.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/07/2017 02:36 am
...
Hi Jose,

My point was, AFAIK, you and Todd are the only forum members who have seen this data from Martin. So why engage in discussions in this forum when the data is only available to a few members of this forum? Why not wait to discuss when everyone has access to the same data?

....
Phil, I am discussing data that was presented at a workshop, for public release, and that was heard by all attendees, some of which are also reading these posts (besides WarpTech) but do not wish to be identified as to their pen name.   This is not private data or confidential information.  It will be shortly available in ssi.org.  One benefit of discussing these things ahead of time, is that when the videorecordings are made available, you know ahead of time what to look for. In the past when other members have been at a public conference, for example the AIAA Propulsion and Power conference, where TU Dresden first presented EM Drive paper, just to name one of them, we all appreciated having a first hand report on what was presented at such a public conference, although many of us were not able to attend the paper presentations.

By the way, talking about confusions, TU Dresden has NOT used a Roverbal balance.  Where did you get such a wrong idea? 
Certainly not from me.  I have repeatedly stated that TU Dresden used a torsional pendulum.

Quote from: TheTraveller
Will be interesting to see the full test rig and understand why he decided to build a Roberval Balance. 

Wrong!

Please pay attention to the thread chains to avoid such confusion.

Hi Jose,

My apology.

I'm undergoing chemo for a reoccurrence of my cancer.
Don't check in as much as in the past.
Will start rereading everything several times.
Did I miss a post or link with Martin's paper?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThinkerX on 11/07/2017 02:52 am
...
Hi Jose,

My point was, AFAIK, you and Todd are the only forum members who have seen this data from Martin. So why engage in discussions in this forum when the data is only available to a few members of this forum? Why not wait to discuss when everyone has access to the same data?

....
Phil, I am discussing data that was presented at a workshop, for public release, and that was heard by all attendees, some of which are also reading these posts (besides WarpTech) but do not wish to be identified as to their pen name.   This is not private data or confidential information.  It will be shortly available in ssi.org.  One benefit of discussing these things ahead of time, is that when the videorecordings are made available, you know ahead of time what to look for. In the past when other members have been at a public conference, for example the AIAA Propulsion and Power conference, where TU Dresden first presented EM Drive paper, just to name one of them, we all appreciated having a first hand report on what was presented at such a public conference, although many of us were not able to attend the paper presentations.

By the way, talking about confusions, TU Dresden has NOT used a Roverbal balance.  Where did you get such a wrong idea? 
Certainly not from me.  I have repeatedly stated that TU Dresden used a torsional pendulum.

Quote from: TheTraveller
Will be interesting to see the full test rig and understand why he decided to build a Roberval Balance. 

Wrong!

Please pay attention to the thread chains to avoid such confusion.

Hi Jose,

My apology.

I'm undergoing chemo for a reoccurrence of my cancer.
Don't check in as much as in the past.
Will start rereading everything several times.
Did I miss a post or link with Martin's paper?

Chemo sucks big time.  Get well soon.

Maybe use the opportunity to organize what results you do have and can present to a general audience.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 11/07/2017 04:49 am
TT,

be well if you can, forum needs you.

jmn..
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mark7777777 on 11/07/2017 05:33 am
...
Hi Jose,

My point was, AFAIK, you and Todd are the only forum members who have seen this data from Martin. So why engage in discussions in this forum when the data is only available to a few members of this forum? Why not wait to discuss when everyone has access to the same data?

....
Phil, I am discussing data that was presented at a workshop, for public release, and that was heard by all attendees, some of which are also reading these posts (besides WarpTech) but do not wish to be identified as to their pen name.   This is not private data or confidential information.  It will be shortly available in ssi.org.  One benefit of discussing these things ahead of time, is that when the videorecordings are made available, you know ahead of time what to look for. In the past when other members have been at a public conference, for example the AIAA Propulsion and Power conference, where TU Dresden first presented EM Drive paper, just to name one of them, we all appreciated having a first hand report on what was presented at such a public conference, although many of us were not able to attend the paper presentations.

By the way, talking about confusions, TU Dresden has NOT used a Roverbal balance.  Where did you get such a wrong idea? 
Certainly not from me.  I have repeatedly stated that TU Dresden used a torsional pendulum.

Quote from: TheTraveller
Will be interesting to see the full test rig and understand why he decided to build a Roberval Balance. 

Wrong!

Please pay attention to the thread chains to avoid such confusion.

Hi Jose,

My apology.

I'm undergoing chemo for a reoccurrence of my cancer.
Don't check in as much as in the past.
Will start rereading everything several times.
Did I miss a post or link with Martin's paper?

Be well.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 11/07/2017 09:12 am
...
If the mass and energy of the frustum (and indeed of the universe itself) is just information, then by gosh, all we're trying to do is move around a bunch (a WHOLE bunch) of 1s and 0s.
...

No, it's not. The universe is a quantum computer, not a binary one.

'-)
Peter
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: moreno7798 on 11/07/2017 05:46 pm
...
Hi Jose,

My point was, AFAIK, you and Todd are the only forum members who have seen this data from Martin. So why engage in discussions in this forum when the data is only available to a few members of this forum? Why not wait to discuss when everyone has access to the same data?

....
Phil, I am discussing data that was presented at a workshop, for public release, and that was heard by all attendees, some of which are also reading these posts (besides WarpTech) but do not wish to be identified as to their pen name.   This is not private data or confidential information.  It will be shortly available in ssi.org.  One benefit of discussing these things ahead of time, is that when the videorecordings are made available, you know ahead of time what to look for. In the past when other members have been at a public conference, for example the AIAA Propulsion and Power conference, where TU Dresden first presented EM Drive paper, just to name one of them, we all appreciated having a first hand report on what was presented at such a public conference, although many of us were not able to attend the paper presentations.

By the way, talking about confusions, TU Dresden has NOT used a Roverbal balance.  Where did you get such a wrong idea? 
Certainly not from me.  I have repeatedly stated that TU Dresden used a torsional pendulum.

Quote from: TheTraveller
Will be interesting to see the full test rig and understand why he decided to build a Roberval Balance. 

Wrong!

Please pay attention to the thread chains to avoid such confusion.

Hi Jose,

My apology.

I'm undergoing chemo for a reoccurrence of my cancer.
Don't check in as much as in the past.
Will start rereading everything several times.
Did I miss a post or link with Martin's paper?

An honest mistake. Get well my friend.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star-Drive on 11/07/2017 06:25 pm
...Aside -  The EM drive seems to produce a force ...

...Please lets look at other answers for how this might work, because it does seem to work. ...

TU Dresden reported measuring a "force" of comparable magnitude with the EM Drive's longitudinal axis oriented along the arms of the torsional pendulum: a force perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the EM Drive:  a force parallel to the end walls.

In other words the experiments (which in several cases have resulted in forces in the opposite direction than predicted by theory) are also giving a force perpendicular (!) to the one predicted by theory. 

Can you make sense out of that as something that is not an artifact due to external magnetic fields?

The reported measured Q this time was between 40,000 to 500,000 (that is not a typo).  The force vs. time looked similar to what Monomorphic has been showing.

Monomorphic:

Todd (who also was at the workshop) and I really missed you !

does your setup allow you to also orient the EM Drive's longitudinal axis along the length of the arm of the pendulum?  In other words: can you orient the EM Drive perpendicular to its present direction?

Can you run the experiments with Helmholtz coils designed to isolate the experiment from the Earth's magnetic field?

Helmholtz coils (hoops) on three perpendicular axes used to cancel the Earth's magnetic field inside the vacuum tank in a 1957 electron beam experiment

http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Helmholtz_coil

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/62151/cancel-out-earths-magnetic-field

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/67822/current-to-cancel-earths-magnetic-field

Jose':

"Can you make sense out of that as something that is not an artifact due to external magnetic fields?"

Why yes I can, and so can Dr. White using his Q-Thruster conjecture based on the reality of the Quantum Vacuum (QV) as pointed out by Todd (WarpTech) in the quote from Milonni's "The Quantum Vacuum" Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) book. 

In section 3.3 of The Quantum Vacuum, Milonni [2] writes;

“The fact that an accelerating charge loses energy by radiating implies, according to classical ideas, that an electron should spiral into the nucleus and that atoms should not be stable. The balancing of the effects of radiation reaction and the vacuum field..., however, suggest that the stability of atoms might be attributable to the influence on the atom of the vacuum field.... We now know that the vacuum field is in fact formally necessary for the stability of atoms in quantum theory. As we saw..., radiation reaction will cause canonical commutators [x, px] to decay to zero unless the fluctuating vacuum field is included, in which case commutators are consistently preserved.”

The Eagleworks Lab team explored this connection is several of our joint papers from 2013 to 2016 and Dr. White then applied these insights to develop a Q-Thruster QED based cellular electrical plasma code that predicted thrust signatures from frustum resonant cavities based on Millioni's above observation that all subatomic particles and the atoms that make up matter have to be in dynamic equilibrium with the QV.  This Eagleworks QV plasma code used the COMSOL E&M package to predict the E&M fields in a given frustum geometry for a given resonant mode over an entire RF cycle in one degree phase increments for a given input power and loaded Q-factor for the frustum.  This is a long and tedious set of cellular iterative calculations that require parallel processing techniques to accomplish them on a PC workstation in hours instead of days, thank you Dr. White, but it was accomplished, and the results were very interesting as the attached slides and mp4 QV simulation for the Eagleworks copper frustum file indicates. 

In short, through the wild thrashing of the QV by the E&M fields in the frustum at resonance, the frustum generates multiple QV fountains from the frustum volume that generates net thrust vectors in all three axes of the frustum, and NOT just from the primary Z-axis thrust vector of the frustum.  It a messy process and why the current frustum designs are so inefficient.  Ultimately these various frustum generated QV jets need to be corralled and focused into just one jet being sent down the primary Z-axis of the thruster thus yielding the maximum thrust possible for a  given thruster design.  However you will note from the last attached QV plasma code thrust prediction plot by Jerry Vera, that one has to specify up front what thrust vector is to be predicted and plotted because it would take way TOO LONG to do all three thruster axes using the computer hardware available to the EW crew at the time.

Best,  Paul M.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 11/07/2017 07:11 pm
...


Jose':

"Can you make sense out of that as something that is not an artifact due to external magnetic fields?"

Why yes I can, and so can Dr. White using his Q-Thruster conjecture based on the reality of the Quantum Vacuum (QV) as pointed out by Todd (WarpTech) in the quote from Milonni's "The Quantum Vacuum" Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) book. 

...
Paul,

I understand that (the quoted) Dr. Milonni himself does not support White's explanation of the Quantum Vacuum as a means of propulsion for the EM Drive tested at Eagleworks.

We certainly missed you being there to argue in favor of White's theory and to argue (separately) for the validity of the test results at Eagleworks.  Several experts on Quantum Mechanics were there: Prof. John Cramer (author of the excellent book "The Quantum Handshake" which I highly recommend: https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Handshake-Entanglement-Nonlocality-Transactions/dp/3319246402/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1510085833&sr=8-1&keywords=the+quantum+handshake and Prof. Ray Chiao of Berkeley (now at Merced).

The discussion about focusing the force: the EM Drive made at TU Dresden had a Q (40,000 to 500,000) higher than those reported by Eagleworks.  Shouldn't it have been better "focused"?

But let's get to experimental facts, instead of discussing controversial theories.  There are more theories than physicists, and in the end what matters are experimental results.

Did NASA Eagleworks ever place the EM Drive with the longitudinal axis parallel to the arms of the torsional pendulum and measured a force perpendicular to the pendulum's arms?


Did Eagleworks also measure a considerable force in this direction?

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1458172;image)

Thanks  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 11/07/2017 07:40 pm
...


Jose':

"Can you make sense out of that as something that is not an artifact due to external magnetic fields?"

Why yes I can, and so can Dr. White using his Q-Thruster conjecture based on the reality of the Quantum Vacuum (QV) as pointed out by Todd (WarpTech) in the quote from Milonni's "The Quantum Vacuum" Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) book. 

...
Paul,

I understand that (the quoted) Dr. Milonni himself does not support White's explanation of the Quantum Vacuum as a means of propulsion for the EM Drive tested at Eagleworks, and certainly nobody I can recall that spoke at the workshop last week.  We missed you being there to argue in favor of that theory and to argue (separately) for the validity of the test results at Eagleworks.  Several experts on Quantum Mechanics were there: Prof. John Cramer (author of the excellent book "The Quantum Handshake" which I highly recommend: https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Handshake-Entanglement-Nonlocality-Transactions/dp/3319246402/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1510085833&sr=8-1&keywords=the+quantum+handshake and Prof. Ray Chiao of Berkeley (now at Merced).

One must say that if this theory by White, that the Quantum Vacuum gives chaotic  forces in all directions, would apply, it looks like the center of mass will not get accelerated in any well-defined direction when placed in Space (if the forces balance each other over suitable periods of time).  Let's say that they don't balance in the orthogonal directions.
  Also, if you have a force perpendicular to the longitudinal axis as well as a longitudinal force, it looks like the EM Drive would not travel parallel to the longitudinal axis.


But let's get to experimental facts, instead of discussing controversial theories.  There are more theories than physicists, and in the end what matters are experimental results.

Did NASA Eagleworks ever place the EM Drive with the longitudinal axis parallel to the arms of the torsional pendulum and measured a force perpendicular to the pendulum's arms?


Did Eagleworks also measure a force in this direction?

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1458172;image)

Thanks  :)

There is one point that hasn't been mentioned. The Eagleworks frustum and the one at TU Dresden both have the MW coax cable and antenna on the "side". Unless the input port is oriented "Up" or "Down", I would not rule out that the input antenna contributes a significant amount of thrust. This is why I encouraged Jamie and anyone, to put the input at one end or the other. Not only is it better for exciting symmetrical TE modes, it also keeps the input momentum in line with the expected thrust vector, not orthogonal to it.

Also, just FYI: The difference between my QV model of gravity and Dr. Whites Q-thruster theory, is that I do not require electron-positron pairs. I only require the EM field in free space. IMO and as I see it, despite Heisenberg, electron-positron pairs can only be created where there is matter present to provide a sufficiently strong EM field above the Schwinger limit. Such as, the field in the immediate vicinity of an electron or charged ion. In free space, I expect that they are few and far between.

It is the presence of the e-p pairs, their numbers and life-times, that lead to Dr's. Fearn and Woodward's refutation of Dr. Whites theory in the JBIS article published earlier this year; (Vol. 69, No. 9/10, Sept./Oct. 2016). In my model, this refutation would not apply.

What I'm working on is to determine is how to relate momentum exchange to gravito-magnetic flux being emitted from the frustum, using a gravito-magnetic gauge field. And, how to generate it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 11/07/2017 07:58 pm
...
There is one point that hasn't been mentioned. The Eagleworks frustum and the one at TU Dresden both have the MW coax cable and antenna on the "side". Unless the input port is oriented "Up" or "Down", I would not rule out that the input antenna contributes a significant amount of thrust. This is why I encouraged Jamie and anyone, to put the input at one end or the other. Not only is it better for exciting symmetrical TE modes, it also keeps the input momentum in line with the expected thrust vector, not orthogonal to it....
TU Dresden reported achieving Q from 40,000 to 500,000, according to my recollection (will have to wait for video to confirm)
1) Isn't that much better than the Q's from Eagleworks?

2) Wouldn't an un-symmetric electromagnetic field inside the EM Drive result in much lower Q's (rather than higher Q's)?  Calculations show that the most symmetric TE modes like TE012 lead to highest Q

3) <<put the input at one end or the other. Not only is it better for exciting symmetrical TE modes>> That's not my understanding from the literature, particularly the books by Robert Collin.  The high Q's reported by TU Dresden argue in favor of the placement of their antenna. 

In the center of the TE excited cavity, you just have an axial magnetic field. 

Perhaps X_Ray can throw further light on this matter, as I recall that X_Ray had studied the placement of the antenna using several computer programs.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 11/07/2017 08:23 pm
One method to eliminate the earths magnetic field is to use the Helmholtz coils. 

Another method that can work is to encase the moving part of the pendulum in a ferrous box that moves with it and then separately encase that in a non-moving ferrous box.  The non-moving ferrous box shunts the earths magnetic field around the apparatus while the ferrous box that moves with the pendulum arm shunts any magnetic fields from the the pendulum back to the pendulum.  It should minimize any magnetic fields between the non-moving ferrous box and the pendulum arm that could cause interference. 

-Not sure the 2nd option isn't more complicated than the 1st.

-A way of eliminating thermal effects could be built into the ferrous box apparatus as a possible bonus - insulation maybe. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 11/07/2017 08:28 pm
...
There is one point that hasn't been mentioned. The Eagleworks frustum and the one at TU Dresden both have the MW coax cable and antenna on the "side". Unless the input port is oriented "Up" or "Down", I would not rule out that the input antenna contributes a significant amount of thrust. This is why I encouraged Jamie and anyone, to put the input at one end or the other. Not only is it better for exciting symmetrical TE modes, it also keeps the input momentum in line with the expected thrust vector, not orthogonal to it....
TU Dresden reported achieving Q from 40,000 to 500,000
1) Isn't that much better than the Q's from Eagleworks?

2) Wouldn't an un-symmetric electromagnetic field inside the EM Drive result in much lower Q's (rather than higher Q's)?  Calculations show that the most symmetric TE modes like TE012 lead to highest Q

3) <<put the input at one end or the other. Not only is it better for exciting symmetrical TE modes>> That's not my understanding from the literature, particularly the books by Robert Collin.  The high Q's reported by TU Dresden argue in favor of the placement of their antenna. 

In the center of the TE excited cavity, you just have an axial magnetic field. 

Perhaps X_Ray can throw further light on this matter, as I recall that X_Ray had studied the placement of the antenna using several computer programs.

I recall Jamie did a lot of different antenna simulations to get the best 50-Ohm matching impedance location. He determined that to be on the axis of the frustum.

IMO, as an expert Power Transformer designer; I would want to drive the resonant field the same way I would drive the secondary coil of a transformer. Considering the loop antenna as the primary coil, I want the two coils to be concentric (on the same axis) to maximize the coupling of the axial magnetic field, and the circular electric field parallel to the antenna wire. It is the magnetic gauge potential that provides the coupling, so we want this field to be parallel and concentric to both coils. If the antenna is on the side wall, it would be like designing a transformer with two orthogonal coils. No... just no!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star-Drive on 11/07/2017 09:10 pm
...

Jose':

"Can you make sense out of that as something that is not an artifact due to external magnetic fields?"

Why yes I can, and so can Dr. White using his Q-Thruster conjecture based on the reality of the Quantum Vacuum (QV) as pointed out by Todd (WarpTech) in the quote from Milonni's "The Quantum Vacuum" Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) book. 

...
Paul,

I understand that (the quoted) Dr. Milonni himself does not support White's explanation of the Quantum Vacuum as a means of propulsion for the EM Drive tested at Eagleworks.

We certainly missed you being there to argue in favor of White's theory and to argue (separately) for the validity of the test results at Eagleworks.  Several experts on Quantum Mechanics were there: Prof. John Cramer (author of the excellent book "The Quantum Handshake" which I highly recommend: https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Handshake-Entanglement-Nonlocality-Transactions/dp/3319246402/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1510085833&sr=8-1&keywords=the+quantum+handshake and Prof. Ray Chiao of Berkeley (now at Merced).

The discussion about focusing the force: the EM Drive made at TU Dresden had a Q (40,000 to 500,000) higher than those reported by Eagleworks.  Shouldn't it have been better "focused"?

But let's get to experimental facts, instead of discussing controversial theories.  There are more theories than physicists, and in the end what matters are experimental results.

Did NASA Eagleworks ever place the EM Drive with the longitudinal axis parallel to the arms of the torsional pendulum and measured a force perpendicular to the pendulum's arms?


Did Eagleworks also measure a considerable force in this direction?

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1458172;image)

Thanks  :)

Jose':

"Did NASA Eagleworks ever place the EM Drive with the longitudinal axis parallel to the arms of the torsional pendulum and measured a force perpendicular to the pendulum's arms?[/b][/color]"

Yes we did.  See attached slide of the Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) as mounted with its longitudinal thrust axis parallel to the torque pendulum arm with its small OD end pointed to the vacuum chamber door.  Due to an obstruction issue we could not mount the ICFTA with the BOD end pointed toward the vacuum chamber door.

"Did Eagleworks also measure a considerable force in this direction?"

Define considerable.  With 60W of RF applied we measured anywhere ~10 to ~30 uN of prompt side thrust that was not attributed to the thermal center of gravity shifts we were trying to quantify in this test series.  See attached slide with the first data run in this series.  I also noticed in this test series that the phase adjustment of the coaxial phase adjuster had a marked affect on the thrust magnitude and direction.

As to defending Dr. White's QV conjecture I think there is a strong kernel of truth in his work that parallels Paul Murad's and John Brandenburg's Gravity E&M or GEM work.  See attached papers.  The rest is up to Sonny.

Best, Paul March

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star-Drive on 11/07/2017 09:24 pm
...
There is one point that hasn't been mentioned. The Eagleworks frustum and the one at TU Dresden both have the MW coax cable and antenna on the "side". Unless the input port is oriented "Up" or "Down", I would not rule out that the input antenna contributes a significant amount of thrust. This is why I encouraged Jamie and anyone, to put the input at one end or the other. Not only is it better for exciting symmetrical TE modes, it also keeps the input momentum in line with the expected thrust vector, not orthogonal to it....
TU Dresden reported achieving Q from 40,000 to 500,000
1) Isn't that much better than the Q's from Eagleworks?

2) Wouldn't an un-symmetric electromagnetic field inside the EM Drive result in much lower Q's (rather than higher Q's)?  Calculations show that the most symmetric TE modes like TE012 lead to highest Q

3) <<put the input at one end or the other. Not only is it better for exciting symmetrical TE modes>> That's not my understanding from the literature, particularly the books by Robert Collin.  The high Q's reported by TU Dresden argue in favor of the placement of their antenna. 

In the center of the TE excited cavity, you just have an axial magnetic field. 

Perhaps X_Ray can throw further light on this matter, as I recall that X_Ray had studied the placement of the antenna using several computer programs.


Jose':

In my opinion the QV slosh pattern of the frustum is driven first by the shape of the frustum and the driven resonant mode with its associated ExB Poynting vectors and then the product of the loaded Q-factor times the input power.  So the key factor in determining the QV slosh pattern is what the various ExB Poynting vectors are established over a full RF cycle, with a given frustum shape, and the selected resonant mode.  In other words its really hard to beat the Mach Lorentz Thruster (MLT) with its geometrically well defined E-and B-fields when it comes to a well culminated and focused QV flow pattern.

Best, Paul M.     
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SteveD on 11/07/2017 09:26 pm
...
There is one point that hasn't been mentioned. The Eagleworks frustum and the one at TU Dresden both have the MW coax cable and antenna on the "side". Unless the input port is oriented "Up" or "Down", I would not rule out that the input antenna contributes a significant amount of thrust. This is why I encouraged Jamie and anyone, to put the input at one end or the other. Not only is it better for exciting symmetrical TE modes, it also keeps the input momentum in line with the expected thrust vector, not orthogonal to it....


2) Wouldn't an un-symmetric electromagnetic field inside the EM Drive result in much lower Q's (rather than higher Q's)?  Calculations show that the most symmetric TE modes like TE012 lead to highest Q


Actually under KISS the asymmetry is created by EM/photons moving more swiftly through the center of the can  than KE around the skin.  This is a result of the geometry of the can.  A symmetrical field in the center of the can does not preclude an EM drive effect based on the cans asymmetrical geometry.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SteveD on 11/07/2017 10:05 pm
Sigh KISS theory:

There are two frames of reference in the EMDrive.  The rest frame and the motive frame.

(https://i1.wp.com/www.georgewoodbury.com/euclid/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/img0110c.jpg)

The motive frame is created when a photon hits and bounces off point C.   This causes a photon rocket effect. 

The photon now travels by the most direct possible path to the end plate.

the length of line CD is c * t where c is the speed of light and t is the time elapsed sing emission of the photon at point C.

Line CA is of length Sqrt(CD^2+0.5AB^2)  this length must be longer than c * t.

Because of this point A is outside of the light cone of point C when the photon arrived at point D.

Since point D cannot accelerate without point A first accelerating it is in the rest reference frame.

Geometry, plus the speed of light, has split one device into two reference frames.  The acceleration has not happened yet for point A.  It is not in the proper light cone.  As far as point A is concerned everything is as it was before the release of the photon at point D.

Relativity has isolated Point C and Point D from each other as far as acceleration is concerned.  The two points might as well be unattached to each other and floating freely in space.  The effect is the same as a photonic laser thruster.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/PLT-Concept-Illustration.jpg/328px-PLT-Concept-Illustration.jpg)

Now things get interesting.  The Photon has increased the kinetic energy of motive frame by 0.5mvs^2 where v2 is the new velocity of the rocket.

It has only decreased the velocity of the rest frame by 0.5mv1^2 where v1 is the original velocity of the drive. 

This leaves KE = v2^2 - v1^2 as yet to be accounted for.

Now my hunch is that this generates a mass fluctuation giving rise to a Mach effect as the can interacts with universal gravitation in order to preserve Noether's theorum (translation, it has to move and it has to interact with an external field to do so).

If the EM enters the can from the side, the same effect could conceivably created a lateral movement as the photons bounce around and generate the effect in a pattern more complex than simply moving from point C to Point D in a optimal line.

The key is that relativity has created two reference frames in what appears to be one solid unit.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: rq3 on 11/07/2017 10:34 pm
...


Jose':

"Can you make sense out of that as something that is not an artifact due to external magnetic fields?"

Why yes I can, and so can Dr. White using his Q-Thruster conjecture based on the reality of the Quantum Vacuum (QV) as pointed out by Todd (WarpTech) in the quote from Milonni's "The Quantum Vacuum" Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) book. 

...
Paul,

I understand that (the quoted) Dr. Milonni himself does not support White's explanation of the Quantum Vacuum as a means of propulsion for the EM Drive tested at Eagleworks, and certainly nobody I can recall that spoke at the workshop last week.  We missed you being there to argue in favor of that theory and to argue (separately) for the validity of the test results at Eagleworks.  Several experts on Quantum Mechanics were there: Prof. John Cramer (author of the excellent book "The Quantum Handshake" which I highly recommend: https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Handshake-Entanglement-Nonlocality-Transactions/dp/3319246402/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1510085833&sr=8-1&keywords=the+quantum+handshake and Prof. Ray Chiao of Berkeley (now at Merced).

One must say that if this theory by White, that the Quantum Vacuum gives chaotic  forces in all directions, would apply, it looks like the center of mass will not get accelerated in any well-defined direction when placed in Space (if the forces balance each other over suitable periods of time).  Let's say that they don't balance in the orthogonal directions.
  Also, if you have a force perpendicular to the longitudinal axis as well as a longitudinal force, it looks like the EM Drive would not travel parallel to the longitudinal axis.


But let's get to experimental facts, instead of discussing controversial theories.  There are more theories than physicists, and in the end what matters are experimental results.

Did NASA Eagleworks ever place the EM Drive with the longitudinal axis parallel to the arms of the torsional pendulum and measured a force perpendicular to the pendulum's arms?


Did Eagleworks also measure a force in this direction?

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1458172;image)

Thanks  :)

There is one point that hasn't been mentioned. The Eagleworks frustum and the one at TU Dresden both have the MW coax cable and antenna on the "side". Unless the input port is oriented "Up" or "Down", I would not rule out that the input antenna contributes a significant amount of thrust. This is why I encouraged Jamie and anyone, to put the input at one end or the other. Not only is it better for exciting symmetrical TE modes, it also keeps the input momentum in line with the expected thrust vector, not orthogonal to it.

Also, just FYI: The difference between my QV model of gravity and Dr. Whites Q-thruster theory, is that I do not require electron-positron pairs. I only require the EM field in free space. IMO and as I see it, despite Heisenberg, electron-positron pairs can only be created where there is matter present to provide a sufficiently strong EM field above the Schwinger limit. Such as, the field in the immediate vicinity of an electron or charged ion. In free space, I expect that they are few and far between.

It is the presence of the e-p pairs, their numbers and life-times, that lead to Dr's. Fearn and Woodward's refutation of Dr. Whites theory in the JBIS article published earlier this year; (Vol. 69, No. 9/10, Sept./Oct. 2016). In my model, this refutation would not apply.

What I'm working on is to determine is how to relate momentum exchange to gravito-magnetic flux being emitted from the frustum, using a gravito-magnetic gauge field. And, how to generate it.

Electron-positron synthesis in thunderstorms. Pretty much "free space", and old news:
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/news/fermi-thunderstorms.html

I don't think any resonant cavity yet contructed, anywhere, has a Q sufficient to yield a field strength at or above the Schwinger limit.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 11/08/2017 12:32 am
{…}
Now my hunch is that this generates a mass fluctuation giving rise to a Mach effect as the can interacts with universal gravitation in order to preserve Noether's theorum (translation, it has to move and it has to interact with an external field to do so).

Rather than a relation to Mach effects, your developments make me think about Shawyer's controversial claim (http://emdrive.com/principle.html):
Quote from: Roger Shawyer
The inevitable objection raised, is that the apparently closed system produced by this arrangement cannot result in an output force, but will merely produce strain within the waveguide walls. However, this ignores Einstein’s Special Law of Relativity in which separate frames of reference have to be applied at velocities approaching the speed of light. Thus the system of EM wave and waveguide can be regarded as an open system, with the EM wave and the waveguide having separate frames of reference.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 11/08/2017 01:37 am
You know, just when this thread get slow, it always gets VERY interesting again.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/08/2017 10:30 am
TU Dresden reported achieving Q from 40,000 to 500,000

I would be very interested in how this Q was measured. What VNA was used? We are trying to track down a copy of Tajmar's presentation now.

The US Navy reported a Q factor of 16,500 at 1.9GHz. I've never been able to get a Q factor of more than 40,000 in simulations using nearly perfect geometry.

I'm a little skeptical that Tajmar's team was able to go from a cavity with a Q factor of 20 to one better than everyone else, including the US Navy.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 11/08/2017 12:27 pm
TU Dresden reported achieving Q from 40,000 to 500,000

I would be very interested in how this Q was measured. What VNA was used? We are trying to track down a copy of Tajmar's presentation now.

The US Navy reported a Q factor of 16,500 at 1.9GHz. I've never been able to get a Q factor of more than 40,000 in simulations using nearly perfect geometry.

I'm a little skeptical that Tajmar's team was able to go from a cavity with a Q factor of 20 to one better than everyone else, including the US Navy.
<<I would be very interested in how this Q was measured.>>
My recollection is that it was measured from the amplitude vs frequency response using an analyzer (−3 dB at a voltage gain of 0.707 or half-power bandwidth).  I did not inquire further as I was interested in other things.  Now it is not as straightforward to do as when one has a chance to be face to face with four (4) people from TU Dresden that can give you tons of information.  Imagine that: it was not just Tajmar who was there, but 3 of his Ph.D. students as well.  A unique opportunity.  They were all very open to talk and exchange information.  When you want information there is nothing better than face to face interaction.   Face to face interaction is infinitely better than reading reports, as you can ask all kinds of details that may not appear in reports.  :)


To get a higher loaded Q from experimental measurements, pay attention to the coupling factor!
Match the load to the power source.

Concerning your numerical simulations compare with an exact solution, and perform a convergence study of your numerical model by varyiing the number of nodes.

Concerning <<better than everyone else, including the US Navy.>> that is mixing different things.

Q is highly dependent on mode shape.  My understanding (according to my recollection) is that TU Dresden aimed for mode shapes TE01p which produce highest Q, while my understanding (according to my recollection) is that  the US Navy Research Lab aimed for TM212 like NASA Eagleworks that has lower Q (as one can show analytically).  Also, my understanding (according to my recollection) is that  the US Navy RL is going to test with dielectrics, dielectrics have lower Q.

Finally, my understanding (according to my recollection) is that TU Dresden had a program to measure with spherical plates as well as flat ends, while US Navy RL only used flat ends, like NASA Eagleworks.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 11/08/2017 12:44 pm
...
There is one point that hasn't been mentioned. The Eagleworks frustum and the one at TU Dresden both have the MW coax cable and antenna on the "side". Unless the input port is oriented "Up" or "Down", I would not rule out that the input antenna contributes a significant amount of thrust. This is why I encouraged Jamie and anyone, to put the input at one end or the other. Not only is it better for exciting symmetrical TE modes, it also keeps the input momentum in line with the expected thrust vector, not orthogonal to it.
...

I also have the input at the centre of the small endplate [1]. I haven't figured out, though, 'where to leave the dielectric plate'. On the small endplate with a hole in it?
Btw, can any of you tell whether Tajmar used dielectrics in any of his recent experiments?

Thanks, Peter.

[1] like the new one, made of semi rigid cable (RG402), placed off-centre (so the centre of the loop is in the centre, of course). Inner diam = 10 mm, distance from endplate is 15 mm (the RG402 inner conductor is diam 0.9 mm). I hope to compare this loop with the 'Zhang et al. 3-fold loop', about which I posted earlier, with a network analyser (soon). The endplate needs to be polished first, though.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/08/2017 12:54 pm
TU Dresden reported achieving Q from 40,000 to 500,000

I would be very interested in how this Q was measured. What VNA was used? We are trying to track down a copy of Tajmar's presentation now.

The US Navy reported a Q factor of 16,500 at 1.9GHz. I've never been able to get a Q factor of more than 40,000 in simulations using nearly perfect geometry.

I'm a little skeptical that Tajmar's team was able to go from a cavity with a Q factor of 20 to one better than everyone else, including the US Navy.
To get a higher loaded Q from experimental measurements, pay attention to the coupling factor!
Match the load to the power source.

Concerning your numerical simulations compare with an exact solution, and perform a convergence study of your numerical model by varyiing the number of nodes.

Hi Jose,

You beat me to the coupling factor. Very important. Then mode. TE01x generates the highest Q. Plus POLISH, end plate parallelism, both end plates at right angle to the frustum axis, build geometry to better than +-10 um. Q is also highly geometry related, ie better to have bigger big end dia than longer frustum length.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 11/08/2017 12:56 pm
...can any of you tell whether Tajmar used dielectrics in any of his recent experiments?

Thanks, Peter.  ...
NO!

My understanding (according to my recollection) is that NO dielectrics used in the experiments by TU Dresden reported at the workshop last week.

In contrast, my understanding (according to my recollection) is that the US Navy Research Lab reported that they plan to use dielectric inserts, as their program is to reproduce NASA Eagleworks tests.  Please recall that dielectric inserts lower the Q, due to the losses (tandelta) of the dielectric.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/08/2017 12:59 pm
...
There is one point that hasn't been mentioned. The Eagleworks frustum and the one at TU Dresden both have the MW coax cable and antenna on the "side". Unless the input port is oriented "Up" or "Down", I would not rule out that the input antenna contributes a significant amount of thrust. This is why I encouraged Jamie and anyone, to put the input at one end or the other. Not only is it better for exciting symmetrical TE modes, it also keeps the input momentum in line with the expected thrust vector, not orthogonal to it.
...

I also have the input at the centre of the small endplate [1]. I haven't figured out, though, 'where to leave the dielectric plate'. On the small endplate with a hole in it?
Btw, can any of you tell whether Tajmar used dielectrics in any of his recent experiments?

Thanks, Peter.

[1] like the new one, made of semi rigid cable (RG402), placed off-centre (so the centre of the loop is in the centre, of course). Inner diam = 10 mm, distance from endplate is 15 mm (the RG402 inner conductor is diam 0.9 mm). I hope to compare this loop with the 'Zhang et al. 3-fold loop', about which I posted earlier, with a network analyser (soon). The endplate needs to be polished first, though.

Hi Peter,

Forget the dielectric.  Total waste of time, effort and money.

EW results:
Small end dielectric: 1.2mN/kW
Big end dielectric: 2.0mN/kW
NO dielectric: 3.9mN/kW
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tleach on 11/08/2017 01:36 pm
...
If the mass and energy of the frustum (and indeed of the universe itself) is just information, then by gosh, all we're trying to do is move around a bunch (a WHOLE bunch) of 1s and 0s.
...

No, it's not. The universe is a quantum computer, not a binary one.

'-)
Peter

Lol! Well, I guess we'll have to keep all those 1s and 0s in superposition while we move 'em! That would make thinga a little more difficult...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 11/08/2017 02:01 pm
TU Dresden reported achieving Q from 40,000 to 500,000

I would be very interested in how this Q was measured. What VNA was used? We are trying to track down a copy of Tajmar's presentation now.

The US Navy reported a Q factor of 16,500 at 1.9GHz. I've never been able to get a Q factor of more than 40,000 in simulations using nearly perfect geometry.

I'm a little skeptical that Tajmar's team was able to go from a cavity with a Q factor of 20 to one better than everyone else, including the US Navy.

What is the source of this image and other data? All I have found about this is from here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1719490#msg1719490
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 11/08/2017 02:05 pm
...

What is the source of this image and other data? All I have found about this is from here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1719490#msg1719490
If this is from an unpublished report: before posting images or actual data or actual text from unpublished reports please check whether the copyrights and permissions allow it.  We can discuss what we recall hearing at a public presentation, which is different from posting images of the presentation, or posting the presentation itself (because our recollection, memory and understanding are imperfect and subjective).  To post images or the presentation itself one needs permission from the author.

My understanding is that ssi.org has the correct agreements with the presenters and that some of the presentations and some of the videos (the presentations where the author gave the permission to post video, images and text) will be at the SSI.ORG website within a few weeks.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/08/2017 02:52 pm
There are 2 very major difference in EmDrive torsion arm test rigs.

1) allowing sufficient background external forces, vibration, that will generate enough initial small end forward acceleration to trigger the self sustaining Motor mode

2) uN/um sensitivy which defines displacement available to support free acceleration before the torsion wire generates enough back force/torque to stop acceleration and when acceleration stops, thrust generation stops. .

As example the

1) EW test rig rates at 24uN/um

2) Jamie's test rig 0.18uN/um

Which says the EW torsion test rig is 133 times stiffer than Jamie's test rig. Being tighter means for the same thrust, the EmDrive would have 133x LESS displacement/movenent to self accelerate and get solidly into Motor mode.

I believe Dave's test rig was looser than Jamie's as his test rig arms were longer. Maybe Dave will provide the uN/um sensitivity for his test rig?

Jamie's measured 3.5uN is equilivant to 19.4um of free to accelerate displacement.

I suggest 20um is a good number for experimenters to design their torsion rigs to support and don't isolate all the external forces or there will be no thrust generated.

Which says an EmDrive torsion test rig needs to be designed to be EmDrive thrust generation friendly.


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 11/08/2017 02:56 pm
There are 2 very major difference in EmDrive torsion arm test rigs.

1) allowing sufficient background external forces, vibration, that will generate enough initial small end forward acceleration to trigger the self sustaining Motor mode

2) uN/um sensitivy which defines displacement available to support free acceleration before the torsion wire generates enough back force/torque to stop acceleration and when acceleration stops, thrust generation stops. .

As example the

1) EW test rig rates at 24uN/um

2) Jamie's test rig 0.18uN/um

Jamie's measured 3.5uN is equilivant to 19.4um of free to accelerate displacement.

I suggest 20um is a good number for experimenters to design their torsion rigs to support and don't isolate all the external forces or there will be no thrust generated.

Which says an EmDrive torsion test rig needs to be designed to be EmDrive thrust generation friendly.
My recollection  from the workshop is that TU Dresden also said that they are working on a torsional rig with lower stiffness (higher compliance) such as to ideally allow a 360 degree turn.

Perhaps Todd can also confirm whether he also heard about those plans.

An experiment allowing a big rotation would be interesting to see (present experiments being discussed allow only infinitesimal displacements)  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/08/2017 03:02 pm
There are 2 very major difference in EmDrive torsion arm test rigs.

1) allowing sufficient background external forces, vibration, that will generate enough initial small end forward acceleration to trigger the self sustaining Motor mode

2) uN/um sensitivy which defines displacement available to support free acceleration before the torsion wire generates enough back force/torque to stop acceleration and when acceleration stops, thrust generation stops. .

As example the

1) EW test rig rates at 24uN/um

2) Jamie's test rig 0.18uN/um

Jamie's measured 3.5uN is equilivant to 19.4um of free to accelerate displacement.

I suggest 20um is a good number for experimenters to design their torsion rigs to support and don't isolate all the external forces or there will be no thrust generated.

Which says an EmDrive torsion test rig needs to be designed to be EmDrive thrust generation friendly.
My recollection  from the workshop is that TU Dresden also said that they are working on a torsional rig with lower stiffness (higher compliance) such as to ideally allow a 360 degree turn.

Perhaps Todd can also confirm whether he also heard about those plans.

An experiment allowing a big rotation would be interesting to see (present experiments being discussed allow only infinitesimal displacements)  :)

Hi Jose,

Good to learn. Still need to know the uN/um sensitivity and that the test rig is not so vibration isolated that there are no precursor small end forward external forces available to trigger Motor mode and self sustaining acceleration.

But YES rotary test rig, allowing at least 360 deg of free acceleration are a superior way to test EmDrives vs scales or torsion test rigs.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 11/08/2017 03:17 pm
There are 2 very major difference in EmDrive torsion arm test rigs.

1) allowing sufficient background external forces, vibration, that will generate enough initial small end forward acceleration to trigger the self sustaining Motor mode

My understanding is that this assertion came from Mr. Shawyer's observation that his rotary test rig did not rotate unless he gave it an initial "bang". However, in contrast to this hard to understand assertion, that observation had a much easier interpretation, that an initial bang was needed to overcome the air bearing's low energy resting position ( think of static friction as an analogy ).

Quote
2) uN/um sensitivy which defines displacement available to support free acceleration before the torsion wire generates enough back force/torque to stop acceleration and when acceleration stops, thrust generation stops. .

If "when acceleration stops, thrust generation stops", since the torsion wire's back force is still there, the torsion balance will swing back. I remembered Mr. Shawyer's rotary test rig swung back from it's furthest reach. Did this assertion come from that observation? If so, however, in contrast to this hard to understand assertion, that observation also had an easier interpretation: A hanging magnetic needle swings back from its furthest reach if released from a high potential energy position.

Quote
As example the

1) EW test rig rates at 24uN/um

2) Jamie's test rig 0.18uN/um

Which says the EW torsion test rig is 133 times stiffer than Jamie's test rig. Being tighter means for the same thrust, the EmDrive would have 133x LESS displacement/movenent to self accelerate and get solidly into Motor mode.

I believe Dave's test rig was looser than Jamie's as his test rig arms were longer. Maybe Dave will provide the uN/um sensitivity for his test rig?

Jamie's measured 3.5uN is equilivant to 19.4um of free to accelerate displacement.

I suggest 20um is a good number for experimenters to design their torsion rigs to support and don't isolate all the external forces or there will be no thrust generated.

Which says an EmDrive torsion test rig needs to be designed to be EmDrive thrust generation friendly.

This assertion is also hard to understand, "don't isolate all the external forces or there will be no thrust generated". Think of gravity. It is always there. If you want an external force on the axle direction, just tilt the frustum with 1 degree of angle.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 11/08/2017 03:19 pm
...

Hi Jose,

Good to learn. But still need to know the uN/um sensitivity and that the test rig is not so vibration isolated that there are no precursor small end forward external forces available to trigger Motor mode and self sustaining acceleration.

But YES rotary test rig, allowing at least 360 deg of free acceleration are a superior way to test EnDrives vs scales or torsion test rigs.
My recollection is that the TU Dresden torsional testing of the EM Drive had by far the best vibration isolation of any EM Drive tested up to now.  They went out of their way to have an expensive new foundation and vibration isolation.  I know that this is the opposite of what you advocate, but my understanding is that TU Dresden's intent is to lower all possible sources of noise as much as possible, to be able to measure less than a microNewton.

For example, they tested Aachen's tiny Baby EM Drive (Hackaday).  My recollection for the Baby EM Drive is that they did not measure any force above the noise.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/08/2017 03:22 pm
This assertion is also hard to understand, "don't isolate all the external forces or there will be no thrust generated". Think of gravity. It is always there. If you want an external force on the axle direction, just tilt the frustum with 1 degree of angle.

Hi PN,

Please read:
http://www.emdrive.com/EmDriveForceMeasurement.pdf

Quote
4.  Practical  static  measurement  techniques

A  number of  methods  have  been  used  in  the  UK,  the  US  and  China  to  measure  the forces  produced  by  an  EmDrive  thruster.

In  each  successful  case,  the  EmDrive  force data  has  been  superimposed  on  an  increasing  or decreasing  background  force, generated  by  the  test  equipment  itself.

Indeed,  in  the  UK  when  the  background  force  changes were  eliminated,  in  an  effort to  improve  force  measurement  resolution,  no  EmDrive  force  was  measured. 

This was clearly  a  result of  attempting  to  measure  the  forces  on  a  fully  static thruster, where T  and  R cancel  each  other.   

UK  flight  thruster measurements  employ  this  principle  to  calibrate  the  background noise  on  the  force  balance  prior to  carrying  out  force  measurements.

What is needed are vibrational forces that can generate a small and very short term small end forward acceleration, which generates the needed internal Doppler shifts to trigger Motor mode and self sustained acceleration.

What is difficult to understand?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 11/08/2017 03:59 pm
What is difficult to understand?
Two things are difficult to understand:

1. Why you continue quoting a paper that clearly illustrates that the author does not even slightly understand the concept of a force balance or F = m*a.

2. The quoted section of the paper states that the thrust goes away when error sources are eliminated. I am not sure how any conclusion can be drawn from that other than "thrust measurements are due to experimental error."
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 11/08/2017 06:27 pm
What is difficult to understand?
Two things are difficult to understand:

1. Why you continue quoting a paper that clearly illustrates that the author does not even slightly understand the concept of a force balance or F = m*a.

2. The quoted section of the paper states that the thrust goes away when error sources are eliminated. I am not sure how any conclusion can be drawn from that other than "thrust measurements are due to experimental error."

The paper is clear enough. He didn't say there was no EMDrive force, he said there was no force measured in his particular setup and he explained why.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 11/08/2017 06:50 pm

Hi PN,

Please read:
http://www.emdrive.com/EmDriveForceMeasurement.pdf


I do not understand this document. The meaning is that I can not make it resonate in my brain with physics I have learned. Either it is not consistent with reality, or the physics I have learned does not describe reality, or my brain does not have the ability to relate them.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 11/08/2017 07:12 pm

Hi PN,

Please read:
http://www.emdrive.com/EmDriveForceMeasurement.pdf


I do not understand this document. The meaning is that I can not make it resonate in my brain with physics I have learned. Either it is not consistent with reality, or the physics I have learned does not describe reality, or my brain does not have the ability to relate them.

It made sense to me just fine.  Maybe the difference is physics as a physicist describes it vs. experiment as an engineer does it. Both are true but sometimes are expressed in different language.  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: mgfitter on 11/08/2017 07:34 pm
This may be a dumb question from a layperson here in the peanut gallery, but I can't help wondering...

There appears to be considerable work, time and expense involved in isolating these devices in order to detect tiny thrust levels. Could those resources be better spent in building a larger device designed to produces sufficient thrust to make these noise sources irrelevant?

Could I ask Monomorphic: Roughly how much have you spent (time & money) on all these activities to isolate your system, and how would that compare to trying to make a more powerful system that would be sufficiently powerful that all these noise sources would be inconsequential? Where do you think that line is?

Thanks,
-MG
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 11/08/2017 07:48 pm

Hi PN,

Please read:
http://www.emdrive.com/EmDriveForceMeasurement.pdf


I do not understand this document. The meaning is that I can not make it resonate in my brain with physics I have learned. Either it is not consistent with reality, or the physics I have learned does not describe reality, or my brain does not have the ability to relate them.

It made sense to me just fine.  Maybe the difference is physics as a physicist describes it vs. experiment as an engineer does it. Both are true but sometimes are expressed in different language.  :)
I have both physics and engineering backgrounds, and from neither perspective does that paper make sense. It pretty much translates to "pushing a box to the left will make the box move to the right."
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 11/08/2017 07:59 pm
This may be a dumb question from a layperson here in the peanut gallery, but I can't help wondering...

There appears to be considerable work, time and expense involved in isolating these devices in order to detect tiny thrust levels. Could those resources be better spent in building a larger device designed to produces sufficient thrust to make these noise sources irrelevant?

Could I ask Monomorphic: Roughly how much have you spent (time & money) on all these activities to isolate your system, and how would that compare to trying to make a more powerful system that would be sufficiently powerful that all these noise sources would be inconsequential? Where do you think that line is?

Thanks,
-MG
This is an excellent question.  Do not feel that "you are a layperson in the peanut gallery."

This question has also been asked by aerospace engineering managers at a number of companies.

Although you will probably otherwise be given a variety of excuses like "heat concerns," "cost," "complexity," "power management" etc. I think that after decades of people working on this device, and still debating whether there is a force or not, the answer must be either because

1)  the effect is not well understood and therefore people do not have a good engineering idea of how to maximize the force so that it is much higher than sources of noise (and if so this means that none of the "explanatory theories" are very useful even to scale up the effect)
or
2) the effect is not scalable. A worrisome reason for such lack of scalability is that it may be due to experimental artifacts

FACTS:

A) The Chinese EM Drive that reportedly is being tested in space looks radically different than the EM Drives tested by Shawyer, NASA Eagleworks, TU Dresden and Yang.  It has a cylindrical cross-section instead of a truncated cone as tested by all those others.  Instead of the truncated cone used to explain the force by several theories.

B) The "force" direction in many experiments is in the opposite direction than predicted by theories.  A force at 90 degrees to the longitudinal direction, as reported now by TU Dresden is not explained by most theories (Shawyer, McCullogh, etc.) and even if somebody writes that for example the White QV theory explains forces in all directions that should be a cause of concern right there, if you think about its consequences...

If a theory cannot accurately predict ahead of time the outcome of an experiment, such a theory is of not much value...

People may reply that aerospace companies like Boeing have "gone dark" scaling it up

I don't believe it...Still looking for the flying cars and the single stage vehicle to orbit...I only have seen them in movies so far...Last year was supposed to be "the year" and suddenly now this year is almost over...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: wicoe on 11/08/2017 09:08 pm
It made sense to me just fine.  Maybe the difference is physics as a physicist describes it vs. experiment as an engineer does it. Both are true but sometimes are expressed in different language.  :)

I don't think this depends on the background... if you believe this document makes sense, do you also believe that my comments below (in red) make NO sense?  If yes, can you please elaborate?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Ricvil on 11/08/2017 09:20 pm
This may be a dumb question from a layperson here in the peanut gallery, but I can't help wondering...

There appears to be considerable work, time and expense involved in isolating these devices in order to detect tiny thrust levels. Could those resources be better spent in building a larger device designed to produces sufficient thrust to make these noise sources irrelevant?

Could I ask Monomorphic: Roughly how much have you spent (time & money) on all these activities to isolate your system, and how would that compare to trying to make a more powerful system that would be sufficiently powerful that all these noise sources would be inconsequential? Where do you think that line is?

Thanks,
-MG
This is an excellent question.  Do not feel that "you are you are a layperson in the peanut gallery."

This question has also been asked by aerospace engineering managers at a number of companies.

Although you will probably otherwise be given a variety of excuses like "heat concerns", "cost", "complexity", "power management" etc. I think that after decades of people working on this device, and still debating whether there is a force or not, the answer must be either because

1)  the effect is not well understood and therefore people do not have a good engineering idea of how to maximize the force so that it is much higher than sources of noise (and if so this means that none of the "explanatory theories" are very useful even to scale up the effect)
or
2) the effect is not scalable. A worrisome reason for such lack of scalability is that it may be due to experimental artifacts

FACTS:

A) The Chinese EM Drive that reportedly is being tested in space looks radically different than the EM Drives tested by Shaywer, NASA Eagleworks, TU Dresden and Yang.  It has a cylindrical cross-section instead of a truncated cone as tested by all those others.  Instead of the truncated cone used to explain the force by several theories.

B) The "force" direction in many experiments is in the opposite direction than predicted by theories.  A force at 90 degrees to the longitudinal direction, as reported now by TU Dresden is not explained by most theories (Shawyer, McCullogh, etc.) and even if somebody writes that for example the White QV theory explains forces in all directions that should be a cause of concern right there, if you think about its consequences...

If a theory cannot accurately predict ahead of time the outcome of an experiment, such a theory is of not much value...

People may reply that aerospace companies like Boeing have "gone dark" scaling it up

I don't believe it...Still looking for the flying cars and the single stage vehicle to orbit...I only have seen them in movies so far...Last year was supposed to be "the year" and suddenly now this year is almost over...

Cylindrical cross-section with what kind of termination (end shape)?
There are pictures of this particular chinese emdrive?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Ricvil on 11/08/2017 10:38 pm
I have found this

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1446975;image

At the botton of cavity, he apparently is trying to force an artificial boundary condition with circular concentric cavities, and forcing a mode with specific nodes.

The concentric cylinders are forming coaxial structures, then he may want to force the coupling with TEM modes, except in the central one.

I can not determine what kind of mode is on the top, perhaps a TE one.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Freddled Gruntbuggly on 11/08/2017 10:58 pm
This may be a dumb question from a layperson here in the peanut gallery, but I can't help wondering...

There appears to be considerable work, time and expense involved in isolating these devices in order to detect tiny thrust levels. Could those resources be better spent in building a larger device designed to produces sufficient thrust to make these noise sources irrelevant?

Could I ask Monomorphic: Roughly how much have you spent (time & money) on all these activities to isolate your system, and how would that compare to trying to make a more powerful system that would be sufficiently powerful that all these noise sources would be inconsequential? Where do you think that line is?

Thanks,
-MG

I believe that there were a couple of high power builds under development back in thread 9 by ARW (10kw) and CraigPichach (100kw). Unfortunately both of these users ceased posting in February of 2016.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 11/09/2017 12:20 am

Hi PN,

Please read:
http://www.emdrive.com/EmDriveForceMeasurement.pdf


I do not understand this document. The meaning is that I can not make it resonate in my brain with physics I have learned. Either it is not consistent with reality, or the physics I have learned does not describe reality, or my brain does not have the ability to relate them.

It made sense to me just fine.  Maybe the difference is physics as a physicist describes it vs. experiment as an engineer does it. Both are true but sometimes are expressed in different language.  :)
I have both physics and engineering backgrounds, and from neither perspective does that paper make sense. It pretty much translates to "pushing a box to the left will make the box move to the right."
The action / reaction confusion is built into the UK engineering curriculum. Please don't let it concern you as it is just a sideways technique for getting students, and everyone else, to think it through for themselves...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 11/09/2017 03:10 am

Hi PN,

Please read:
http://www.emdrive.com/EmDriveForceMeasurement.pdf


I do not understand this document. The meaning is that I can not make it resonate in my brain with physics I have learned. Either it is not consistent with reality, or the physics I have learned does not describe reality, or my brain does not have the ability to relate them.

It doesn't make sense to me.  If it could accelerate then a force from a device that restricts it from accelerating should measure a force.  Even if some gravitational field was acting on the EM drive and acted on the measuring device the measuring device still restricts the Frustum from accelerating so should measure a force.

Even in the case of 2 mirrors and both being restricted from accelerating via light bouncing between them with massive Q, one should still be able to measure a force on the mirror. 

The only exception I could possibly think of might be a gravitational field that accelerates both the Frustum and a scale sitting with it.  In this case the frustum and scale would both become lighter, Edit: till the scale showed weightless, in the case of lift off, they could both could ascend vertically.  This is a big if and regardless the case with the force measurement device attached to a non-moving room will definitely not allow the EM drive to vertically lift off with out resistance. 

I would suggest for those who have done the experiment, with the EM drive cavity on the free to rotate accelerating arm, to calculate the force necessary to accelerate their cavity at the rate it appears to.   Next, make an apparatus that restricts this free acceleration of the rotating arm, can measure said force, and it should measure a force. 

If the vacuum is being accelerated in the opposite direction of the EM drive to carry away some off form of momentum which acts on measurement equipment in opposition of the EM drives acceleration then this implies such measurement equipment in the vicinity of the EM drive is accelerated in the opposite direction.  Such masses slightly separated from the EM drive, in the near vicinity, should then also have a measurable force acting on them in the opposite direction as the force applied to the cavity.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/09/2017 03:23 am
What is difficult to understand?
Two things are difficult to understand:

1. Why you continue quoting a paper that clearly illustrates that the author does not even slightly understand the concept of a force balance or F = m*a.

2. The quoted section of the paper states that the thrust goes away when error sources are eliminated. I am not sure how any conclusion can be drawn from that other than "thrust measurements are due to experimental error."

Try understanding:

Quote
In  each  successful  case,  the  EmDrive  force data  has  been  superimposed  on  an  increasing  or decreasing  background  force, generated  by  the  test  equipment  itself.

The only really good way to test an EmDrive is on a rotary test rig that allows free acceleration, well free angular acceleration.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 11/09/2017 03:32 am
What is difficult to understand?
Two things are difficult to understand:

1. Why you continue quoting a paper that clearly illustrates that the author does not even slightly understand the concept of a force balance or F = m*a.

2. The quoted section of the paper states that the thrust goes away when error sources are eliminated. I am not sure how any conclusion can be drawn from that other than "thrust measurements are due to experimental error."

Try understanding:

Quote
In  each  successful  case,  the  EmDrive  force data  has  been  superimposed  on  an  increasing  or decreasing  background  force, generated  by  the  test  equipment  itself.

The only really good way to test an EmDrive is on a rotary test rig that allows free acceleration, well free angular acceleration.
That quote changes nothing about my previous statements, and it is a waste of time to respond to directly when you haven't considered those previous statements. Maybe you should look at wicoe's post above for further detail on how incredibly wrong that paper is.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/09/2017 03:42 am

Hi PN,

Please read:
http://www.emdrive.com/EmDriveForceMeasurement.pdf


I do not understand this document. The meaning is that I can not make it resonate in my brain with physics I have learned. Either it is not consistent with reality, or the physics I have learned does not describe reality, or my brain does not have the ability to relate them.

It doesn't make sense to me.  If it could accelerate then a force from a device that restricts it from accelerating should measure a force.  Even if some gravitational field was acting on the EM drive and acted on the measuring device the measuring device still restricts the Frustum from accelerating so should measure a force.

Even in the case of 2 mirrors and both being restricted from accelerating via light bouncing between them with massive Q, one should still be able to measure a force on the mirror. 

The only exception I could possibly think of might be a gravitational field that accelerates both the Frustum and a scale sitting with it.  In this case the frustum and scale would both become lighter, in the case of lift off maybe they could both could ascend vertically.  This is a big if and regardless the case with the force measurement device attached to a non-moving room will definitely not allow the EM drive to vertically lift off with out resistance. 

I would suggest for those who have done the experiment, with the EM drive cavity on the free to rotate accelerating arm, to calculate the force necessary to accelerate their cavity at the rate it appears to.   Next, make an apparatus that restricts this free acceleration of the rotating arm, can measure force, and it should measure a force.

For an EmDrive to generate thrust, it must be accelerating, small end forward.

On a torsion test rig, when the back or resistive force created by the forward motion of the EmDrive's acceleration equals the EmDrive's generated force, forward motion stops, acceleration stops, the EmDrive drops out of Motor mode and force generation stops.

This occurs as without acceleration, there are no differential Doppler shifts occurring inside the EmDrive as Roger explains in his 2013 IAC paper, section 2:

http://www.emdrive.com/IAC13paper17254.v2.pdf

3 modes of operation:

1) Idle mode:
Quote
If the cavity acceleration A is zero, then the relative velocity between the large and small plates, at the time of wavefront reflection, is also zero.

This will result in an overall zero Doppler shift.

2) Motor mode:
Quote
However with a positive acceleration, the overall Doppler shift will be negative.

This will lead to a reduction in stored energy in the cavity, and thus a reduction in Q, and a reduction in thrust.

The kinetic energy gained by the cavity will be balanced by the stored energy lost by the cavity.

This is EmDrive in “motor” mode

3) Generator mode:
Quote
With a negative acceleration, the overall Doppler shift will be positive.

This will lead to an increase in stored energy, which is balanced by the loss of kinetic energy from the cavity.

This is EmDrive in “generator” mode.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/09/2017 03:47 am
That quote changes nothing about my previous statements, and it is a waste of time to respond to directly when you haven't considered those previous statements. Maybe you should look at wicoe's post above for further detail on how incredibly wrong that paper is.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 11/09/2017 03:57 am
On a torsion test rig, when the back or resistive force created by the forward motion of the EmDrive's acceleration equals the EmDrive's generated force, forward motion stops, acceleration stops, the EmDrive drops out of Motor mode and force generation stops.
You just conflated "forward motion stops" and "acceleration stops." When the forces on an object are balanced, the motion does not stop, it continues at a constant speed. In this case, that causes the torsional pendulum to apply increased force which results in acceleration in the other direction, gradually slowing the rotational speed, and eventually reversing the direction of the rotation.

The rest of what you just posted can be addressed once you understand these basic facts.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 11/09/2017 04:00 am

Hi PN,

Please read:
http://www.emdrive.com/EmDriveForceMeasurement.pdf


I do not understand this document. The meaning is that I can not make it resonate in my brain with physics I have learned. Either it is not consistent with reality, or the physics I have learned does not describe reality, or my brain does not have the ability to relate them.

It doesn't make sense to me.  If it could accelerate then a force from a device that restricts it from accelerating should measure a force.  Even if some gravitational field was acting on the EM drive and acted on the measuring device the measuring device still restricts the Frustum from accelerating so should measure a force.

Even in the case of 2 mirrors and both being restricted from accelerating via light bouncing between them with massive Q, one should still be able to measure a force on the mirror. 

The only exception I could possibly think of might be a gravitational field that accelerates both the Frustum and a scale sitting with it.  In this case the frustum and scale would both become lighter, in the case of lift off maybe they could both could ascend vertically.  This is a big if and regardless the case with the force measurement device attached to a non-moving room will definitely not allow the EM drive to vertically lift off with out resistance. 

I would suggest for those who have done the experiment, with the EM drive cavity on the free to rotate accelerating arm, to calculate the force necessary to accelerate their cavity at the rate it appears to.   Next, make an apparatus that restricts this free acceleration of the rotating arm, can measure force, and it should measure a force.

For an EmDrive to generate thrust, it must be accelerating, small end forward.

On a torsion test rig, when the back or resistive force created by the forward motion of the EmDrive's acceleration equals the EmDrive's generated force, forward motion stops, acceleration stops, the EmDrive drops out of Motor mode and force generation stops.

...

The underlined appears to me your acknowledging a constant force being applied to the torsion pendulum's constant restive force giving the pendulum a measured deflection.  Yet you state that when it stops accelerating/deflecting it stops generating force.  The problem is the EM drive must continue to generate the force in opposition to the pendulums counter force for the pendulum to stay deflected.  This implies the EM drive does generate a constant force even when it is not accelerating. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 11/09/2017 01:01 pm
The Chinese EM Drive that reportedly is being tested in space

Jose, forgive me, but... is the "Chinese EMDrive space test" a real thing ? Not willing to "troll" or whatever, but as far as I can say, sounds like those about such a test were just unconfirmed voices (at best); do you have some surefire information about the fact that such tests are really being carried on ?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 11/09/2017 01:19 pm
The Chinese EM Drive that reportedly is being tested in space

Jose, forgive me, but... is the "Chinese EMDrive space test" a real thing ? Not willing to "troll" or whatever, but as far as I can say, sounds like those about such a test were just unconfirmed voices (at best); do you have some surefire information about the fact that such tests are really being carried on ?
I don't have any further information than has been discussed in this forum.  That's why I was careful to write

Quote
The Chinese EM Drive that reportedly is being tested in space

with emphasis on reportedly as being information that has been reported in the media.  Of course those reports may be false.   If I thought that it was a fact, I would not have used the qualifier "reportedly" which considerably weakens the statement.

Here is the CCTV report translated to English:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mdcer1QQLrA

Furthermore, if my recollection is correct, I seem to recall Potomac Neuron writing that the test in space was not an unqualified success.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 11/09/2017 01:41 pm

Furthermore, if my recollection is correct, I seem to recall Potomac Neuron writing that the test in space was not an unqualified success.

There were anecdotes that this device would be tested on Shijian-17 experimental satellite. After a few weeks, when other devices tested successfully had news about their successes (for example, an ion thruster and a chemical thruster using non-toxic ADN), this device did not have any news. That was a sign of failure from experience about the way things were reported in China. Furthermore, there were anecdotes that it failed on some Chinese forums. Oyzw, a member of this forum, said in a Chinese forum that his messenger in the same institute with Chen Yue (the leader of the project) told him Chen blamed electrical or mechanical ("机电") problems  for the failure. Oyzw is still active. His last post is the first one on page 127.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 11/09/2017 03:06 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rh898Yr5YZ8

Posted yesterday.  It discusses Dr. White's (NASA) theory of the Quantum Vacuum and the EM Drive at about 1:47 ...
Says "Sorry Internet."  At 6:00 says that the notion of using the Quantum Vacuum for the EM Drive "is particularly silly"
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: JonathanD on 11/09/2017 03:40 pm
Posted yesterday.  It discusses Dr. White's (NASA) theory of the Quantum Vacuum and the EM Drive at about 1:47 ...
Says "Sorry Internet"

The host was not entirely helpful, we already know it *shouldn't* work.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 11/09/2017 04:20 pm
It made sense to me just fine.  Maybe the difference is physics as a physicist describes it vs. experiment as an engineer does it. Both are true but sometimes are expressed in different language.  :)

I don't think this depends on the background... if you believe this document makes sense, do you also believe that my comments below (in red) make NO sense?  If yes, can you please elaborate?

Assuming, (and I'm not an expert on reaction forces in this static test rig), the reaction force exists and acts on the scale.....

The statement about scales seems correct because if an EMDrive actually produces a thrust less than the weight of the device, the total forces on it are the weight, the thrust and the Normal force between the device and the scale. The Normal force adds to the thrust to equal the weight. If on the scale there is a reaction force equal to the thrust, it adds to the Normal force which also total to the weight. The normal force is variable and disappears when the thrust is equal to the weight at which point there is no more contact with the scale. This is different than the situation where a string was partially supporting the device but attached to an outside structure. In that case the scale would read a reduced weight because the reaction force does not act on the scale.

Your statement seems to presume the EMDrive can't produce a net force and the reaction and thrust always cancel on the device itself. The original statement and my response assume, just for the discussion, that the device does produce a net thrust and if it did the scales would just register the weight until the device thrust equals gravity.

An equivalent situation might be a small rocket motor or a propeller between a device and a scale that pushes a device up and the reaction gasses impinging on the scale pushing it down.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Kenjee on 11/09/2017 06:06 pm
Motor mode... generator mode.. groundhog day!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 11/09/2017 06:29 pm
For an EmDrive to generate thrust, it must be accelerating, small end forward.

On a torsion test rig, when the back or resistive force created by the forward motion of the EmDrive's acceleration equals the EmDrive's generated force, forward motion stops, acceleration stops, the EmDrive drops out of Motor mode and force generation stops.

This occurs as without acceleration, there are no differential Doppler shifts occurring inside the EmDrive as Roger explains in his 2013 IAC paper, section 2:

http://www.emdrive.com/IAC13paper17254.v2.pdf

3 modes of operation:  ...


It made sense to me just fine.  Maybe the difference is physics as a physicist describes it vs. experiment as an engineer does it. Both are true but sometimes are expressed in different language.  :)

I don't think this depends on the background... if you believe this document makes sense, do you also believe that my comments below (in red) make NO sense?  If yes, can you please elaborate?

Assuming, (and I'm not an expert on reaction forces in this static test rig), the reaction force exists and acts on the scale.....

The statement about scales seems correct because if an EMDrive actually produces a thrust less than the weight of the device, the total forces on it are the weight, the thrust and the Normal force between the device and the scale. The Normal force adds to the thrust to equal the weight. If on the scale there is a reaction force equal to the thrust, it adds to the Normal force which also total to the weight. The normal force is variable and disappears when the thrust is equal to the weight at which point there is no more contact with the scale. This is different than the situation where a string was partially supporting the device but attached to an outside structure. In that case the scale would read a reduced weight because the reaction force does not act on the scale.

Your statement seems to presume the EMDrive can't produce a net force and the reaction and thrust always cancel on the device itself. The original statement and my response assume, just for the discussion, that the device does produce a net thrust and if it did the scales would just register the weight until the device thrust equals gravity.

An equivalent situation might be a small rocket motor or a propeller between a device and a scale that pushes a device up and the reaction gasses impinging on the scale pushing it down.
The discussion about Shawyer's explanation would be easier to follow if it could be done with people posting:

1) the free body diagram that they are proposing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_body_diagram

2) dynamics can also be incorporated in a free-body-diagram using D'Alembert's principle  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Alembert%27s_principle

(http://engineeronadisk.com/book_modeling/images/translation67.gif)

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Dalembert_example.JPG)

(http://slideplayer.com/2871663/10/images/29/D%E2%80%99Alembert%E2%80%99s+Principle.jpg)

(http://slideplayer.com/2871663/10/images/30/D%E2%80%99Alembert%E2%80%99s+Principle.jpg)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: wicoe on 11/09/2017 08:10 pm


(http://slideplayer.com/2871663/10/images/29/D%E2%80%99Alembert%E2%80%99s+Principle.jpg)


I would just like to note that special care must be taken to avoid confusion between the reaction force (which is a "real" force exerted *by* an object to counteract the force exerted upon the object) and the inertial force, which is a fictitious force imagined to be acting *upon* the object.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 11/09/2017 11:07 pm
...
I would just like to note that special care must be taken to avoid confusion between the reaction force (which is a "real" force exerted *by* an object to counteract the force exerted upon the object) and the inertial force, which is a fictitious force imagined to be acting *upon* the object.
A funny quote on so-called "fictitious forces" (which indeed the D'Alembert inertial forces are)



Quote from: Engelbert Schücking
Mach’s principles – whatever they may be –
will always find their defenders and believers.
When one of its promoters, Dennis Sciama,
slammed on the brakes of his car, propelling
his girlfriend, seated next to him, toward the
windshield, she was heard to be moaning,
‘All those distant galaxies!’”

Engelbert Schücking

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engelbert_Sch%C3%BCcking

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Accelerating_car.PNG/525px-Accelerating_car.PNG)
Quote from: Wikipedia
Figure 1: Top panel: accelerating car of mass M with passenger of mass m. The force from the axle is (m + M)a. In the inertial frame, this is the only force on the car and passenger.
Center panel: an exploded view in the inertial frame. The passenger is subject to the accelerating force ma. The seat (assumed of negligible mass) is compressed between the reaction force –ma and the applied force from the car ma. The car is subject to the net acceleration force Ma that is the difference between the applied force (m + M)a from the axle and the reaction from the seat −ma.
Bottom panel: an exploded view in the non-inertial frame. In the non-inertial frame where the car is not accelerating, the force from the axle is balanced by a fictitious backward force −(m + M)a, a portion −Ma applied to the car, and −ma to the passenger. The car is subject to the fictitious force −Ma and the force (m + M)a from the axle. The difference between these forces ma is applied to the seat, which exerts a reaction −ma upon the car, so zero net force is applied to the car. The seat (assumed massless) transmits the force ma to the passenger, who is subject also to the fictitious force −ma, resulting in zero net force on the passenger. The passenger exerts a reaction force −ma upon the seat, which is therefore compressed. In all frames the compression of the seat is the same, and the force delivered by the axle is the same.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 11/10/2017 12:24 am

Furthermore, if my recollection is correct, I seem to recall Potomac Neuron writing that the test in space was not an unqualified success.

There were news that two new electrical thrusters ("电推")would be tested on Shijian-17 experimental satellite. People on several Chinese forums decoded that one is this device and the other is an ion thruster. After a few weeks, when other devices tested successfully had news about their successes (including the ion thruster), this device did not have any news. That was a sign of failure from experience about the way things were reported in China. Furthermore, there were anecdotes that it failed on some Chinese forums. Oyzw, a member of this forum, said in a Chinese forum that his messenger in the same institute with Chen Yue (the leader of the project) told him Chen blamed electrical or mechanical ("机电") problems  for the failure. Oyzw is still active. His last post is the first one on page 127.
PotomacNeuron,
do you have details of the source of this news? I found it difficult to get reliable translations. It seems to me that this information is crucial to funding applications in the US and in Europe.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 11/10/2017 01:56 am

Furthermore, if my recollection is correct, I seem to recall Potomac Neuron writing that the test in space was not an unqualified success.

There were news that two new electrical thrusters ("电推")would be tested on Shijian-17 experimental satellite. People on several Chinese forums decoded that one is this device and the other is an ion thruster. After a few weeks, when other devices tested successfully had news about their successes (including the ion thruster), this device did not have any news. That was a sign of failure from experience about the way things were reported in China. Furthermore, there were anecdotes that it failed on some Chinese forums. Oyzw, a member of this forum, said in a Chinese forum that his messenger in the same institute with Chen Yue (the leader of the project) told him Chen blamed electrical or mechanical ("机电") problems  for the failure. Oyzw is still active. His last post is the first one on page 127.
PotomacNeuron,
do you have details of the source of this news? I found it difficult to get reliable translations. It seems to me that this information is crucial to funding applications in the US and in Europe.

I can't find the source. I will modify my post accordingly. Some anecdotes were found to be from oyzw. The best official news is still this one, as have been discussed multiple times here, http://digitalpaper.stdaily.com/http_www.kjrb.com/kjrb/html/2016-12/11/content_357004.htm (http://digitalpaper.stdaily.com/http_www.kjrb.com/kjrb/html/2016-12/11/content_357004.htm). The best translation is by Baidu (usually better than google translation), as: http://fanyi.baidu.com/transpage?query=http%3A%2F%2Fdigitalpaper.stdaily.com%2Fhttp_www.kjrb.com%2Fkjrb%2Fhtml%2F2016-12%2F11%2Fcontent_357004.htm&source=url&ie=utf8&from=auto&to=zh&render=1 (http://fanyi.baidu.com/transpage?query=http%3A%2F%2Fdigitalpaper.stdaily.com%2Fhttp_www.kjrb.com%2Fkjrb%2Fhtml%2F2016-12%2F11%2Fcontent_357004.htm&source=url&ie=utf8&from=auto&to=zh&render=1) and the relevant quote is: "Chen Yue introduced, they have completed the development of test equipment for flight test, is being carried out in orbit validation."
You may ask him about the news. Thanks.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 11/10/2017 02:07 am

I can't find the source. I will modify my post accordingly. Some anecdotes were found to be from oyzw. The best official news is still this one, as have been discussed multiple times here, http://digitalpaper.stdaily.com/http_www.kjrb.com/kjrb/html/2016-12/11/content_357004.htm (http://digitalpaper.stdaily.com/http_www.kjrb.com/kjrb/html/2016-12/11/content_357004.htm). The best translation is by Baidu (usually better than google translation), as: http://fanyi.baidu.com/transpage?query=http%3A%2F%2Fdigitalpaper.stdaily.com%2Fhttp_www.kjrb.com%2Fkjrb%2Fhtml%2F2016-12%2F11%2Fcontent_357004.htm&source=url&ie=utf8&from=auto&to=zh&render=1 (http://fanyi.baidu.com/transpage?query=http%3A%2F%2Fdigitalpaper.stdaily.com%2Fhttp_www.kjrb.com%2Fkjrb%2Fhtml%2F2016-12%2F11%2Fcontent_357004.htm&source=url&ie=utf8&from=auto&to=zh&render=1) and the relevant quote is: "Chen Yue introduced, they have completed the development of test equipment for flight test, is being carried out in orbit validation."
You may ask him about the news. Thanks.

One such anecdotes: https://www.zhihu.com/question/53602370 (https://www.zhihu.com/question/53602370) in comments: The 73 agreed with the answer
In 2016, a small space experiment that was not very interesting could have an impact on the course of human history.
Several kinds of non working microwave thruster principle verification machine, by China Aerospace 5 Institute on the practice of 17 satellite on orbit test, the test results may be open next week.
This is the first time that the device has been tested in the near earth orbit after NASA announced that the Emdrive system measured the thrust in the laboratory vacuum.
Posted on 2016-12-15

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 11/10/2017 03:33 pm


(http://slideplayer.com/2871663/10/images/29/D%E2%80%99Alembert%E2%80%99s+Principle.jpg)


I would just like to note that special care must be taken to avoid confusion between the reaction force (which is a "real" force exerted *by* an object to counteract the force exerted upon the object) and the inertial force, which is a fictitious force imagined to be acting *upon* the object.

This must be Zeno's Law of Motion! If the total force acting on the body were zero, the body wouldn't accelerate. This concept is a subtle one to explain what it looks like if you are that body and your relative velocity to yourself is of course zero but in reality, it's confusing and unnecessary. Mass is a measure of inertia. If inertia were zero acceleration would be infinite for any force applied. Newton is enough.  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 11/10/2017 03:56 pm


(http://slideplayer.com/2871663/10/images/29/D%E2%80%99Alembert%E2%80%99s+Principle.jpg)


I would just like to note that special care must be taken to avoid confusion between the reaction force (which is a "real" force exerted *by* an object to counteract the force exerted upon the object) and the inertial force, which is a fictitious force imagined to be acting *upon* the object.

This must be Zeno's Law of Motion! If the total force acting on the body were zero, the body wouldn't accelerate. This concept is a subtle one to explain what it looks like if you are that body and your relative velocity to yourself is of course zero but in reality, it's confusing and unnecessary. Mass is a measure of inertia. If inertia were zero acceleration would be infinite for any force applied. Newton is enough.  :)

I have to agree with you. This image is confusing to the extreme. I was taught, if I push on a wall, there is an equal and opposite force acting on my hand, and the wall does not move. The amount of "work" done is zero. Work is NET Force x Distance and in this case, the NET force is zero.

Alternatively, if I am exerting a force on an object that is free to accelerate, the NET force cannot be zero because work is being done to accelerate it. Work will still be the NET Force x Distance, so therefore the NET force is equal to the Applied force, and it is not zero.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 11/10/2017 03:57 pm
...If the total force acting on the body were zero, the body wouldn't accelerate. This concept is a subtle one to explain what it looks like if you are that body and your relative velocity to yourself is of course zero but in reality, it's confusing and unnecessary. Mass is a measure of inertia. If inertia were zero acceleration would be infinite for any force applied. Newton is enough.  :)
D'Alembert's principle is routinely used in Aerospace Engineering for dynamic design of aerospace vehicles.  It was used in the Apollo program and continues to be used to this date in most Finite Element Analysis programs, including NASTRAN, ANSYS etc. to calculate dynamics of multi-degree of freedom deformable bodies.  ;)

That's how NASTRAN analyzed dynamics problems.

I get the impression that not everybody is well exposed to D'Alembert's principle and why it is used.  (Your comparison with Zeno is not pertinent.)  People that have been involved with dynamic analysis of actual (multi-degree of freedom, deformable) aerospace vehicles may appreciate the usefulness of D'Alembert's principle, it is not a competitor to Newton's analysis, it just facilitates the analysis in a similar fashion as Lagrange's formulation helps to analyze general problems. 

If one is not going to be involved in the actual analysis of dynamics of aerospace vehicles, and just discusses simple lumped mass, single degree of freedom problems, then Newton's formulation suffices, and D'Alembert's principle may appear as unnecessary.   Yes, for Physics 1.00, one starts with Newton's formulation, but for further dynamics classes one progresses to the use of D'Alembert's principle, and variational principles for very good reasons  ;).

See https://www.colorado.edu/engineering/CAS/KCPark.d/KCParkHome.d/lectures.d/usnccm2007.pdf  whether that helps (I did not go to Colorado, this is just the first thing that came in google  :) )

Same reason why Lagrange's formulation is useful.
To appreciate the usefulness of Lagrange's formulation one has to analyze multi-degree of freedom general problems.  Otherwise Lagrange's formulation may look like overkill.

I agree that to understand that Shawyer's analysis is flawed, D'Alembert's principle may be overkill.  Just Newton's law is enough.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 11/10/2017 04:12 pm
I have to agree with you. This image is confusing to the extreme. I was taught, if I push on a wall, there is an equal and opposite force acting on my hand, and the wall does not move. The amount of "work" done is zero. Work is NET Force x Distance and in this case, the NET force is zero.

Alternatively, if I am exerting a force on an object that is free to accelerate, the NET force cannot be zero because work is being done to accelerate it. Work will still be the NET Force x Distance, so therefore the NET force is equal to the Applied force, and it is not zero.
What are you saying here?

When you push on something, whether it is a wall or something that moves, in either case there is an equal and opposite force on your hand. This has nothing to do with why the wall doesn't move, which is instead due to the force exerted on the wall by the ground balancing the force you are applying. (I know you can take it from here with the rest of the circle of forces between you and the ground)

While I agree that D'Alembert's principle can cause confusion, as Rodal has pointed out, it is a mathematically useful formulation of dynamics. It basically says that an acceleration will exist that balances out any otherwise unbalanced force. It seems a bit inside out compared to the more common Newtonian description, but it is just as valid.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 11/10/2017 05:45 pm
...If the total force acting on the body were zero, the body wouldn't accelerate. This concept is a subtle one to explain what it looks like if you are that body and your relative velocity to yourself is of course zero but in reality, it's confusing and unnecessary. Mass is a measure of inertia. If inertia were zero acceleration would be infinite for any force applied. Newton is enough.  :)
D'Alembert's principle is routinely used in Aerospace Engineering for dynamic design of aerospace vehicles.  It was used in the Apollo program and continues to be used to this date in most Finite Element Analysis programs, including NASTRAN, ANSYS etc. to calculate dynamics of multi-degree of freedom deformable bodies.  ;)

That's how NASTRAN analyzed dynamics problems.

I get the impression that you have not been well exposed to D'Alembert's principle and why it is used.  (Your comparison with Zeno and other comments are not pertinent.)  People that have been involved with dynamic analysis of actual (multi-degree of freedom, deformable) aerospace vehicles understand the usefulness of D'Alembert's principle, and they do not see it as a competitor to Newton's analysis, it just facilitates the analysis in a similar fashion as Lagrange's formulation helps to analyze general problems. 

If one is not going to be involved in the actual analysis of dynamics of aerospace vehicles, and just discusses simple lumped mass, single degree of freedom problems, then Newton's formulation suffices.   Yes, for Physics 1.00, one starts with Newton's formulation, but for further dynamics classes one progresses to the use of D'Alembert's principle, and variational principles for very good reasons  ;).

See https://www.colorado.edu/engineering/CAS/KCPark.d/KCParkHome.d/lectures.d/usnccm2007.pdf  whether that helps (I did not go to Colorado, this is just the first thing that came in google  :) )

Same reason why Lagrange's formulation is useful.
To appreciate the usefulness of Lagrange's formulation one has to analyze multi-degree of freedom general problems.  Otherwise Lagrange's formulation may look like overkill.

I agree that to understand that Shawyer's analysis is flawed, D'Alembert's principle is overkill.  Just Newton's law is enough.

Thanks. I get the concept for dynamic analysis but we were discussing a static problem and the slide was not quite accurate. The Zeno comment was meant to be a joke. The total force on the body can be set as zero for analysis purposes but it's not really zero so that statement in the slide should have more careful. As I pointed out, I think that the issue of what a scale shows was not necessarily wrong and that was the issue at hand.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 11/10/2017 05:53 pm
...
Thanks. I get the concept for dynamic analysis but we were discussing a static problem and the slide was not quite accurate. The Zeno comment was meant to be a joke. The total force on the body can be set as zero for analysis purposes but it's not really zero so that statement in the slide should have more careful. As I pointed out, I think that the issue of what a scale shows was not necessarily wrong and that was the issue at hand.
Thanks for your reply.
Concerning <<we were discussing a static problem>>. 

If there is acceleration of the EM Drive involved, the problem is not static but dynamic.
If there is a pendulum involved of any kind (torsional, swinging, etc.) the problem is not static either, involving acceleration as well, as the pendulum accelerates from the zero position, achieves maximum velocity and eventually the velocity goes to zero again, etc (the oscillations we see in the response).
If vibration is necessary to excite the EM Drive (as apparently proposed by TT and Shawyer) the problem is not static either, as accelerometers are routinely used to measure amplitude of vibrations (since oscillations in speed imply acceleration).  Hence the problem is dynamic, rather than static.

Actually one of the questions I and others have asked is "what is the amplitude of the vibrations that are required".  Let's assume for discussion sake the hypothesis of TT and Shawyer: let's suspend our questioning and just accept the premise that vibration is needed.  Then, any experimenter needs to quantify what is the amplitude of this vibration required in the experiment.  Amplitude of vibration is usually measured with accelerometers.  But I do not recall anybody answering what is the amplitude of the vibrations that are required for such excitation...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 11/10/2017 06:31 pm
...
Thanks. I get the concept for dynamic analysis but we were discussing a static problem and the slide was not quite accurate. The Zeno comment was meant to be a joke. The total force on the body can be set as zero for analysis purposes but it's not really zero so that statement in the slide should have more careful. As I pointed out, I think that the issue of what a scale shows was not necessarily wrong and that was the issue at hand.
Thanks for your reply.
Concerning <<we were discussing a static problem>>. 

If there is acceleration of the EM Drive involved, the problem is not static but dynamic.
If there is a pendulum involved of any kind (torsional, swinging, etc.) the problem is not static either, involving acceleration as well, as the pendulum accelerates from the zero position, achieves maximum velocity and eventually the velocity goes to zero again, etc (the oscillations we see in the response).
If vibration is necessary to excite the EM Drive (as apparently proposed by TT and Shawyer) the problem is not static either, as accelerometers are routinely used to measure amplitude of vibrations (since oscillations in speed imply acceleration).  Hence the problem is dynamic, rather than static.

Actually one of the questions I and others have asked is "what is the amplitude of the vibrations that are required".  Let's assume for discussion sake the hypothesis of TT and Shawyer: let's suspend our questioning and just accept the premise that vibration is needed.  Then, any experimenter needs to quantify what is the amplitude of this vibration required in the experiment.  Amplitude of vibration is usually measured with accelerometers.  But I do not recall anybody answering what is the amplitude of the vibrations that are required for such excitation...

Please let me clarify one point. My initial response was only related to the discussion around this one statement. Perhaps I should have said that I was discussing the static case. Thanks.

Quote
Note that the reaction is either the acceleration a, or a force equal to Ma, but not both.

Clearly, in a static situation, where T and R both exist as forces, they will cancel out. Thus any attempt to measure them by simply placing the thruster vertically on a set of scales will fail. If however the thrust is sufficient such that a = -g, then the thruster could be made to hover above the scales.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: qraal on 11/12/2017 08:01 pm
Google translate has trouble with the Chinese character for 'newton' translating it as 'cow' or 'cattle'. Though there's something charming about the mental image of a 'micro-cow' as a unit of thrust.



I can't find the source. I will modify my post accordingly. Some anecdotes were found to be from oyzw. The best official news is still this one, as have been discussed multiple times here, http://digitalpaper.stdaily.com/http_www.kjrb.com/kjrb/html/2016-12/11/content_357004.htm (http://digitalpaper.stdaily.com/http_www.kjrb.com/kjrb/html/2016-12/11/content_357004.htm). The best translation is by Baidu (usually better than google translation), as: http://fanyi.baidu.com/transpage?query=http%3A%2F%2Fdigitalpaper.stdaily.com%2Fhttp_www.kjrb.com%2Fkjrb%2Fhtml%2F2016-12%2F11%2Fcontent_357004.htm&source=url&ie=utf8&from=auto&to=zh&render=1 (http://fanyi.baidu.com/transpage?query=http%3A%2F%2Fdigitalpaper.stdaily.com%2Fhttp_www.kjrb.com%2Fkjrb%2Fhtml%2F2016-12%2F11%2Fcontent_357004.htm&source=url&ie=utf8&from=auto&to=zh&render=1) and the relevant quote is: "Chen Yue introduced, they have completed the development of test equipment for flight test, is being carried out in orbit validation."
You may ask him about the news. Thanks.

One such anecdotes: https://www.zhihu.com/question/53602370 (https://www.zhihu.com/question/53602370) in comments: The 73 agreed with the answer
In 2016, a small space experiment that was not very interesting could have an impact on the course of human history.
Several kinds of non working microwave thruster principle verification machine, by China Aerospace 5 Institute on the practice of 17 satellite on orbit test, the test results may be open next week.
This is the first time that the device has been tested in the near earth orbit after NASA announced that the Emdrive system measured the thrust in the laboratory vacuum.
Posted on 2016-12-15
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 11/12/2017 09:37 pm
Google translate has trouble with the Chinese character for 'newton' translating it as 'cow' or 'cattle'. Though there's something charming about the mental image of a 'micro-cow' as a unit of thrust.
...
Since we use horses as a unit of power, a cow as unit of thrust is not that outlandish  ;)

(http://static.wixstatic.com/media/bdbcaa_3d6ce2421ca04828b3a01a7d8791ba2d.jpg_1024)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Augmentor on 11/12/2017 10:27 pm
Rodal,

How much cowpower is equal to 1 hp which is equal to 746 watts?

You brought it up...so what is the conversion factor.

David
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 11/12/2017 10:44 pm
Rodal,

How much cowpower is equal to 1 hp which is equal to 746 watts?

You brought it up...so what is the conversion factor.

David
One unit of cow-power appears to be equivalent to 100 watts.

This can be scientifically derived from the paper “Design of farm waste-centered demand-driven supply side infrastructure for data centers,” delivered at the 2010 ASME International Conference on Energy Sustainability.
Link to the paper by Hewlett Packard Laboratories:  http://www.hpl.hp.com/news/2010/apr-jun/HP_ASME_PAPER.pdf
The paper described how a dairy farm with 10,000 head of cattle could supply a megawatt (MW) of electricity.
10^6 watts/10^4=100 watts per cow

Since a horsepower  is 746 watts, this means that:

It takes 7.46 units of cowpower to be equivalent to 1 unit horsepower or a conversion factor of 7.46
...roughly 7 and a half cows per every horse.

Notice that cowpower refers to electric power derivable from biogas (methane), while horsepower refers to mechanical power.  I imagine that we could come up with a unit of rocket propulsion thrust based on average ejection of biogas (methane) from cows as a propellant.

Raptor is a family of cryogenic, methane-fueled rocket engines under development by SpaceX, designed for colonization of Mars.

However, there seems to be no advantage to such a unit of cow thrust, so I propose we should continue using Newtons as a unit of force in this thread.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 11/13/2017 01:40 am
Don't let it be said that there was no progress in 2017  ;D ;D

Edit: Here's an interesting verification that opacity of medium does not change the mean path length for incident photons https://phys.org/news/2017-11-path-length-opaque-media.html
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: chongma on 11/13/2017 08:10 am
Don't let it be said that there was no progress in 2017  ;D ;D

Now that 2017 is nearly over...I predict 2018 will be the year of the EmDrive  ;D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 11/13/2017 10:21 am
Don't let it be said that there was no progress in 2017  ;D ;D

Now that 2017 is nearly over...I predict 2018 will be the year of the EmDrive  ;D

Yes, I agree. If it doesn't become clear whether the EmDrive works or not (or, at least generate an anomalous force, which doesn't have to mean that it is practically usable as spacedrive) in the coming year, that would be rather strange. Several government labs are involved now, and even private researchers like Monomorphic and me should be able to have results within a year.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 11/13/2017 03:59 pm
It is a well established fact that cows follow a ballistic trajectory, and are not suitable for sustained thrust.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ8jGqdE2iw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ8jGqdE2iw)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: JonathanD on 11/13/2017 05:15 pm

I love that moooovie!



(sorry)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 11/13/2017 11:33 pm

Furthermore, if my recollection is correct, I seem to recall Potomac Neuron writing that the test in space was not an unqualified success.

There were news that two new electrical thrusters ("电推")would be tested on Shijian-17 experimental satellite. People on several Chinese forums decoded that one is this device and the other is an ion thruster. After a few weeks, when other devices tested successfully had news about their successes (including the ion thruster), this device did not have any news. That was a sign of failure from experience about the way things were reported in China. Furthermore, there were anecdotes that it failed on some Chinese forums. Oyzw, a member of this forum, said in a Chinese forum that his messenger in the same institute with Chen Yue (the leader of the project) told him Chen blamed electrical or mechanical ("机电") problems  for the failure. Oyzw is still active. His last post is the first one on page 127.
PotomacNeuron,
do you have details of the source of this news? I found it difficult to get reliable translations. It seems to me that this information is crucial to funding applications in the US and in Europe.

I can't find the source. I will modify my post accordingly. Some anecdotes were found to be from oyzw. The best official news is still this one, as have been discussed multiple times here, http://digitalpaper.stdaily.com/http_www.kjrb.com/kjrb/html/2016-12/11/content_357004.htm (http://digitalpaper.stdaily.com/http_www.kjrb.com/kjrb/html/2016-12/11/content_357004.htm). The best translation is by Baidu (usually better than google translation), as: http://fanyi.baidu.com/transpage?query=http%3A%2F%2Fdigitalpaper.stdaily.com%2Fhttp_www.kjrb.com%2Fkjrb%2Fhtml%2F2016-12%2F11%2Fcontent_357004.htm&source=url&ie=utf8&from=auto&to=zh&render=1 (http://fanyi.baidu.com/transpage?query=http%3A%2F%2Fdigitalpaper.stdaily.com%2Fhttp_www.kjrb.com%2Fkjrb%2Fhtml%2F2016-12%2F11%2Fcontent_357004.htm&source=url&ie=utf8&from=auto&to=zh&render=1) and the relevant quote is: "Chen Yue introduced, they have completed the development of test equipment for flight test, is being carried out in orbit validation."
You may ask him about the news. Thanks.

Thank You Potomac,
Obligada.
May these in-orbit tests be the first of many  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 11/14/2017 06:47 am
Hmm... Guess the search for the holy grail really is about where we're at...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 11/14/2017 06:37 pm
...
In falling from h1 to h2, the atom lost energy. In this distant observer's frame, the atom's ground state energy is lower at h2 than it was at h1.
...

If in your view, as I understand it, the ZPF essentially supports all processes, is the field emanating from a charge or even a magnet a propagating field that must be continuously supplied by the ZPF? In other words, in your model is there really a continual flux from the ZPF keeping up appearances even in static situations? Thanks.  :)

It's not just my view. It's part of QED;

In section 3.3 of The Quantum Vacuum, Milonni [2] writes,
“The fact that an accelerating charge loses energy by radiating implies, according to classical ideas, that an electron should spiral into the nucleus and that atoms should not be stable. The balancing of the effects of radiation reaction and the vacuum field..., however, suggest that the stability of atoms might be attributable to the influence on the atom of the vacuum field.... We now know that the vacuum field is in fact formally necessary for the stability of atoms in quantum theory. As we saw..., radiation reaction will cause canonical commutators [x, px] to decay to zero unless the fluctuating vacuum field is included, in which case commutators are consistently preserved.”

In my own words: Atoms are in equilibrium with the vacuum fields. Where, the ZPF is the driving field that inflates them, and RR and/or the fields of all mater in the universe, is the damping field that contracts them. Any imbalance in these two fields will cause matter to seek a new equilibrium by moving in the direction which reduces its self-energy. This is the direction of increased damping, which results in gravitational length contraction and time dilation.

In answer to a question Dr. Rodal asked of one presenter: In the manner I described above, the two fields might have infinite energy and we are taking the difference between these two infinities, as is done elsewhere in QED. The imbalance is what "gravitates". If matter is in equilibrium, it is an inertial reference frame. However, the "strength" of the frame, as was discussed by Marc Mills, I equate to the spectral energy density of the fields in equilibrium. Hence, we can have gravitational effects such as time dilation and length contraction, in an inertial frame (of any strength), and we can have gravitational effects at the order of magnitude we are familiar with, without the fields themselves causing a 120 order of magnitude catastrophe for the ZPF. It's all in how I/we interpret what we have for data.  :)

Thanks. It seems a static magnetic field say from a bar magnet is ultimately due to ZPF sustaining the electron motion which causes the currents that produce the field and that field continually propagates and is refreshed.
If we considered that the energy contained in the field of typical bar magnet can be on the order of a Joule and most of that is contained within the volume of a sphere around the magnet of one light nanosecond or 30cm, which has to be refreshed each nanosecond or the field disappears, then the power emanating from the magnet is on the order of a GW. That seems untenable.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 11/14/2017 10:01 pm

Thanks. It seems a static magnetic field say from a bar magnet is ultimately due to ZPF sustaining the electron motion which causes the currents that produce the field and that field continually propagates and is refreshed.
If we considered that the energy contained in the field of typical bar magnet can be on the order of a Joule and most of that is contained within the volume of a sphere around the magnet of one light nanosecond or 30cm, which has to be refreshed each nanosecond or the field disappears, then the power emanating from the magnet is on the order of a GW. That seems untenable.

Ferromagnetism is due to the spin of the electron AND the fact that they can align with the same N-S axis, across large domains within the iron. The amount of reactive power the vacuum contributes to electron spin doesn't change simply because it's part of a magnet. The electron is still in equilibrium with the vacuum, so there is no way to extract work from it. In the end, the magnetic field of a bar magnet doesn't oscillate at observable frequencies, so it can't do any work either.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 11/15/2017 12:12 am

Thanks. It seems a static magnetic field say from a bar magnet is ultimately due to ZPF sustaining the electron motion which causes the currents that produce the field and that field continually propagates and is refreshed.
If we considered that the energy contained in the field of typical bar magnet can be on the order of a Joule and most of that is contained within the volume of a sphere around the magnet of one light nanosecond or 30cm, which has to be refreshed each nanosecond or the field disappears, then the power emanating from the magnet is on the order of a GW. That seems untenable.

Ferromagnetism is due to the spin of the electron AND the fact that they can align with the same N-S axis, across large domains within the iron. The amount of reactive power the vacuum contributes to electron spin doesn't change simply because it's part of a magnet. The electron is still in equilibrium with the vacuum, so there is no way to extract work from it. In the end, the magnetic field of a bar magnet doesn't oscillate at observable frequencies, so it can't do any work either.

Cannot bring myself to agree with either of you. Occam's razor suggests that a charge imbalance longitudinal to the North / South axis of a magnet is a simpler explanation. Near either end of that imbalance electrical interactions explain the force and near the plane between the ends the force of those interactions sum to the longitudinal. Why complicate your appreciation further?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 11/15/2017 01:31 am

Thanks. It seems a static magnetic field say from a bar magnet is ultimately due to ZPF sustaining the electron motion which causes the currents that produce the field and that field continually propagates and is refreshed.
If we considered that the energy contained in the field of typical bar magnet can be on the order of a Joule and most of that is contained within the volume of a sphere around the magnet of one light nanosecond or 30cm, which has to be refreshed each nanosecond or the field disappears, then the power emanating from the magnet is on the order of a GW. That seems untenable.

Ferromagnetism is due to the spin of the electron AND the fact that they can align with the same N-S axis, across large domains within the iron. The amount of reactive power the vacuum contributes to electron spin doesn't change simply because it's part of a magnet. The electron is still in equilibrium with the vacuum, so there is no way to extract work from it. In the end, the magnetic field of a bar magnet doesn't oscillate at observable frequencies, so it can't do any work either.

Cannot bring myself to agree with either of you. Occam's razor suggests that a charge imbalance longitudinal to the North / South axis of a magnet is a simpler explanation. Near either end of that imbalance electrical interactions explain the force and near the plane between the ends the force of those interactions sum to the longitudinal. Why complicate your appreciation further?

There is no NET charge dipole across a bar magnet.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 11/15/2017 05:28 pm

Thanks. It seems a static magnetic field say from a bar magnet is ultimately due to ZPF sustaining the electron motion which causes the currents that produce the field and that field continually propagates and is refreshed.
If we considered that the energy contained in the field of typical bar magnet can be on the order of a Joule and most of that is contained within the volume of a sphere around the magnet of one light nanosecond or 30cm, which has to be refreshed each nanosecond or the field disappears, then the power emanating from the magnet is on the order of a GW. That seems untenable.

Ferromagnetism is due to the spin of the electron AND the fact that they can align with the same N-S axis, across large domains within the iron. The amount of reactive power the vacuum contributes to electron spin doesn't change simply because it's part of a magnet. The electron is still in equilibrium with the vacuum, so there is no way to extract work from it. In the end, the magnetic field of a bar magnet doesn't oscillate at observable frequencies, so it can't do any work either.

Magnets certainly can do work but what people really mean is if a magnet can be the energy source doing that work of which the answer classically is no. We can invest potential energy into a classical system involving magnets raising the potential energy which is reduced by the magnets then doing work. The myth than magnets call no work comes from the fact that a charged particle traveling in a constant magnetic field only has it's direction changed but not its momentum.

If I understand you, basically you are saying I'm correct regarding all that flux pouring out of a magnet or an electron charge or any EM field source but simply put, that energy can't be measured or used for any gain. If the ZPF continuously has to support each electron from decaying, it is delivering huge energies to support each electron in the universe to both keep it from decaying and to refresh the continuously departing EM fields emanating from each particle, exactly equal to the energy  that would be released if the electrons were allowed to decay or not be a source of fields. So the ZPF does all the work to maintain the universe in that view which you assert is now the standard QED view. If one cannot measure that flux, how is that view falsifiable? Thanks.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 11/15/2017 05:55 pm

Magnets certainly can do work but what people really mean is if a magnet can be the energy source doing that work of which the answer classically is no. We can invest potential energy into a classical system involving magnets raising the potential energy which is reduced by the magnets then doing work. The myth than magnets call no work comes from the fact that a charged particle traveling in a constant magnetic field only has it's direction changed but not its momentum.

If I understand you, basically you are saying I'm correct regarding all that flux pouring out of a magnet or an electron charge or any EM field source but simply put, that energy can't be measured or used for any gain. If the ZPF continuously has to support each electron from decaying, it is delivering huge energies to support each electron in the universe to both keep it from decaying and to refresh the continuously departing EM fields emanating from each particle, exactly equal to the energy  that would be released if the electrons were allowed to decay or not be a source of fields. So the ZPF does all the work to maintain the universe in that view which you assert is now the standard QED view. If one cannot measure that flux, how is that view falsifiable? Thanks.

Electrons don't spiral into the nucleus and disappear. The necessity of the vacuum ZPF is that it preserves the Commutation relations between position and momentum. Without it, atoms would be unstable. So the fact that atoms are not unstable in general, is proof enough for me. However, what your question boils down to is, does the ZPF of minimum energy state really exist or is there an absolute zero energy. All experiments up to now show that we cannot reach absolute zero temperature and that the ZPF is real. See Milonni's book for the complete picture.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: jmossman on 11/15/2017 05:58 pm

Thanks. It seems a static magnetic field say from a bar magnet is ultimately due to ZPF sustaining the electron motion which causes the currents that produce the field and that field continually propagates and is refreshed.
If we considered that the energy contained in the field of typical bar magnet can be on the order of a Joule and most of that is contained within the volume of a sphere around the magnet of one light nanosecond or 30cm, which has to be refreshed each nanosecond or the field disappears, then the power emanating from the magnet is on the order of a GW. That seems untenable.

Ferromagnetism is due to the spin of the electron AND the fact that they can align with the same N-S axis, across large domains within the iron. The amount of reactive power the vacuum contributes to electron spin doesn't change simply because it's part of a magnet. The electron is still in equilibrium with the vacuum, so there is no way to extract work from it. In the end, the magnetic field of a bar magnet doesn't oscillate at observable frequencies, so it can't do any work either.

...
If the ZPF continuously has to support each electron from decaying, it is delivering huge energies to support each electron in the universe to both keep it from decaying and to refresh the continuously departing EM fields emanating from each particle, exactly equal to the energy  that would be released if the electrons were allowed to decay or not be a source of fields. So the ZPF does all the work to maintain the universe in that view which you assert is now the standard QED view. If one cannot measure that flux, how is that view falsifiable? Thanks.

I should probably stay out of this discussion, but I'm confused why @WarpTech's theory doesn't better equate to a "spring" that effectively prevents/retards the electron decay.  A classical mechanical spring when compressed (and steady state) does not perform work, so why can't ZPF be crudely modeled as a spring for this stabilizing scenario? 

In other words, I don't see where @WarpTech's ZPF theory would need to be performing any work to remain compatible with this bar magnet thought experiment.

Thanks,
James
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 11/15/2017 06:06 pm

Thanks. It seems a static magnetic field say from a bar magnet is ultimately due to ZPF sustaining the electron motion which causes the currents that produce the field and that field continually propagates and is refreshed.
If we considered that the energy contained in the field of typical bar magnet can be on the order of a Joule and most of that is contained within the volume of a sphere around the magnet of one light nanosecond or 30cm, which has to be refreshed each nanosecond or the field disappears, then the power emanating from the magnet is on the order of a GW. That seems untenable.

Ferromagnetism is due to the spin of the electron AND the fact that they can align with the same N-S axis, across large domains within the iron. The amount of reactive power the vacuum contributes to electron spin doesn't change simply because it's part of a magnet. The electron is still in equilibrium with the vacuum, so there is no way to extract work from it. In the end, the magnetic field of a bar magnet doesn't oscillate at observable frequencies, so it can't do any work either.

...
If the ZPF continuously has to support each electron from decaying, it is delivering huge energies to support each electron in the universe to both keep it from decaying and to refresh the continuously departing EM fields emanating from each particle, exactly equal to the energy  that would be released if the electrons were allowed to decay or not be a source of fields. So the ZPF does all the work to maintain the universe in that view which you assert is now the standard QED view. If one cannot measure that flux, how is that view falsifiable? Thanks.

I should probably stay out of this discussion, but I'm confused why @WarpTech's theory doesn't better equate to a "spring" that effectively prevents/retards the electron decay.  A classical mechanical spring when compressed (and steady state) does not perform work, so why can't ZPF be crudely modeled as a spring for this stabilizing scenario? 

In other words, I don't see where @WarpTech's ZPF theory would need to be performing any work to remain compatible with this bar magnet thought experiment.

Thanks,
James

You seem to be suggesting the ZPF prevents electron decay by radiation of photons rather than WarpTech's concept that the ZPF restores radiated photons. How is that better than the old QM postulate that electrons in their ground state wavefunctions "simply don't radiate"?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 11/15/2017 06:17 pm

Magnets certainly can do work but what people really mean is if a magnet can be the energy source doing that work of which the answer classically is no. We can invest potential energy into a classical system involving magnets raising the potential energy which is reduced by the magnets then doing work. The myth than magnets call no work comes from the fact that a charged particle traveling in a constant magnetic field only has it's direction changed but not its momentum.

If I understand you, basically you are saying I'm correct regarding all that flux pouring out of a magnet or an electron charge or any EM field source but simply put, that energy can't be measured or used for any gain. If the ZPF continuously has to support each electron from decaying, it is delivering huge energies to support each electron in the universe to both keep it from decaying and to refresh the continuously departing EM fields emanating from each particle, exactly equal to the energy  that would be released if the electrons were allowed to decay or not be a source of fields. So the ZPF does all the work to maintain the universe in that view which you assert is now the standard QED view. If one cannot measure that flux, how is that view falsifiable? Thanks.

Electrons don't spiral into the nucleus and disappear. The necessity of the vacuum ZPF is that it preserves the Commutation relations between position and momentum. Without it, atoms would be unstable. So the fact that atoms are not unstable in general, is proof enough for me. However, what your question boils down to is, does the ZPF of minimum energy state really exist or is there an absolute zero energy. All experiments up to now show that we cannot reach absolute zero temperature and that the ZPF is real. See Milonni's book for the complete picture.

Please put the sentence  "The necessity of the vacuum ZPF is that it preserves the Commutation relations between position and momentum." into some form of physicality as the term 'Commutation relations' refers to a abstract mathematical concept regarding wavefunctions, themselves an abstract concept, not physical entities. As it turns out, recent work seems to show something different;

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2017/11/01/science.aao7043

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171113104709.htm

"The new measuring technique circumvents the limitation formulated by the father of quantum physics, Werner Heisenberg, in 1927. According to "Heisenberg's uncertainty principle," it is not possible to determine the position and the speed of an electron at the same instant. However, now, the Swedish researchers have shown that it can, in fact, be done: through superposition (i.e. interference) of two short pulses of light with different wavelengths."

What are the implications?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 11/15/2017 07:25 pm
You seem to be suggesting the ZPF prevents electron decay by radiation of photons rather than WarpTech's concept that the ZPF restores radiated photons. How is that better than the old QM postulate that electrons in their ground state wavefunctions "simply don't radiate"?

Charges do radiate when accelerated, but the force on the particle is zero....
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 11/15/2017 07:45 pm

Magnets certainly can do work but what people really mean is if a magnet can be the energy source doing that work of which the answer classically is no. We can invest potential energy into a classical system involving magnets raising the potential energy which is reduced by the magnets then doing work. The myth than magnets call no work comes from the fact that a charged particle traveling in a constant magnetic field only has it's direction changed but not its momentum.

If I understand you, basically you are saying I'm correct regarding all that flux pouring out of a magnet or an electron charge or any EM field source but simply put, that energy can't be measured or used for any gain. If the ZPF continuously has to support each electron from decaying, it is delivering huge energies to support each electron in the universe to both keep it from decaying and to refresh the continuously departing EM fields emanating from each particle, exactly equal to the energy  that would be released if the electrons were allowed to decay or not be a source of fields. So the ZPF does all the work to maintain the universe in that view which you assert is now the standard QED view. If one cannot measure that flux, how is that view falsifiable? Thanks.

Electrons don't spiral into the nucleus and disappear. The necessity of the vacuum ZPF is that it preserves the Commutation relations between position and momentum. Without it, atoms would be unstable. So the fact that atoms are not unstable in general, is proof enough for me. However, what your question boils down to is, does the ZPF of minimum energy state really exist or is there an absolute zero energy. All experiments up to now show that we cannot reach absolute zero temperature and that the ZPF is real. See Milonni's book for the complete picture.

Please put the sentence  "The necessity of the vacuum ZPF is that it preserves the Commutation relations between position and momentum." into some form of physicality as the term 'Commutation relations' refers to a abstract mathematical concept regarding wavefunctions, themselves an abstract concept, not physical entities. As it turns out, recent work seems to show something different;

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2017/11/01/science.aao7043

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171113104709.htm

"The new measuring technique circumvents the limitation formulated by the father of quantum physics, Werner Heisenberg, in 1927. According to "Heisenberg's uncertainty principle," it is not possible to determine the position and the speed of an electron at the same instant. However, now, the Swedish researchers have shown that it can, in fact, be done: through superposition (i.e. interference) of two short pulses of light with different wavelengths."

What are the implications?
This interpretation, that this technique circumvects Heisenberg's uncertainty principle should be contemplated taking into account the fact that the experimenters appear to be using Wigner's time delay (the asymptotic time difference between the quasiclassical and the Wigner trajectories. The Wigner trajectory is derived from the derivative of the phase of the electron steady-state wave function with respect to energy).

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1709.01780.pdf

To measure speed in Quantum Mechanics, one has to agree on what measuring time in Quantum Mechanics means.  Agreeing as to what measuring time precisely means in Quantum Mechanics is an issue, since there is no such thing as a time operator in Quantum Mechanics. (Sorry Spupeng7 and your imaginary time).  See for example the following concerning efforts to define a time operator, with at least 3 different ways to do it:  https://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0609/0609211.pdf
I would not jump to such conclusion (regarding Heisenberg's principle), as this interpretation is based on group delay and the derivative of the scattering phase.  There is a connection to Heisenberg's principle in that the scattering matrix is a fast function of energy if the particle spends a long time in the scattering region, and it is a slow function of energy if the particle spends only a short time in the scattering region.  However, contemplate the various ways that the speed and the position of an electron can be calculated, when one is dealing with Quantum Mechanics instead of dealing with a particle subject to Newton's classical laws.

Also, I see no application of these intricate measurements of spatial and temporal effects to the EM Drive as designed and tested in the experiments reported by Shawyer and NASA.   If others do, please let us know what are the implications...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 11/16/2017 02:00 am

(...)

There is no NET charge dipole across a bar magnet.

WarpTech,

how would you measure that? If there were, then the only measurable consequence would be a magnetic field, would it not?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 11/16/2017 02:04 am

(...)

There is no NET charge dipole across a bar magnet.

WarpTech,

how would you measure that? If there were, then the only measurable consequence would be a magnetic field, would it not?

With a voltmeter. If there is a NET charge displacement, there is an electric field and a voltage difference from one end to the other. I can assure you, because I've worked with transformers and magnetic fields for decades, that there is no voltage across a bar magnet at rest relative to the observer.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 11/16/2017 02:39 am

(...)

To measure speed in Quantum Mechanics, one has to agree on what measuring time in Quantum Mechanics means.  Agreeing as to what measuring time precisely means in Quantum Mechanics is an issue, since there is no such thing as a time operator in Quantum Mechanics. (Sorry Spupeng7 and your imaginary time).  See for example the following concerning efforts to define a time operator, with at least 3 different ways to do it:  https://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0609/0609211.pdf
I would not jump to such conclusion (regarding Heisenberg's principle), as this interpretation is based on group delay and the derivative of the scattering phase.  There is a connection to Heisenberg's principle in that the scattering matrix is a fast function of energy if the particle spends a long time in the scattering region, and it is a slow function of energy if the particle spends only a short time in the scattering region.  However, contemplate the various ways that the speed and the position of an electron can be calculated, when one is dealing with Quantum Mechanics instead of dealing with a particle subject to Newton's classical laws.

Also, I see no application of these intricate measurements of spatial and temporal effects to the EM Drive as designed and tested in the experiments reported by Shawyer and NASA.   If others do, please let us know what are the implications...

Rodal,
there may not be a time operator in Quantum Mechanics, but what Quantum Mechanics is analyzing exists across time and one of the reasons why the equations of wave mechanics use complex powers is because the relationships of relative velocity and momentum require, in my opinion, complex conjugates for their simplest resolution.

I suggest complex time because it allows the possibility of a tenable explanation for a Machian interconnection between all charges. That would then have direct relevance to the mechanism of interaction enabling any EM Drive thrust.

If you want to resolve relative motion any other way you are going to need to master the General Relativistic mechanics which have so far eluded me. The concept of time dilation is simple enough though, all you need to know is that the clock in your hand always runs at the same rate as the chemistry in your head.

Is there a simpler analysis of relative rates of time, than assigning a complex conjugate to clock time? If you then recognize the presence of charge as the influence dilating time then I think you arrive at a simpler explanation for mechanics in general.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 11/16/2017 02:45 am

(...)

There is no NET charge dipole across a bar magnet.

WarpTech,

how would you measure that? If there were, then the only measurable consequence would be a magnetic field, would it not?

With a voltmeter. If there is a NET charge displacement, there is an electric field and a voltage difference from one end to the other. I can assure you, because I've worked with transformers and magnetic fields for decades, that there is no voltage across a bar magnet at rest relative to the observer.
Ya,
that volt meter is only going to measure a voltage if the charges creating the magnetic field are free to be conducted away from the circumstance holding them at that differentiated longitudinal displacement. The fact that those circumstances are stable, at least in the short term, suggest that they do not have that freedom.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 11/16/2017 04:24 am
With a voltmeter. If there is a NET charge displacement, there is an electric field and a voltage difference from one end to the other. I can assure you, because I've worked with transformers and magnetic fields for decades, that there is no voltage across a bar magnet at rest relative to the observer.
Ya,
that volt meter is only going to measure a voltage if the charges creating the magnetic field are free to be conducted away from the circumstance holding them at that differentiated longitudinal displacement. The fact that those circumstances are stable, at least in the short term, suggest that they do not have that freedom.

If the electrons are not free from the atoms to be conducted by the voltmeter, then they are also not free to be displaced along the length of the bar magnet. Seriously man, why do you insist on reinventing the wheel? Quantum Electrodynamics is THE most well tested theory EVER! Just learn it the way everybody else knows it, and then you can realize all your good ideas using the same physics and terminology as everyone else. It makes conversation much easier.

Thanks!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Svancarek on 11/16/2017 11:04 am
This topics goes for looong time.
So, I wanted to ask- is there any proof that EMDrive functions? A proof without any doubt?
What I read, chinese scientists retracted their claims, since they measured thermal effects on power lines.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: bunjatec on 11/16/2017 12:46 pm
This topics goes for looong time.
So, I wanted to ask- is there any proof that EMDrive functions? A proof without any doubt?
What I read, chinese scientists retracted their claims, since they measured thermal effects on power lines.

This is the million dollar question.

So far we have some mildly positive results and indications close to the noise floor for the experiments, but as yet nothing unequivocally proven (although possibly close in a couple of cases), neither do we have an agreed mechanism so to how it would work.

What we do have is a lot of interesting theoretical discussion and tantalising glimpses of what could be..

I personally hope that as time and experiments go by this resolves into something increasingly interesting.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: JonathanD on 11/16/2017 02:56 pm
What we do have is a lot of interesting theoretical discussion and tantalising glimpses of what could be..

We also have some incredibly dedicated builders who are pouring incredible amounts of time and money into trying to prove or disprove this thing once and for all.  And not to disparage any of the rest of the thread participants because most of your discussions are over my head anyway, but it's the builders that keep me coming back and refreshing this thread every day!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Stormbringer on 11/16/2017 06:06 pm
I'll drop this here since it appears to me that it might be pertinent to the discussion that was going on a while back about skin depth effects on electrons and photons interacting with the boundary layers of the frustrum interior:

https://phys.org/news/2017-11-scientists-technique-energy-momentum-electrons.html

(finally I get to contribute again)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: racevedo88 on 11/17/2017 12:11 am
This topics goes for looong time.
So, I wanted to ask- is there any proof that EMDrive functions? A proof without any doubt?
What I read, chinese scientists retracted their claims, since they measured thermal effects on power lines.

I have been following this topic for a while, and to be honest most of the discussion is well above my head. Truth in advertisement I am a hoper “as in I hope it works” and some of the things I know are that while many test seems to show that thrust is being produced, they have not been able to account for experimental errors or other variables such as thermal effects.

The beauty here is that you have some dedicated and knowledgeable experimenters such as Shells, monomorphic and others that are discussing their experiments and settings online. In essence they are getting peer reviewed at every step from both believers and sceptics alike, and implementing suggestions from both sides into their setups.

This is important because the results of these experiments would be a lot harder to refute by the community. So although I personally believe that the question won’t be settled until it is tested in space, what happenswith this experiments will make it more likely to secure funding for such an endeavor.

It also has the beauty that a positive report has the capacity to turn current  physics understanding on its head and spur a new age of theoretical science and kickstart a golden age of space exploration.

So I will continue to follow this even thought the discussion really go over my head.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 11/17/2017 12:51 am
With a voltmeter. If there is a NET charge displacement, there is an electric field and a voltage difference from one end to the other. I can assure you, because I've worked with transformers and magnetic fields for decades, that there is no voltage across a bar magnet at rest relative to the observer.
Ya,
that volt meter is only going to measure a voltage if the charges creating the magnetic field are free to be conducted away from the circumstance holding them at that differentiated longitudinal displacement. The fact that those circumstances are stable, at least in the short term, suggest that they do not have that freedom.

If the electrons are not free from the atoms to be conducted by the voltmeter, then they are also not free to be displaced along the length of the bar magnet. Seriously man, why do you insist on reinventing the wheel? Quantum Electrodynamics is THE most well tested theory EVER! Just learn it the way everybody else knows it, and then you can realize all your good ideas using the same physics and terminology as everyone else. It makes conversation much easier.

Thanks!

You thank me too quickly WT,
electrons can be in a sustained displacement without even leaving a molecule, as in London forces. Electrons can be in a sustained displacement due to insulating grain boundaries in a crystalline material and possibly within dendrite structures as well, maybe even when they are nominally part of the electron gas within a metal. So far as I know, and there being a lot I don't know and much that I know I don't know.

Am not much interested in restricting myself to learning it 'the way everybody else knows it' because the conclusions inevitable from those constructs forbid emdrive thrust and are crawling with paradox. There are enough physics students doing that sad rubbish, you don't need me to do it as well.

If emdrive is confirmed it will be a moment of opportunity to unshackle ourselves from assumption, especially the tattered remnants of the Newtonian assumption that everything remains in strictly conserved relationships because they are locked into an imaginary grid of some sort.

In my opinion, conservation is the consequence of balance in an interconnected universe where time is rigid only within relativistic limits. But those relativistic limits are exceeded at every level of interaction and time progresses differently for every charge, to some extent.

But when it comes to photons, the paradox accepted by academic physics is absurd, embarrassing. The wheel needs to be re-invented because there are better ways to get around. I insist upon it because arguments from authority are not convincing to me.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 11/17/2017 01:17 am
...
But when it comes to photons, the paradox accepted by academic physics is absurd, embarrassing. The wheel needs to be re-invented because there are better ways to get around. I insist upon it because arguments from authority are not convincing to me.

What paradox?

Well, I find going by the book provides everything I need, including solutions to the EmDrive. I'd prefer to wait and see if one actually violates physical laws before I would attempt to rewrite the book.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 11/17/2017 02:36 pm
You thank me too quickly WT,
electrons can be in a sustained displacement without even leaving a molecule, as in London forces. Electrons can be in a sustained displacement due to insulating grain boundaries in a crystalline material and possibly within dendrite structures as well, maybe even when they are nominally part of the electron gas within a metal. So far as I know, and there being a lot I don't know and much that I know I don't know.
Electric and magnetic fields can be measured in multiple ways (To start with electrons in the metal contacts of a voltmeter can move and would do so in the presence of the field even if the electrons in the object don't move). Displaced charges produce electric fields, and not magnetic fields. This has been measured.

Am not much interested in restricting myself to learning it 'the way everybody else knows it' because the conclusions inevitable from those constructs forbid emdrive thrust and are crawling with paradox. There are enough physics students doing that sad rubbish, you don't need me to do it as well.
As WarpTech said, what paradox?

Also, calling the results of the work of every scientist for the last 300 years "rubbish" is a massive insult.

If emdrive is confirmed it will be a moment of opportunity to unshackle ourselves from assumption, especially the tattered remnants of the Newtonian assumption that everything remains in strictly conserved relationships because they are locked into an imaginary grid of some sort.
First, what do you mean "tattered remnants." Second, things that Newton observed to be conserved are not just "assumed" to be conserved. We have Noether's theorem now which is a basis for conservation laws. The actual assumptions involved do not involve "an imaginary grid of some sort."

In my opinion, conservation is the consequence of balance in an interconnected universe where time is rigid only within relativistic limits. But those relativistic limits are exceeded at every level of interaction and time progresses differently for every charge, to some extent.
Your assumption is wrong, again see Noether's theorem.

But when it comes to photons, the paradox accepted by academic physics is absurd, embarrassing. The wheel needs to be re-invented because there are better ways to get around. I insist upon it because arguments from authority are not convincing to me.
Again, what paradox?

There aren't arguments of authority being used, there are arguments based on countless simple experiments and on solid math. Your refusal to actually look up any real information and learn something about what your talking about does not make other's statements an "argument from authority." We aren't going to be able to teach you an entire course in electrodynamics through this forum, and even less so if you continue simply denying experimentally measured relationships.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Slyver on 11/17/2017 04:57 pm
Am not much interested in restricting myself to learning it 'the way everybody else knows it' because the conclusions inevitable from those constructs forbid emdrive thrust and are crawling with paradox...


When I was young, for quite a few years, I indulged in art, drawing primarily. I wasn't amazingly good, I wasn't terribly bad, the point is, I understood, at least on some level, what it took to create art. Sometime in high school I remember looking at a piece from Picasso's cubist period, and thinking to myself, "How can this guy be so popular? I see no evidence here that this guy even knows how to draw." I then looked up more of his work, and the sentiment remained. I had no appreciation for his cubism.

Eventually I ran across some less popular realistic pieces. I realized that Picasso was an amazing realist. An epiphany ensued, and all of his other artwork took on new meaning to me. Beyond the "in your face" of cubism, I was able to appreciate the nuance of what he was saying.

In my prejudice against what I didn't understand, I assumed the fault lay with the artist. The fault lay with my prejudice. I still don't like cubism, but I have a deep appreciation for it now, because of that lesson.

I had another epiphany at the same time (it was a "moment" for me). This one was, you can't push the boundaries in a field that has so much work done in it, without gaining mastery of the work that has gone before.

If you want to look at a new way of doing things, you must understand, on an intimate level, why so many others are proponents of the "old way". Yes, you will find dogma, but there will be logical reasons and a body of evidence as well. Mastering the old way also allows you to see where the logic might have failed, in some subtle nuance, and what the axioms really are, and where the holes may be.

Everyone who has pushed the boundaries in established fields has been a master of what came before. It can be difficult to ignore the dogma in your education; nevertheless, you must become educated before you can teach, especially if what you end up teaching is a paradigm shift.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 11/17/2017 04:59 pm
  We have Noether's theorem now which is a basis for conservation laws.

In my view, experiments are the basis of conservation laws. Noether's Theorem provides theoretical support for a consistent mathematical structure applied to describe classical physics but any existing or proposed conservation law must be experimentally confirmed before it is 'physics'. Math and physics are intimately related but they are not and never will be the same. Also the theorem does have limits.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: wicoe on 11/17/2017 06:35 pm
Math and physics are intimately related but they are not and never will be the same. Also the theorem does have limits.

I realize that this is getting into philosophy, but I can't help but notice that this statement is quite arrogant.  So far, all successful models of describing nature have been mathematical.  Even though there may not be a unified model known yet, it does not mean that it does not exist or that it is not mathematical.  Does your statement imply that you believe there are phenomena that will never be explained by a (future) mathematical model?  What makes you think that?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 11/17/2017 06:43 pm

Thanks. It seems a static magnetic field say from a bar magnet is ultimately due to ZPF sustaining the electron motion which causes the currents that produce the field and that field continually propagates and is refreshed.
If we considered that the energy contained in the field of typical bar magnet can be on the order of a Joule and most of that is contained within the volume of a sphere around the magnet of one light nanosecond or 30cm, which has to be refreshed each nanosecond or the field disappears, then the power emanating from the magnet is on the order of a GW. That seems untenable.

Ferromagnetism is due to the spin of the electron AND the fact that they can align with the same N-S axis, across large domains within the iron. The amount of reactive power the vacuum contributes to electron spin doesn't change simply because it's part of a magnet. The electron is still in equilibrium with the vacuum, so there is no way to extract work from it. In the end, the magnetic field of a bar magnet doesn't oscillate at observable frequencies, so it can't do any work either.

...
If the ZPF continuously has to support each electron from decaying, it is delivering huge energies to support each electron in the universe to both keep it from decaying and to refresh the continuously departing EM fields emanating from each particle, exactly equal to the energy  that would be released if the electrons were allowed to decay or not be a source of fields. So the ZPF does all the work to maintain the universe in that view which you assert is now the standard QED view. If one cannot measure that flux, how is that view falsifiable? Thanks.

I should probably stay out of this discussion, but I'm confused why @WarpTech's theory doesn't better equate to a "spring" that effectively prevents/retards the electron decay.  A classical mechanical spring when compressed (and steady state) does not perform work, so why can't ZPF be crudely modeled as a spring for this stabilizing scenario? 

In other words, I don't see where @WarpTech's ZPF theory would need to be performing any work to remain compatible with this bar magnet thought experiment.

Thanks,
James

I like your comment.  I personally think it can be equated.  I picture the nucleolus electric field polarizing the vacuum pairs so the charges are almost real.  A trapped charge as it falls in adds energy to this cloud causing a wave function and emission of light to trap the charge.  The charge exists as a cloud but via osculation of vacuum pairs. 

Increasing the nucleous charge increases polarization increasing the cloud increasing possible orbital shells. 

I am not sure this would hold up to scrutiny but seems plausible to me at the moment. 

I have thought of the magnetic field as primarily a relativistic thing, however, I think there is something fundamental about the vacuum that is responsible for the Lorentz contraction.   I think that gets into the relativistic time travel that is responsible for contraction and speculation about time running backwards/negative-energy for annihilated anti-matter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter) in the vacuum. 

The Feynman–Stueckelberg interpretation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle#Feynman.E2.80.93Stueckelberg_interpretation)

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_interaction_of_antimatter
Further authors[28][29][30] have used a matter-antimatter gravitational repulsion to explain cosmological observations, but these publications do not address the physical principles of gravitational repulsion.


   
Is dark matter an illusion created by the gravitational polarization of the quantum vacuum? DS Hajdukovic (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=15365260280387474478&hl=en&as_sdt=0,26)
Quote
Assuming that a particle and its antiparticle have the gravitational charge of the opposite sign, the
physical vacuum may be considered as a fluid of virtual gravitational dipoles. Following this hypothesis,
we present the first indications that dark matter may not exist and that the phenomena for which it was
invoked might be explained by the gravitational polarization of the quantum vacuum by the known
baryonic matter.

Model of dark matter and dark energy based on gravitational polarization
L Blanchet, A Le Tiec (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=5872471775549625129&hl=en&as_sdt=0,26)

   
Introducing the Dirac-Milne universe.  A Benoit-Lévy, G Chardin
 (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=1085490279934956813&hl=en&as_sdt=0,26)


I personally think it may be related to David Waite's derivation of a negative mass/ gravity field associated with a particular charge at 34 minutes.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22120.msg1748252#msg1748252

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UOQbqk2Z0g
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 11/17/2017 07:46 pm
Math and physics are intimately related but they are not and never will be the same. Also the theorem does have limits.

I realize that this is getting into philosophy, but I can't help but notice that this statement is quite arrogant.  So far, all successful models of describing nature have been mathematical.  Even though there may not be a unified model known yet, it does not mean that it does not exist or that it is not mathematical.  Does your statement imply that you believe there are phenomena that will never be explained by a (future) mathematical model?  What makes you think that?

I don't think it's arrogant at all, at least it's not meant to be. Math is a language and describing something in a language is not the thing itself. There are many more words in Greek for the concept of love than in English. The Greek language thus is better at describing the nuances of the concept of love than English. Some languages have no words for certain concepts at all. Would we say a concept can't exist because we have no word to describe it in our language? We can invent new words or new math to describe something but we should be careful when we use the current state of our language or our mathematical structures to assert something cannot exist that we can't yet understand fully or describe in our current paradigms. I think most folks here are open to new ideas not yet fully understood and don't buy the knee jerk reaction to just discount EMDrive working out if hand because "our physics doesn't allow such nonsense".

p.s. I often come across simple physics problems that have two solutions, one is considered physical and the other is deemed unphysical. The physics informs the math while the math can mislead the physics. The ball can't go through the wall. As the regimes become more esoteric, the relationship can become more tenuous and potentially problematic. As people explore regimes that are untestable, they rely on mathematical consistency and 'beauty' to validate ideas.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 11/17/2017 11:17 pm
...
But when it comes to photons, the paradox accepted by academic physics is absurd, embarrassing. The wheel needs to be re-invented because there are better ways to get around. I insist upon it because arguments from authority are not convincing to me.

What paradox?

Well, I find going by the book provides everything I need, including solutions to the EmDrive. I'd prefer to wait and see if one actually violates physical laws before I would attempt to rewrite the book.

Schrodinger's Cat, photon momentum, how many do you want?
The solutions conjured to attempt to reconcile QM with GR are illogical. When they form the fundamental assumptions of a science, they are insulting everyone's intelligence and relying on our credulity.

Physics currently relies upon arguments from authority, plain, bold and in your face without respect. To understand credible results confirming emdrive thrust we will need better mathematical tools than a relativity which ignores Mach, or a particle mechanics which disguises paradox.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 11/18/2017 02:36 am
Schrodinger's Cat, photon momentum, how many do you want?
The solutions conjured to attempt to reconcile QM with GR are illogical. When they form the fundamental assumptions of a science, they are insulting everyone's intelligence and relying on our credulity.
-Schrodinger's cat is simply a misunderstanding of quantum mechanics.
-There are no paradoxes related to photon momentum.
-There are no illogical things related to reconciling QM and GR. We have consistent theories (specifically string theory) that unify them, but experimental tests of these theories are beyond current technology.
-None of the things you mentioned are "fundamental assumptions" Some are results, but if you think they are assumptions you need to actually study these fields before criticizing them.
-You are the only one insulting anyone's intelligence here. By denying results that have been experimentally measured (photon momentum) you are effectively making the claim that you are smarter than all of the other scientists on this planet. That is among the most arrogant things you could possibly say. (An alternate interpretation of what you said would be that all scientists on the planet are in a massive conspiracy to falsify the results of experiments for more than a century, with no one ever exposing this despite countless new people being added to the conspiracy every year, while somehow all of modern technology still works. This would be a strong contender for the most ridiculous conspiracy theory ever.)

Physics currently relies upon arguments from authority, plain, bold and in your face without respect.

Physics is not based on arguments from authority. There are detailed calculations and experiments behind all of physics. It appears that you do not care about this and only want to criticize scientists.

If you ask nicely with a desire to learn, then you can expect people to share their knowledge. Your post however is among the most disrespectful things I have ever seen.

To understand credible results confirming emdrive thrust we will need better mathematical tools than a relativity which ignores Mach, or a particle mechanics which disguises paradox.
First there would have to be actual confirming evidence. Then as a perquisite for forming a theory of how it works, someone would need to first understand the existing physical results that it has to be consistent with.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mezzenile on 11/18/2017 06:01 am
Math and physics are intimately related but they are not and never will be the same. Also the theorem does have limits.

I realize that this is getting into philosophy, but I can't help but notice that this statement is quite arrogant.  So far, all successful models of describing nature have been mathematical.  Even though there may not be a unified model known yet, it does not mean that it does not exist or that it is not mathematical.  Does your statement imply that you believe there are phenomena that will never be explained by a (future) mathematical model?  What makes you think that?
The great mathematician Alexander Grothendieck himself, who so revolutionized the notion of space, did not think that his favourite subject matter could explain everything. In particular he strongly criticized the reductionist paradigm of nature understanding with its procession of so-called mathematical models for each level of a reality divided into hierarchically stacked strata.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 11/18/2017 04:30 pm

If you ask nicely with a desire to learn, then you can expect people to share their knowledge. Your post however is among the most disrespectful things I have ever seen.



I see you do have a sense of humor!  ;D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 11/18/2017 05:30 pm
This basic video hit most of what we have been discussing here. I don't want to stir the pot, but to add emphasis there is much we don't know and much we simply don't understand yet. We need to keep an open mind.

Shell

The Vacuum Catastrophe | Space Time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6jAOV7bZ3Y
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 11/18/2017 07:43 pm

Magnets certainly can do work but what people really mean is if a magnet can be the energy source doing that work of which the answer classically is no. We can invest potential energy into a classical system involving magnets raising the potential energy which is reduced by the magnets then doing work. The myth than magnets call no work comes from the fact that a charged particle traveling in a constant magnetic field only has it's direction changed but not its momentum.

If I understand you, basically you are saying I'm correct regarding all that flux pouring out of a magnet or an electron charge or any EM field source but simply put, that energy can't be measured or used for any gain. If the ZPF continuously has to support each electron from decaying, it is delivering huge energies to support each electron in the universe to both keep it from decaying and to refresh the continuously departing EM fields emanating from each particle, exactly equal to the energy  that would be released if the electrons were allowed to decay or not be a source of fields. So the ZPF does all the work to maintain the universe in that view which you assert is now the standard QED view. If one cannot measure that flux, how is that view falsifiable? Thanks.

Electrons don't spiral into the nucleus and disappear. The necessity of the vacuum ZPF is that it preserves the Commutation relations between position and momentum. Without it, atoms would be unstable. So the fact that atoms are not unstable in general, is proof enough for me. However, what your question boils down to is, does the ZPF of minimum energy state really exist or is there an absolute zero energy. All experiments up to now show that we cannot reach absolute zero temperature and that the ZPF is real. See Milonni's book for the complete picture.

WarpTech,

I don’t claim to know an answer to any of the many questions raised by this discussion. I do question, whether the following from your above post, accurately describes reality…, or perhaps is more a statement of the limitations, we experience by the very nature of observation, experiment and measurement...,

”… does the ZPF of minimum energy state really exist or is there an absolute zero energy. All experiments up to now show that we cannot reach absolute zero temperature and that the ZPF is real.…”

The question that keeps coming up for me is that… (setting aside the fact that we cannot as a matter of functional reality ever interact exclusively with the quantum vacuum (QV) or zero point field (ZPF) other than hypothetically, absent very real influences of existing magnetic/electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as a real broad spectrum EM background)...; if an absolute zero energy state existed as it relates to the QV and/or ZPF, there may not be any boundary conditions between that state of absolute zero and our “devices” and it is only changes in the boundary conditions or their effects on physical objects, that define our observations and measurement.

I do understand that it is at least in part your contention that it is an interaction between the ground state of the ZPF and the electron field around an atom that results in the fields stability. However, it might be equally argued that the boundary conditions between a charged proton and the surrounding ZPF give rise to the electron field, in the first place.

Stepping back for a moment. Even should the assumed ground state of the QV/ZPF represent the basis for the stability of particle charge and even matter itself, we have no way to know what the half life of say.., “an atom” might be, should the QV/ZPF it is immersed in be reduced to absolute zero.… Unless one assumes perhaps the electron itself is an artifact of an interaction between a charged particle (most commonly a proton) and the surrounding QV/ZPF. But then this, leads toward an almost ether like concept of the role that the QV/ZPF plays in the stability and even ultimately existence of charged particles and matter itself. (However this argument strays from the immediate issue and by its very nature becomes…, complex, to understate the situation.)

The point is or was intended to be, that we would have no way to measure absolute zero anything… at the scales involved, because we would be depending on observing changes in boundary conditions where no boundary conditions may exist.

Ultimately no one can currently answer the question, “… does the ZPF of minimum energy state really exist or is there an absolute zero energy.(?)”, with any certainty. Personally I believe but that is a ways from certainty!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 11/18/2017 08:11 pm
This basic video hit most of what we have been discussing here. I don't want to stir the pot, but to add emphasis there is much we don't know and much we simply don't understand yet. We need to keep an open mind.

Shell

The Vacuum Catastrophe | Space Time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6jAOV7bZ3Y

There is a lot in there ripe for discussion, but just one thing I would question straight off.

While it is certain that at the longer wavelengths there is a degree of smooth transition between wavelengths, as wavelengths become increasingly shorter there is no certain evidence that the same smooth transition occurs. The background potential need only represent wavelengths that can be associated with a physical counterpart. Which would result in gaps in the high frequency short wavelength portions of the background potential..., and corresponding reduce the total ZPE potential. Perhaps not enough to alter the catastrophe issue... And then even if a full smooth background spectrum were to exist, only those potions that could be expected to interact with physical counter parts could have any affect on our reality. Reality, the universe as we know it would be essentially transparent to any background potential without a physical counter part, with which to interact.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 11/19/2017 02:34 pm
This basic video hit most of what we have been discussing here. I don't want to stir the pot, but to add emphasis there is much we don't know and much we simply don't understand yet. We need to keep an open mind.

Shell

The Vacuum Catastrophe | Space Time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6jAOV7bZ3Y

There is a lot in there ripe for discussion, but just one thing I would question straight off.

While it is certain that at the longer wavelengths there is a degree of smooth transition between wavelengths, as wavelengths become increasingly shorter there is no certain evidence that the same smooth transition occurs. The background potential need only represent wavelengths that can be associated with a physical counterpart. Which would result in gaps in the high frequency short wavelength portions of the background potential..., and corresponding reduce the total ZPE potential. Perhaps not enough to alter the catastrophe issue... And then even if a full smooth background spectrum were to exist, only those potions that could be expected to interact with physical counter parts could have any affect on our reality. Reality, the universe as we know it would be essentially transparent to any background potential without a physical counter part, with which to interact.
Could you be more precise as which portion of the spectrum you're thinking of?
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 11/19/2017 07:45 pm
Finally completed the beefier heat sink for the 30W amplifier. It is designed so that a phase-change wax can be incorporated in the future if necessary.  I need to order a bunch of thermal paste and that should arrive in a couple of days.  ;D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 11/19/2017 10:44 pm
This basic video hit most of what we have been discussing here. I don't want to stir the pot, but to add emphasis there is much we don't know and much we simply don't understand yet. We need to keep an open mind.

Shell

The Vacuum Catastrophe | Space Time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6jAOV7bZ3Y

There is a lot in there ripe for discussion, but just one thing I would question straight off.

While it is certain that at the longer wavelengths there is a degree of smooth transition between wavelengths, as wavelengths become increasingly shorter there is no certain evidence that the same smooth transition occurs. The background potential need only represent wavelengths that can be associated with a physical counterpart. Which would result in gaps in the high frequency short wavelength portions of the background potential..., and corresponding reduce the total ZPE potential. Perhaps not enough to alter the catastrophe issue... And then even if a full smooth background spectrum were to exist, only those potions that could be expected to interact with physical counter parts could have any affect on our reality. Reality, the universe as we know it would be essentially transparent to any background potential without a physical counter part, with which to interact.
Could you be more precise as which portion of the spectrum you're thinking of?
Shell

The graphic you attached encompasses known detectable frequencies..., what we know. The video was discussing the quantum vacuum QV, zero point energy ZPE and zero point field ZPF and speculations about cutoff frequencies that may or may not exist, but are speculated to reach all of the way down to the Plank scale and Zitterbewegung frequencies associated with fundamental particles, as defined within the context of quantum field theory… That would include an EM background potential at frequencies far beyond even gamma rays.

My point was that we have no evidence that once beyond what we can currently detect, the EM spectrum continues in a smooth transition. I was suggesting that, in effect if it did there would likely be large segments that would not interact with massive particles or objects at all. Matter would be transparent to any frequency that did not resonate with it or its constituent parts.

A gamma ray already penetrates an object (matter composed of atoms/molecules) to varying degrees depending on the composition and density of the massive object. If there are EM components of the QV/ZPF that resonate at the plank scale and/or Zitterbewegung frequencies, it might be that matter as we know it would be largely transparent to it... Wavelenghts and frequencies on that order would seem to interact weakly with matter and even then perhaps only with massive particles etc. naturally resonant at those frequencies. (Weekly meaning only should the involved photon slam right into a particle or field that it resonates with.)

In a way what I was trying to suggest is that, instead of being concerned about a specific cutoff frequency relative to the EM spectrum of ZPE, you would only need to be concerned with wavelengths and frequencies that would resonate with corresponding “existing” particles/objects.

Personally, I favor an approach toward the QV and ZPF more closely associated with SED. That would seem to suggest that the EM spectrum of the QV... would be limited to wavelengths and frequencies associated with physically existing massive particles. I would still contend two things; even from a QED approach where the full EM spectrum all the way down to a cutoff if any at the plank scale were the case, only those wavelengths and frequencies with natural resonance associated with existing particles are of concern… and second tossing the GR issue of all energy contributing to a gravitational field is at present far into the theoretical, since we have no evidence of any gravitational field that is not associated with a massive object…, or the speculation that some Dark Matter we can’t see is involved, which would again be mass.

Now the disclaimer… I am no expert on anything involving QFT etc. for the most part I ignored all of that stuff until perhaps about 10-15 years ago. I was focused almost exclusively on GR, SR, classical Newtonian mechanics and how inertia and gravitation were connected as per the equivalence principle. I only began consuming research papers involving QFT and QG when I finally admitted to myself you could not get here from there..., there being GR.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 11/20/2017 01:01 am
This basic video hit most of what we have been discussing here. I don't want to stir the pot, but to add emphasis there is much we don't know and much we simply don't understand yet. We need to keep an open mind.

Shell

The Vacuum Catastrophe | Space Time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6jAOV7bZ3Y

There is a lot in there ripe for discussion, but just one thing I would question straight off.

While it is certain that at the longer wavelengths there is a degree of smooth transition between wavelengths, as wavelengths become increasingly shorter there is no certain evidence that the same smooth transition occurs. The background potential need only represent wavelengths that can be associated with a physical counterpart. Which would result in gaps in the high frequency short wavelength portions of the background potential..., and corresponding reduce the total ZPE potential. Perhaps not enough to alter the catastrophe issue... And then even if a full smooth background spectrum were to exist, only those potions that could be expected to interact with physical counter parts could have any affect on our reality. Reality, the universe as we know it would be essentially transparent to any background potential without a physical counter part, with which to interact.
Could you be more precise as which portion of the spectrum you're thinking of?
Shell

Thanks Shell,
do you have a link to a higher resolution version of the EM spectrum graphic?
How are you going with your setup, no pressure, just curious.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 11/20/2017 01:08 am
(...)
To understand credible results confirming emdrive thrust we will need better mathematical tools than a relativity which ignores Mach, or a particle mechanics which disguises paradox.
First there would have to be actual confirming evidence. Then as a perquisite for forming a theory of how it works, someone would need to first understand the existing physical results that it has to be consistent with.

Thanks meberbs,
the work and thought that folk put into this forum is admirable and it is especially gratifying when my arguments are made for me  ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 11/20/2017 05:52 am
This basic video hit most of what we have been discussing here. I don't want to stir the pot, but to add emphasis there is much we don't know and much we simply don't understand yet. We need to keep an open mind.

Shell

The Vacuum Catastrophe | Space Time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6jAOV7bZ3Y

There is a lot in there ripe for discussion, but just one thing I would question straight off.

While it is certain that at the longer wavelengths there is a degree of smooth transition between wavelengths, as wavelengths become increasingly shorter there is no certain evidence that the same smooth transition occurs. The background potential need only represent wavelengths that can be associated with a physical counterpart. Which would result in gaps in the high frequency short wavelength portions of the background potential..., and corresponding reduce the total ZPE potential. Perhaps not enough to alter the catastrophe issue... And then even if a full smooth background spectrum were to exist, only those potions that could be expected to interact with physical counter parts could have any affect on our reality. Reality, the universe as we know it would be essentially transparent to any background potential without a physical counter part, with which to interact.
Could you be more precise as which portion of the spectrum you're thinking of?
Shell

Thanks Shell,
do you have a link to a higher resolution version of the EM spectrum graphic?
How are you going with your setup, no pressure, just curious.
The highest res I have. The attached is 4k x 4k.

I wish it was going faster than it is although I'm getting my stuff moved into the new lab and organized.  It is getting there and after this summer at a dead stop it feels great.
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 11/20/2017 05:46 pm
(...)
To understand credible results confirming emdrive thrust we will need better mathematical tools than a relativity which ignores Mach, or a particle mechanics which disguises paradox.
First there would have to be actual confirming evidence. Then as a perquisite for forming a theory of how it works, someone would need to first understand the existing physical results that it has to be consistent with.

Thanks meberbs,
the work and thought that folk put into this forum is admirable and it is especially gratifying when my arguments are made for me  ;)
What argument are you claiming I made for you?

Your last post that I was quoting was pretty much you just insulting scientists, while demonstrating that you don't know what you are talking about by claiming paradoxes where none exist.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 11/20/2017 06:32 pm
Could you be more precise as which portion of the spectrum you're thinking of?
Shell

Shell, when I look back at my earlier reply it just seems overly complicated for the simple question you asked. With that in mind the EM spectrum graphic you attached earlier, http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1461279;image, represents what we have been able to detect and identify.

If you go back to the earlier video the discussion was about the ground state ZPE of the QV which theoretically extends essentially (barring cutoffs) to infinity at both ends of the EM spectrum contained in the graphic. If you assume that the ground state ZPE cutoff(s) mirror the graphic there might not be any catastrophic total energy issue. That issue comes up only when all imaginable wavelengths and frequencies at both extremes are included.

And I was attempting to add that from a SED context which treats ZPE as real rather than virtual, the potential ground state ZPE while extending to wavelengths and frequencies far past gamma rays, would also be limited to those wavelengths and frequencies that would have counterparts associated with the presence and interaction of charged massive particles…

There being very large gaps in the size, mass and Zitterbewegung like motions; of fundamental electrons and quarks, as well as even subatomic particles, atomic nuclei and the electron fields associated with atoms (which we have a far better understanding of), the total ground state ZPE potential would be significantly reduced and perhaps enough so to set aside concerns about the energy catastrophe.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 11/20/2017 11:42 pm
(...)
Thanks Shell,
do you have a link to a higher resolution version of the EM spectrum graphic?
How are you going with your setup, no pressure, just curious.
The highest res I have. The attached is 4k x 4k.

I wish it was going faster than it is although I'm getting my stuff moved into the new lab and organized.  It is getting there and after this summer at a dead stop it feels great.
Shell

That res is fine, I just opened it with the wrong program, thanx Shell.

Hope all goes well in the new lab this winter  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 11/21/2017 12:36 am
Your last post that I was quoting was pretty much you just insulting scientists, while demonstrating that you don't know what you are talking about by claiming paradoxes where none exist.

Meberbs,

Just maybe you do not understand all the universe has to offer.

Having doubt about what you believe and allowing others to express an opposing and questioning opinion is key to scientific progress.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 11/21/2017 02:55 am
Just maybe you do not understand all the universe has to offer.
I have never claimed to.

Having doubt about what you believe and allowing others to express an opposing and questioning opinion is key to scientific progress.
There is a difference between a questioning opinion and calling all scientists either idiots or liars. Spupeng7 could use with reading those Feynman quotes, since he seems to have no doubt in his intuition about what is a "paradox" despite the fact that experiments exist that show his intuition is wrong.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 11/21/2017 04:19 am
Just maybe you do not understand all the universe has to offer.
I have never claimed to.


You did. Several times. Even went so far to insult core members of this group as aero.


Having doubt about what you believe and allowing others to express an opposing and questioning opinion is key to scientific progress.
There is a difference between a questioning opinion and calling all scientists either idiots or liars. Spupeng7 could use with reading those Feynman quotes, since he seems to have no doubt in his intuition about what is a "paradox" despite the fact that experiments exist that show his intuition is wrong.

You say this all the time. Yet you base your ideas on something you can not explain why it exists. It is physical laws itself. Nobody was able to answer why they exist yet all accept them.

Who are you? Are you crackpot_killer from the reddit? He insulted in same way as you do and you have even same writting. Your hidden instults should be moderated.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 11/21/2017 02:07 pm
Just maybe you do not understand all the universe has to offer.
I have never claimed to.

Having doubt about what you believe and allowing others to express an opposing and questioning opinion is key to scientific progress.
There is a difference between a questioning opinion and calling all scientists either idiots or liars. Spupeng7 could use with reading those Feynman quotes, since he seems to have no doubt in his intuition about what is a "paradox" despite the fact that experiments exist that show his intuition is wrong.

There is a subtle way to point out to people they are wrong with out belittling them or dashing their hopes and dreams.  Its something a good mother or teacher might do well.   It helps to not assume their intentions are for the worse.  You might ask them if they know how that sounds.  That it sounds like they are belittling all the previous hard work of those who came before who had to start from scratch, ect.  Then ask, "Is that really your intention?" 

The problem with assuming the worst in an individual (guilty until proven innocent for example) is that it is a culture of looking down on others rather than as individuals who have dreams. 

It might also help to ask for clarification or to be specific about any claims of paradoxes or things that don't make sense.  Some times individuals assume better communication about what they are thinking then they really convey.  This is where the tactful skepticism or rebuttals come in that help clarification or help point out flaws. There is a possibility if they convey themselves clearly, they have something valuable to say.   If not then by knowing clearly what they are thinking a clear correction is more easily given. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: aero on 11/21/2017 03:17 pm
Just maybe you do not understand all the universe has to offer.
I have never claimed to.

Having doubt about what you believe and allowing others to express an opposing and questioning opinion is key to scientific progress.
There is a difference between a questioning opinion and calling all scientists either idiots or liars. Spupeng7 could use with reading those Feynman quotes, since he seems to have no doubt in his intuition about what is a "paradox" despite the fact that experiments exist that show his intuition is wrong.

There is a subtle way to point out to people they are wrong with out belittling them or dashing their hopes and dreams.  Its something a good mother or teacher might do well.   It helps to not assume their intentions are for the worse.  You might ask them if they know how that sounds.  That it sounds like they are belittling all the previous hard work of those who came before who had to start from scratch, ect.  Then ask, "Is that really your intention?" 

The problem with assuming the worst in an individual (guilty until proven innocent for example) is that it is a culture of looking down on others rather than as individuals who have dreams. 

It might also help to ask for clarification or to be specific about any claims of paradoxes or things that don't make sense.  Some times individuals assume better communication about what they are thinking then they really convey.  This is where the tactful skepticism or rebuttals come in that help clarification or help point out flaws. There is a possibility if they convey themselves clearly, they have something valuable to say.   If not then by knowing clearly what they are thinking a clear correction is more easily given.

Very well put and something that all posters need to remember, especially those few who think they know everything and think that they are the smartest person in the world. No one knows everything and the statistically, smartest person in the world probably lives in Asia.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 11/21/2017 04:04 pm
What can be more revealing about the lack of news and having something factual to discuss in this thread concerning its subject "EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications"  than people arguing about moderation of the posts and now even posting things like where is (statistically speaking ?) the smartest person likely to reside   ;)

Happy Thanksgiving  8)

(https://s-i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/264748/slide_264748_1784868_free.jpg)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Ricvil on 11/21/2017 06:11 pm
Hi people!!
At another post I had trying explain how the conical cavity with flat ends could support two localized resonances at same time, and how this two trapped resonances could coupling each other by tunneling, and I call this system a asymmetrical dimer(after a "PT symmetrization").
In fact I have found another denomination of this configuration in the literature, and it's called Instanton.
In this case I think we have a Instanton formed by a TE mode resonance plus a TM mode resonance coupled by tunneling ( evanescent fields of each resonance decays from one end plate to the other, reaching other side with small but finite amplitude, and couple with correspondent mode under the superposition formed to fulfill the flat end plates boundary conditions, been mixed like a "scattering problem" dominated by the poles of dyadic green function of conical geometry writed with eigenfunctions in spherical coordinates)
I'm searching if this specific instanton could break one of current conservations of the zilch tensor associated to helicity (frequentely associated to chirality too, and chirality can be also associated with electromagnetic duality in some cases).
I think if dynamic of instanton can break the conservation electromagnetic of helicity/chirality "charge", then would occurs a coupling with gravity, or as I explained in other post, a gravitational wave will be generated by a oscillation of energy density center of mass of total electromagnetic inside the cavity, induced by a artificial PT-symmetrization (adjust of gain of the magnetron).
To conclude, I think the thrust will be generated by the force imbalance caused during the tunneling of inward photons (TE side to TM side and vice-versa), as a momentaneum net balance break of averaged to zero push/pull radiation pressure forces (on the cavity walls) of each TE/TM localized resonant modes, oscilating as a dimer like PT-symmetric phase.
:)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Augmentor on 11/21/2017 11:39 pm
Hi people!!
At another post I had trying explain how the conical cavity with flat ends could support two localized resonances at same time, and how this two trapped resonances could coupling each other by tunneling, and I call this system a asymmetrical dimer(after a "PT symmetrization").
In fact I have found another denomination of this configuration in the literature, and it's called Instanton.
In this case I think we have a Instanton formed by a TE mode resonance plus a TM mode resonance coupled by tunneling ( evanescent fields of each resonance decays from one end plate to the other, reaching other side with small but finite amplitude, and couple with correspondent mode under the superposition formed to fulfill the flat end plates boundary conditions, been mixed like a "scattering problem" dominated by the poles of dyadic green function of conical geometry writed with eigenfunctions in spherical coordinates)
I'm searching if this specific instanton could break one of current conservations of the zilch tensor associated to helicity (frequentely associated to chirality too, and chirality can be also associated with electromagnetic duality in some cases).
I think if dynamic of instanton can break the conservation electromagnetic of helicity/chirality "charge", then would occurs a coupling with gravity, or as I explained in other post, a gravitational wave will be generated by a oscillation of energy density center of mass of total electromagnetic inside the cavity, induced by a artificial PT-symmetrization (adjust of gain of the magnetron).
To conclude, I think the thrust will be generated by the force imbalance caused during the tunneling of inward photons (TE side to TM side and vice-versa).
:)

I'll had that to the heap of partial, inadequate and SWAG theories on the emDrive.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Ricvil on 11/22/2017 12:50 am
Hi people!!
At another post I had trying explain how the conical cavity with flat ends could support two localized resonances at same time, and how this two trapped resonances could coupling each other by tunneling, and I call this system a asymmetrical dimer(after a "PT symmetrization").
In fact I have found another denomination of this configuration in the literature, and it's called Instanton.
In this case I think we have a Instanton formed by a TE mode resonance plus a TM mode resonance coupled by tunneling ( evanescent fields of each resonance decays from one end plate to the other, reaching other side with small but finite amplitude, and couple with correspondent mode under the superposition formed to fulfill the flat end plates boundary conditions, been mixed like a "scattering problem" dominated by the poles of dyadic green function of conical geometry writed with eigenfunctions in spherical coordinates)
I'm searching if this specific instanton could break one of current conservations of the zilch tensor associated to helicity (frequentely associated to chirality too, and chirality can be also associated with electromagnetic duality in some cases).
I think if dynamic of instanton can break the conservation electromagnetic of helicity/chirality "charge", then would occurs a coupling with gravity, or as I explained in other post, a gravitational wave will be generated by a oscillation of energy density center of mass of total electromagnetic inside the cavity, induced by a artificial PT-symmetrization (adjust of gain of the magnetron).
To conclude, I think the thrust will be generated by the force imbalance caused during the tunneling of inward photons (TE side to TM side and vice-versa).
:)

I'll had that to the heap of partial, inadequate and SWAG theories on the emDrive.

Thank you by the "SWAG", and I accept the "inadequate" and "partial" by the use of terms like "PT symmetrization", because I can't find a better term for the exact geometric/physical symmetry involved, and not fully explain the "force imbalance" generated by the "supposed" tunneling of TE/TM photons, and at last, I forget to add my conjecture of conservation of moment of all system by the emission of the gravitational wave.
But I'm trying to be consistent, even without more detailed explanation of all involved, like the "double well potential" realized by local shift of cutoff frequency of modes (Slater formula) at neighborhood of flat end plates, viewed  as  "deformations" of the shape of cavity with spherical end plates.
My hope is someone understand what I'm trying modeling as a minimum of coerence frankenstein idea about the emdrive.
I will search and post most of all the references involved.
:)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 11/23/2017 12:36 am
Your last post that I was quoting was pretty much you just insulting scientists, while demonstrating that you don't know what you are talking about by claiming paradoxes where none exist.

Meberbs,

Just maybe you do not understand all the universe has to offer.

Having doubt about what you believe and allowing others to express an opposing and questioning opinion is key to scientific progress.

Thankyou to everyone who supports my freedom of opinion, but I must insist that the criticism is welcome. I have proposed that time has a complex conjugate necessary for description of physical interactions.

This is a radical departure from existing analysis. Its rarity indicates the depth of conceptual re-arrangement required to consider it. No-one, with a career behind them which is invested in linear conceptions of time, is going to be able to take these arguments in without abandoning many of the filters which make them useful technicians or discerning teachers. This work is only intended for young people looking for a logical frame on which to build an understanding of the universe, or technicians so desperate to understand emdrive thrust that they will open their minds to something which they would otherwise rejected automatically.

Its relevance is, however, indicated by the fine detail of application of special relativity. Each and every charge has a rate of passage through time which varies relative to the charges near to them. Time cannot then be understood as a local phenomenon, it must be something unique to the reality of each individual atom or charge and therein lies good reason to ask many questions about the relevance of a linear conception of progress through time to anything outside of solid objects.

If these arguments interest you, and if moderators will forgive the repetition, please consider the argument in its early stages of development at http://vixra.org/abs/1711.0115 and its relevance to the emdrive at http://vixra.org/author/john_malcolm_newell. You may begin to question the reality of photons yourself.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 11/23/2017 02:25 am
Thankyou to everyone who supports my freedom of opinion, but I must insist that the criticism is welcome. I have proposed that time has a complex conjugate necessary for description of physical interactions.

This is a radical departure from existing analysis. Its rarity indicates the depth of conceptual re-arrangement required to consider it. No-one, with a career behind them which is invested in linear conceptions of time, is going to be able to take these arguments in without abandoning many of the filters which make them useful technicians or discerning teachers. This work is only intended for young people looking for a logical frame on which to build an understanding of the universe, or technicians so desperate to understand emdrive thrust that they will open their minds to something which they would otherwise rejected automatically.

Its relevance is, however, indicated by the fine detail of application of special relativity. Each and every charge has a rate of passage through time which varies relative to the charges near to them. Time cannot then be understood as a local phenomenon, it must be something unique to the reality of each individual atom or charge and therein lies good reason to ask many questions about the relevance of a linear conception of progress through time to anything outside of solid objects.

If these arguments interest you, and if moderators will forgive the repetition, please consider the argument in its early stages of development at http://vixra.org/abs/1711.0115 and its relevance to the emdrive at http://vixra.org/author/john_malcolm_newell. You may begin to question the reality of photons yourself.

t + ivt/c = 0

Only has 2 solutions.
1. t = 0
2. v = ic

Neither of which is useful. Your idea about complex time doesn't help to engineer anything. It is something young people think about "before" they actually learn relativity. Most of us move on to using 4-dimensional space-time, none of which are imaginary because it has a solid interpretation.

You say; "But time, from more than one perspective, cannot be a scalar because clocks have different rates in different depths of a gravitational field."

This is pretty close to the definition of a scalar field. Time is most definitely a scalar. It is only 1 component of a 4-vector. The rest of your paper is more of the same.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 11/23/2017 09:06 pm
You may begin to question the reality of photons yourself.
-The photoelectric effect
-Absorption/emission spectra
-Radiation pressure
-Single photon emitters
-Single photon detectors

These are things that have been experimentally measured (the last 2 are devices that have been used for countless quantum mechanics experiments.) Even just the photoelectric effect provides clear evidence that there is a quantized unit of electromagnetic radiation. The name given to this is a photon. Do you really think that you have found a theory that can explain all of these experiments without referencing a quantized unit of electromagnetic radiation?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 11/23/2017 11:40 pm
You may begin to question the reality of photons yourself.
-The photoelectric effect
-Absorption/emission spectra
-Radiation pressure
-Single photon emitters
-Single photon detectors

These are things that have been experimentally measured (the last 2 are devices that have been used for countless quantum mechanics experiments.) Even just the photoelectric effect provides clear evidence that there is a quantized unit of electromagnetic radiation. The name given to this is a photon. Do you really think that you have found a theory that can explain all of these experiments without referencing a quantized unit of electromagnetic radiation?
No meberbs, I do not.
What I am suggesting is that there is not anything in-between the emission and the absorption of the energy transfer causing these measurables. I question, as I think we all should, the existence of anything which does not have any extension in time from its own perspective. That the 'photon' has extension in time from an external perspective is a product of that external perspective diverging in manner consequent upon time having a complex conjugate which allows a quantum of energy to traverse spacetime without requiring a mediating particle, wave or any other type of conjured explanation. I believe my viXra piece makes this clear.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 11/24/2017 12:19 am
Thankyou to everyone who supports my freedom of opinion, but I must insist that the criticism is welcome. I have proposed that time has a complex conjugate necessary for description of physical interactions.

This is a radical departure from existing analysis. Its rarity indicates the depth of conceptual re-arrangement required to consider it. No-one, with a career behind them which is invested in linear conceptions of time, is going to be able to take these arguments in without abandoning many of the filters which make them useful technicians or discerning teachers. This work is only intended for young people looking for a logical frame on which to build an understanding of the universe, or technicians so desperate to understand emdrive thrust that they will open their minds to something which they would otherwise rejected automatically.

Its relevance is, however, indicated by the fine detail of application of special relativity. Each and every charge has a rate of passage through time which varies relative to the charges near to them. Time cannot then be understood as a local phenomenon, it must be something unique to the reality of each individual atom or charge and therein lies good reason to ask many questions about the relevance of a linear conception of progress through time to anything outside of solid objects.

If these arguments interest you, and if moderators will forgive the repetition, please consider the argument in its early stages of development at http://vixra.org/abs/1711.0115 and its relevance to the emdrive at http://vixra.org/author/john_malcolm_newell. You may begin to question the reality of photons yourself.

t + ivt/c = 0

Only has 2 solutions.
1. t = 0
2. v = ic

Neither of which is useful. Your idea about complex time doesn't help to engineer anything. It is something young people think about "before" they actually learn relativity. Most of us move on to using 4-dimensional space-time, none of which are imaginary because it has a solid interpretation.

You say; "But time, from more than one perspective, cannot be a scalar because clocks have different rates in different depths of a gravitational field."

This is pretty close to the definition of a scalar field. Time is most definitely a scalar. It is only 1 component of a 4-vector. The rest of your paper is more of the same.
WarpTech,
yes, time is most definitely a scalar at any one point. No matter how hard your spaceship accelerates or what velocity it reaches, the wrist watch you are wearing will still be synchronous with the rates of chemical reaction and the Newtonian mechanics for objects travelling with you. But time does run at different rates in different places, concurrently, so it is only linear from a point perspective. From the covariant perspective linear time is manifestly inadequate.

There are some lessons from relativity which will not be clear to you so long as you insist on limiting your imagination to that point perspective. This is vital to the development of emdrive theory, because it reveals that  t = 0  for the quantum transferred, which is a very different conception of radiation to the one in use. Non?

Could you detail how you arrived at your second solution for my equation?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 11/24/2017 08:20 pm
What I am suggesting is that there is not anything in-between the emission and the absorption of the energy transfer causing these measurables.
While I agree that it is an interesting thought experiment to consider what happens from the perspective of a photon, there are several specific experiments that indicate that photons exist in between emission and absorption:
-double slit experiments (including single photon versions)
-Measurements of fields when there are large numbers of photons (such as through a radio antenna) reflect the total expected field strength, not just the field of the absorbed photons.
-Recently photon-photon scattering was observed at the LHC.

Could you detail how you arrived at your second solution for my equation?
While this was directed at WarpTech, I can answer this.

Your equation can be factored to be:

t(1+iv/c)=0

For this equation to be true, 1 of the 2 terms has to be 0, either t or (1+iv/c)

Setting 1+iv/c = 0, can be rearranged to 1 = -iv/c, multiply through by ic and you get ic = -i*i*v = v
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Stormbringer on 11/25/2017 06:40 am
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/cosmologists-prove-negative-mass-can-exist-in-our-universe-250a980320a7

this article says solutions for GR exist in desitter space that allow negative mass/energy without violating energy conditions in non flat space times. That's great. But the article written before positive LIGO results came in says a consequence of the resultant plasma would be screening of gravity waves. That appears to be a problem since gravity waves have subsequently detected and verified. the article says gravity waves below a certain frequency threshold would be screened out. I do not know enough to determine if the detected gravity waves ( at LIGO) were below the requisite threshold and thus the LIGO detections are a falsification  of the papers theory or they are above the threshold and thus irrelevant to the paper. Alternatively assuming the paper is true then perhaps the predicted plasma is only present near the source of the plasma?

BTW: I consider the content of this post weakly connected to the EM drive discussion because if the EM Drive effect is not due to a misunderstood mundane cause or measurement error; the source of the EM Drive propulsive effect is unknown and could be due to any number of exotic causes including this one. (Which, you must admit, would be extraordinarily cosmically cool.)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 11/25/2017 11:57 pm
What I am suggesting is that there is not anything in-between the emission and the absorption of the energy transfer causing these measurables.
While I agree that it is an interesting thought experiment to consider what happens from the perspective of a photon, there are several specific experiments that indicate that photons exist in between emission and absorption:
-double slit experiments (including single photon versions)
-Measurements of fields when there are large numbers of photons (such as through a radio antenna) reflect the total expected field strength, not just the field of the absorbed photons.
-Recently photon-photon scattering was observed at the LHC.

Could you detail how you arrived at your second solution for my equation?
While this was directed at WarpTech, I can answer this.

Your equation can be factored to be:

t(1+iv/c)=0

For this equation to be true, 1 of the 2 terms has to be 0, either t or (1+iv/c)

Setting 1+iv/c = 0, can be rearranged to 1 = -iv/c, multiply through by ic and you get ic = -i*i*v = v

Thanks meberbs, I will consider my answer before posting  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 11/27/2017 12:38 am
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/cosmologists-prove-negative-mass-can-exist-in-our-universe-250a980320a7

this article says solutions for GR exist in desitter space that allow negative mass/energy without violating energy conditions in non flat space times. That's great. But the article written before positive LIGO results came in says a consequence of the resultant plasma would be screening of gravity waves. That appears to be a problem since gravity waves have subsequently detected and verified. the article says gravity waves below a certain frequency threshold would be screened out. I do not know enough to determine if the detected gravity waves ( at LIGO) were below the requisite threshold and thus the LIGO detections are a falsification  of the papers theory or they are above the threshold and thus irrelevant to the paper. Alternatively assuming the paper is true then perhaps the predicted plasma is only present near the source of the plasma?

BTW: I consider the content of this post weakly connected to the EM drive discussion because if the EM Drive effect is not due to a misunderstood mundane cause or measurement error; the source of the EM Drive propulsive effect is unknown and could be due to any number of exotic causes including this one. (Which, you must admit, would be extraordinarily cosmically cool.)

They mention a perfect fluid and this reminded me of this article here: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2017/sep/22/collider-serves-up-drop-of-primordial-soup

This reminds me of speculation that anti-matter could be negative energy running backwards in time or PT symmetric such that it's basically an electron with the charge flipped.  Flip the time and it reacts backwards in time or opposite of a normal particle but is negative energy.  Now flip the parity and it becomes a positive energy particle again.  I think upon annihilation this symmetry could be broken and its exhibits its negative energy aspects in the vacuum and explains the disappearance upon annihilation and reappearance with enough energy (e-p pairs).  I posted a video of David that had a General relativity solution to the vacuum.  It seemed to show charge (and possibly not yet done magnetic solution) may exhibit some influence over this vacuum. 

It may provide some reverse time aspect that assists in the reverse time aspect of Feynman diagrams or Wheeler Feynman behavior.  Possibly responsible for the time travel in special relativity and Lorentz contraction but not sure how exactly. 

If it exists in the vacuum as negative energy we may have all the negative energy we need in the vacuum to engineer warp drives. 

Here is a previous link of mine that is related to that discussed above: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1751063#msg1751063

Some of the papers in the post also suggest such pairs in the vacuum exhibiting negative energy may possibly account for dark matter. 

from another previous link of mine.  Provides the symmetry breaking for the e-p pair.

Quote from: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22120.msg1748252#msg1748252
This might be related: http://cds.cern.ch/record/490576/files/0103054.pdf
What is PT symmetry?
Miloslav Znojil
Theory Group, Nuclear Physics Institute AS CR
CS 250 68 Re ˇ ˇz, Czech Republic 1
Quote
The smooth and growing deviation from the
Hermitian starting point A = 0 ends at a certain critical A(crit) where the two energies
merge. Next, they form a conjugate pair which moves further in the complex plane.
The PT symmetry of the system becomes spontaneously broken. The phenomenon
of this type has been detected by the various methods in the spectra of many different
PT symmetric Hamiltonians
Might be related also (goes back to the 1st thread where mulltron was considering PT symmetry): https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29276.msg1283569#msg1283569

A complex plane sounds familiar.  Related to Spupeng7 use of complex time?  Or possibly the dual universe of forward and reverse time.  Can't find the link to where an object falling into a gravity well contracting is actually traversing a complex plane (hyper-bolic i think it was).  I'll have to try and find that post. 

Here mentioned by Sanman here I think: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1739441#msg1739441  the paper cited seems related.   

I think this imaginary space is possibly related to the Janus Cosmological Model & FTL travel thread here:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43501.msg1709505#msg1709505
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 11/27/2017 01:19 am
What I am suggesting is that there is not anything in-between the emission and the absorption of the energy transfer causing these measurables.
While I agree that it is an interesting thought experiment to consider what happens from the perspective of a photon, there are several specific experiments that indicate that photons exist in between emission and absorption:
-double slit experiments (including single photon versions)
-Measurements of fields when there are large numbers of photons (such as through a radio antenna) reflect the total expected field strength, not just the field of the absorbed photons.
-Recently photon-photon scattering was observed at the LHC.

Could you detail how you arrived at your second solution for my equation?
While this was directed at WarpTech, I can answer this.

Your equation can be factored to be:

t(1+iv/c)=0

For this equation to be true, 1 of the 2 terms has to be 0, either t or (1+iv/c)

Setting 1+iv/c = 0, can be rearranged to 1 = -iv/c, multiply through by ic and you get ic = -i*i*v = v

Thanks meberbs,

The equation,  t + ivt / c = 0 , is just a statement that the two components (first clock time and second its complex conjugate, the addition of which is required to describe a time interval between charges or objects in relative motion) sum together to zero. Yes you can scramble this relationship by mixing the components but, and correct me if I am wrong, you can do that with any complex number where the units allow. You will, however, destroy the information they contain when you do.

The evidence for the existence of photons is a more involved question. First must be the double slit experiment which has been a source of controversy, and in my opinion misinterpretation, for two hundred years. The results of two slit experiments rely on the phase interaction consequent on variation of distance.

Light may not be a wave or a particle but may be the leap of quanta of energy from one place to another, opportune when the phases across the available lines of sight syncopate. In complex time that phase variance is a consequence of, a variance of the passage of time for the absorbing material, in comparison with the lack of passage of time for the quantum transferred, which is why the above equation is required to explain it.

The photon photon scattering observed in the LHC and the fields measured at large concentrations of photons are both situations in extrema which I will have to spend more time considering before I can answer your question. It does seem strange to me that such fields are measurable when large concentrations of photons at the focal point of a telescope do not distort the images it produces.

Appreciate your questions, please keep them coming, and any references to the LHC results or photon field measurements you may have would also be appreciated.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 11/27/2017 02:34 am
What I am suggesting is that there is not anything in-between the emission and the absorption of the energy transfer causing these measurables.
While I agree that it is an interesting thought experiment to consider what happens from the perspective of a photon, there are several specific experiments that indicate that photons exist in between emission and absorption:
-double slit experiments (including single photon versions)
-Measurements of fields when there are large numbers of photons (such as through a radio antenna) reflect the total expected field strength, not just the field of the absorbed photons.
-Recently photon-photon scattering was observed at the LHC.

Could you detail how you arrived at your second solution for my equation?
While this was directed at WarpTech, I can answer this.

Your equation can be factored to be:

t(1+iv/c)=0

For this equation to be true, 1 of the 2 terms has to be 0, either t or (1+iv/c)

Setting 1+iv/c = 0, can be rearranged to 1 = -iv/c, multiply through by ic and you get ic = -i*i*v = v

Thanks meberbs,

The equation,  t + ivt / c = 0 , is just a statement that the two components (first clock time and second its complex conjugate, the addition of which is required to describe a time interval between charges or objects in relative motion) sum together to zero. Yes you can scramble this relationship by mixing the components but, and correct me if I am wrong, you can do that with any complex number where the units allow. You will, however, destroy the information they contain when you do.

The evidence for the existence of photons is a more involved question. First must be the double slit experiment which has been a source of controversy, and in my opinion misinterpretation, for two hundred years. The results of two slit experiments rely on the phase interaction consequent on variation of distance.

Light may not be a wave or a particle but may be the leap of quanta of energy from one place to another, opportune when the phases across the available lines of sight syncopate. In complex time that phase variance is a consequence of, a variance of the passage of time for the absorbing material, in comparison with the lack of passage of time for the quantum transferred, which is why the above equation is required to explain it.

The photon photon scattering observed in the LHC and the fields measured at large concentrations of photons are both situations in extrema which I will have to spend more time considering before I can answer your question. It does seem strange to me that such fields are measurable when large concentrations of photons at the focal point of a telescope do not distort the images it produces.

Appreciate your questions, please keep them coming, and any references to the LHC results or photon field measurements you may have would also be appreciated.

If your considering imaginary time this might be a line of related thought: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=10342783944069976021&hl=en&as_sdt=0,26

Quote from: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=10342783944069976021&hl=en&as_sdt=0,26

We discuss a thermalized vacuum in terms of the relationship between imaginary time and temperature. The strategy of introducing imaginary time is well-known in cosmology and field theory, and has been proven effective in the removal of singularities...

3 Complex time...

The time symmetry of a click, which appears as a kind of two-faced Janus along the time line, has several equivalents in quantum physics.
...
 The appearance of the factor in Eq. 15 implies that Ψ has resumed its course in laboratory time. If the + sign applies, we are looking at the creation of a particle (positive mass); if the -sign applies,this indicates the creation of an anti-particle (negative mass).
...
4 Physical meaning of complex time
...

The crucial observation is that the timeless vacuum state is described by two temporal parameters but no spatial parameter.

Looks like it might possibly tie into the Janus cosmological model.  Some parallels to what I suggested in the post above also. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 11/27/2017 03:02 pm
New article about tunneling electron behavior which I thought may be relevant and interesting, especially as they discuss the combination of electrons, the orientation of the magnetic fields plus the material's ions.
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/A_new_window_into_electron_behavior_999.html
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 11/28/2017 03:04 am
The equation,  t + ivt / c = 0 , is just a statement that the two components (first clock time and second its complex conjugate, the addition of which is required to describe a time interval between charges or objects in relative motion) sum together to zero.
It seems you are misusing the term "complex conjugate" The conjugate of a complex number  a+bi is a-bi (where a and b are pure real.) This also means that the conjugate of a pure real number is itself, and that the sum of a complex number and its conjugate is simply twice the real part.

Yes you can scramble this relationship by mixing the components but, and correct me if I am wrong, you can do that with any complex number where the units allow. You will, however, destroy the information they contain when you do.
No, the manipulations I did do not destroy any information. Also, the units always allow, a complex number is still just a single number, so itt doesn't make sense to say different parts have different units

I am extrapolating some here, but it seems that you are trying to use complex numbers to sum 2 different things together such as 2 apples + 3 oranges, while keeping them separate. That simply is not what complex numbers do, vectors are a bit better suited for this (though they still should have everything have the same units.)

The evidence for the existence of photons is a more involved question. First must be the double slit experiment which has been a source of controversy, and in my opinion misinterpretation, for two hundred years. The results of two slit experiments rely on the phase interaction consequent on variation of distance.
I am not sure what controversy you are referring to, because the results of this type of experiment have been conclusive and clear. They have put an end to controversies, not been the source of them.

I can possibly go into some of the other stuff I mentioned in more detail at some point, but I just want to make a couple quick notes: The big thing about the LHC that helps enable photon-photon collision detection is the high energy per photon, which really is an extreme case. Here is an early release about the experiment last year: http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/66878

For the photon fields I mentioned, the "extreme" part about it is the huge number of overlapping photons present, but this is an every day occurrence. Even a simple 1 Watt RF source at 2 GHz emits around 7*10^23 photons per second. This is around 2*10^15 within 1 meter of the source at any instant. Given the wavelength of about 15 centimeters, that is a lot of overlapping photons.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 11/28/2017 04:21 am
The equation,  t + ivt / c = 0 , is just a statement that the two components (first clock time and second its complex conjugate, the addition of which is required to describe a time interval between charges or objects in relative motion) sum together to zero.
It seems you are misusing the term "complex conjugate" The conjugate of a complex number  a+bi is a-bi (where a and b are pure real.) This also means that the conjugate of a pure real number is itself, and that the sum of a complex number and its conjugate is simply twice the real part.

Yes you can scramble this relationship by mixing the components but, and correct me if I am wrong, you can do that with any complex number where the units allow. You will, however, destroy the information they contain when you do.
No, the manipulations I did do not destroy any information. Also, the units always allow, a complex number is still just a single number, so itt doesn't make sense to say different parts have different units

I am extrapolating some here, but it seems that you are trying to use complex numbers to sum 2 different things together such as 2 apples + 3 oranges, while keeping them separate. That simply is not what complex numbers do, vectors are a bit better suited for this (though they still should have everything have the same units.)

The evidence for the existence of photons is a more involved question. First must be the double slit experiment which has been a source of controversy, and in my opinion misinterpretation, for two hundred years. The results of two slit experiments rely on the phase interaction consequent on variation of distance.
I am not sure what controversy you are referring to, because the results of this type of experiment have been conclusive and clear. They have put an end to controversies, not been the source of them.

I can possibly go into some of the other stuff I mentioned in more detail at some point, but I just want to make a couple quick notes: The big thing about the LHC that helps enable photon-photon collision detection is the high energy per photon, which really is an extreme case. Here is an early release about the experiment last year: http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/66878

For the photon fields I mentioned, the "extreme" part about it is the huge number of overlapping photons present, but this is an every day occurrence. Even a simple 1 Watt RF source at 2 GHz emits around 7*10^23 photons per second. This is around 2*10^15 within 1 meter of the source at any instant. Given the wavelength of about 15 centimeters, that is a lot of overlapping photons.

Thanks meberbs for the CERN Courier article.

The controversy I am referring to is the particle wave duality and its seeming impossibility. Are you saying that you find nothing at all confusing about quantum mechanics?

Your critique of my attempt to express complex time mathematically did not include any recommendation for a better approach. I would happily consider such. Presuming that you agree with Special Relativity that, the time dilation experienced by a photon should reduce its duration to zero from its own perspective, then you may see why it helps to express the relationship between time for the observer and time for the photon in a single equation.

The point of all this being that where there is no passage of time, there is coincidence.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 11/28/2017 06:59 am
The controversy I am referring to is the particle wave duality and its seeming impossibility. Are you saying that you find nothing at all confusing about quantum mechanics?
Of course I find quantum mechanics horribly confusing and unintuitive, but there is no controversy about it, certainly not wave particle duality. Experiments have thoroughly eliminated every possible explanation for how the world works that makes sense to human intuition. Wave particle duality is less strange than some other aspects of quantum, and it makes some sense if you recognize that all "particles" behave as waves, but still exist in discrete and quantized units. The dichotomy between waves and particles doesn't actually exist, but there simply are situations where large numbers or proper scale allow you to gloss over some of the details, and treat something as just one or the other.

Your critique of my attempt to express complex time mathematically did not include any recommendation for a better approach. I would happily consider such.
Because of your misuse of the term "complex conjugate," and because the equation you posted has solutions that don't really mean anything, I am not sure what you were trying to say, so I don't know how to help you say it. My mention of vectors was the best I could do. What imaginary time usually would mean is to wrap up the imaginary number i with the time coordinate basis vector. Note that time would always be pure imaginary in this case, never a complex number. Also, for equations like x = x_0 + v*t, you would still be using the real value of t. You might be able to find a way around this, but it would be simpler to stick to using 4-vectors.

Also, I believe Rodal has mentioned before that when you get into GR, keeping the imaginary  number around causes problems, so it is better to handle it the standard way by just putting a -1 in the metric (which is basically the definition of how to take a dot product.)

Presuming that you agree with Special Relativity that, the time dilation experienced by a photon should reduce its duration to zero from its own perspective, then you may see why it helps to express the relationship between time for the observer and time for the photon in a single equation.
Specifically what special relativity says when you look at things from the photon's perspective is <ERROR: DIVIDE BY ZERO>. For some specific cases if you are careful and take limits properly, you can still get some answers out. I am not sure how your equation is supposed to be linking time for an observer versus time for the photon, but there already is the Lorentz transformations which calculate the relationship between any 2 desired frames (This includes the photon frame, but if you fully go there, the divide by 0 collapses one spatial direction to nothingness, and in the process you lose the information needed to switch back.)

The point of all this being that where there is no passage of time, there is coincidence.
This is why physicists came up with the term lightlike interval to describe the path taken by a photon. It rides the boundary between spacelike and timelike, and photons have the special property that since nothing can go faster than them, all frames agree on whether they are moving forward of backward.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 11/30/2017 12:01 am
Thankyou meberbs, I appreciate the consideration you give to my questions.
Of course I find quantum mechanics horribly confusing and unintuitive, but there is no controversy about it, certainly not wave particle duality. Experiments have thoroughly eliminated every possible explanation for how the world works that makes sense to human intuition.
The notion that the physical universe is something we cannot understand is not acceptable to me. Yes I accept my own obvious limitations, but bearing them in mind I must insist that my solutions make sense to me, at least, without being obtuse.

You are, as yet, the only person to disagree with my use of a complex number to describe time but I doubt that you will be the last. I am keen to hear from anyone who understands what I am trying to do but does not like the way I am doing it, or has a better way  :)  If, however, I stick to using 4-vectors then my argument will not be properly expressed. In my opinion the fault lies with the mathematical methodology which is why the attempt to include Machian considerations into GR failed in the first place.

Where you are forced to devide by zero, there your methodology is broken and you may eventually have to accept that those vectors are failing to describe your universe. Complex time is, in my opinion, a way out of the fog of incomprehension which surrounds quantum mechanics.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 11/30/2017 04:04 pm
Of course I find quantum mechanics horribly confusing and unintuitive, but there is no controversy about it, certainly not wave particle duality. Experiments have thoroughly eliminated every possible explanation for how the world works that makes sense to human intuition.



You are in good company. As physicist Richard Feynman stated;
Quote
It is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.

Given that, I do find the de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory slightly more intuitive as far as wave-particle duality is concerned.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 11/30/2017 05:17 pm
Of course I find quantum mechanics horribly confusing and unintuitive, but there is no controversy about it, certainly not wave particle duality. Experiments have thoroughly eliminated every possible explanation for how the world works that makes sense to human intuition.



You are in good company. As physicist Richard Feynman stated;
Quote
It is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.

Given that, I do find the de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory slightly more intuitive as far as wave-particle duality is concerned.

The problem with understanding wave particle duality is realizing that particles cannot be separated from their fields. The particle is not an independent, isolated entity and its field spans the entire universe.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 11/30/2017 11:25 pm
Of course I find quantum mechanics horribly confusing and unintuitive, but there is no controversy about it, certainly not wave particle duality. Experiments have thoroughly eliminated every possible explanation for how the world works that makes sense to human intuition.



You are in good company. As physicist Richard Feynman stated;
Quote
It is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.

Given that, I do find the de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory slightly more intuitive as far as wave-particle duality is concerned.

The problem with understanding wave particle duality is realizing that particles cannot be separated from their fields. The particle is not an independent, isolated entity and its field spans the entire universe.
WarpTech,
the problem with a field which spans the universe is that to realize the power inherent in its quantum, it must be able to collapse instantly to a single point. Do you have in mind and explanation of that mechanism?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 11/30/2017 11:31 pm
(...)
If your considering imaginary time this might be a line of related thought: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=10342783944069976021&hl=en&as_sdt=0,26


dustinthewind,
thankyou for the link to 'Timeless Approach to Quantum Jumps' it is a revelation to learn that someone somewhere said something which almost agrees with some small part of what I have been trying to say :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 11/30/2017 11:48 pm
Of course I find quantum mechanics horribly confusing and unintuitive, but there is no controversy about it, certainly not wave particle duality. Experiments have thoroughly eliminated every possible explanation for how the world works that makes sense to human intuition.



You are in good company. As physicist Richard Feynman stated;
Quote
It is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.

Given that, I do find the de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory slightly more intuitive as far as wave-particle duality is concerned.

The problem with understanding wave particle duality is realizing that particles cannot be separated from their fields. The particle is not an independent, isolated entity and its field spans the entire universe.
WarpTech,
the problem with a field which spans the universe is that to realize the power inherent in its quantum, it must be able to collapse instantly to a single point. Do you have in mind and explanation of that mechanism?

What is the quantum nature of the detector which measures this "single point"? The two form a system that is different than either system considered independently. So the problem you're looking to answer changes the moment you add a detector to the field. It's no longer measuring "just" the particle, the detector itself is part of the system.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 12/01/2017 03:35 pm
Of course I find quantum mechanics horribly confusing and unintuitive, but there is no controversy about it, certainly not wave particle duality. Experiments have thoroughly eliminated every possible explanation for how the world works that makes sense to human intuition.



You are in good company. As physicist Richard Feynman stated;
Quote
It is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.

Given that, I do find the de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory slightly more intuitive as far as wave-particle duality is concerned.

The problem with understanding wave particle duality is realizing that particles cannot be separated from their fields. The particle is not an independent, isolated entity and its field spans the entire universe.


Some say there are no particles, there are only fields, a view which is articulated here;

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4616.pdf


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 12/01/2017 04:04 pm
Of course I find quantum mechanics horribly confusing and unintuitive, but there is no controversy about it, certainly not wave particle duality. Experiments have thoroughly eliminated every possible explanation for how the world works that makes sense to human intuition.
The notion that the physical universe is something we cannot understand is not acceptable to me. Yes I accept my own obvious limitations, but bearing them in mind I must insist that my solutions make sense to me, at least, without being obtuse.
I think most if not all physicists feel the same way. The one thing they prioritize over that is theories actually matching with reality. It turns out that when it comes to quantum, reality is quite stubborn about being unintuitive.

You are, as yet, the only person to disagree with my use of a complex number to describe time but I doubt that you will be the last.
To be clear, pure imaginary time I don't have a problem with and there is a solid basis for how that would work. Complex time where time has both real and imaginary components seems like it is guaranteed to produce complex results for position as well when put into any dynamics equation. You could put sqrt(t**t) (note that superscript asterisk denotes complex conjugate) in place of t in all the standard equations, but then you don't have any meaning associated with t being complex, and you are just using the magnitude.

I don't think I can say anything else of value at this point. Let me know if you figure out a way to write down dynamics equations that don't break when you use complex time.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Stormbringer on 12/01/2017 11:02 pm
The universe is weird.

https://phys.org/news/2017-12-arrow-relative-concept-absolute.html

Well that's that then. :)

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 12/02/2017 12:10 am
Of course I find quantum mechanics horribly confusing and unintuitive, but there is no controversy about it, certainly not wave particle duality. Experiments have thoroughly eliminated every possible explanation for how the world works that makes sense to human intuition.
The notion that the physical universe is something we cannot understand is not acceptable to me. Yes I accept my own obvious limitations, but bearing them in mind I must insist that my solutions make sense to me, at least, without being obtuse.
I think most if not all physicists feel the same way. The one thing they prioritize over that is theories actually matching with reality. It turns out that when it comes to quantum, reality is quite stubborn about being unintuitive.

You are, as yet, the only person to disagree with my use of a complex number to describe time but I doubt that you will be the last.
To be clear, pure imaginary time I don't have a problem with and there is a solid basis for how that would work. Complex time where time has both real and imaginary components seems like it is guaranteed to produce complex results for position as well when put into any dynamics equation. You could put sqrt(t**t) (note that superscript asterisk denotes complex conjugate) in place of t in all the standard equations, but then you don't have any meaning associated with t being complex, and you are just using the magnitude.

I don't think I can say anything else of value at this point. Let me know if you figure out a way to write down dynamics equations that don't break when you use complex time.
Thanks meberbs, and WarpTech to,

I certainly will attempt to "figure out a way to write down dynamics equations that don't break when you use complex time" as you suggest, my argument for gravity as an electrical effect relies on it. Thanks to you all for a vigorous conversation regarding quantum mechanics, a subject which I think is at the very heart of emdrive development.

Roger Shawyer maintains that what special relativity tells us about "momentum exchange via radiation pressure" is a complete explanation for emdrive thrust. If we do not agree we must, or at least I must, begin by explaining the need to complicate the issue.

In my opinion, this forum makes a solid contribution. By allowing dissent you are giving the dissenters reason to consider their own prejudice.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 12/02/2017 06:09 pm
I originally posted this in the Woodward effect thread but it seemed highly connected to this thread. 

Something related to WarpTech's equations above

How to push on the Vacuum, or create friction with the Vacuum using Radiation Reaction.

I think the Woodward effect can be modeled this way, but please note that this is a work in progress. Not a paper for review. I'm hoping to give us something to discuss and make the conversation a little more productive.  8)
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31037.0;attach=1461583;image)

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=31037.0;attach=1461621;image)



I realized this morning is that Puthoff's equations for the polarizable vacuum suggest a changing mass per change in acceleration also. 
That is
Quote from: https://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/9909/9909037.pdf
Polarizable-Vacuum (PV) representation of general relativity
H. E. Puthoff
m(K) = m_o*K^(3/2)
so as an object falls into a gravity well undergoing a change in acceleration is mass changes also.

Thanks WarpTech

I suspect I may have connected the dots that describe how the EM drive is related to the Woodward effect.  The magnetic field at the tip of the frustum, being up, is of greater magnitude than the magnetic field at the lower portion of the frustum, down.  There is a dynamic effect that occurs when this happens.  The magnetic fields in the EM drive when created may initially be at equilibrium but as energy rapidly builds in the frustum the equilibrium may shift to compress the magnetic field below as in the crushing of a spring. 

This rapid build up in energy causes a rapid jerk or change in acceleration of the circulating current in the cavity toward the large end as the large end magnetic field is compressed. 

The trick to maximize the Woodward effect in the EM drive may be to maximize the amount of this current being displaced by this effect, maximize the change in energy in the input phase (bust pulse), allow gradual loss of energy in the dissipation phase to minimize jerk back (Quality effect). 

The greater change in acceleration of charge toward the large end (smaller da/dt toward the small end) suggest pushing the vacuum toward the large end (Thrust) and the resulting thrust force is toward the small end. 

I am still considering if this change in mass of the charges is akin to a change in mass of the light upon reflection and if it could lead to a 2nd order Doppler effect.  I.E. Absorption of energy by the vacuum. 

The trick now should be to get an estimate on the magnitude of such an effect.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 12/03/2017 08:41 am
The Flyby Anomaly persists with the Juno mission

https://www.universetoday.com/137984/juno-isnt-exactly-supposed-flyby-anomaly-back-happen/amp/

Quote
“Our conclusion is that an anomalous acceleration is also acting upon the Juno spacecraft in the vicinity of the perijove (in this case, the asymptotic velocity is not a useful concept because the trajectory is closed). This acceleration is almost one hundred times larger than the typical anomalous accelerations responsible for the anomaly in the case of the Earth flybys. This was already expected in connection with Anderson et al.’s initial intuition that the effect increases with the angular rotational velocity of the planet (a period of 9.8 hours for Jupiter vs the 24 hours of the Earth), the radius of the planet and probably its mass.”

https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.08893 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.08893)

Quote
Abstract

      In the last decades there have been an increasing interest in improving the accuracy of spacecraft navigation and trajectory data.  In the course of this plan some anomalies have been found that cannot, in principle, be explained in the context of the most accurate orbital models including all known effects from classical dynamics and general relativity.  Of particular interest for its puzzling nature, and the lack of any accepted explanation for the moment, is the flyby anomaly discovered in some spacecraft flybys of the Earth over the course of twenty years.  This anomaly manifest itself as the impossibility of matching the pre and post-encounter Doppler tracking and ranging data within a single orbit but, on the contrary, a difference of a few mm/s in the asymptotic velocities is required to perform the fitting.
      Nevertheless, no dedicated missions have been carried out to elucidate the origin of this phenomenon with the objective either of revising our understanding of gravity or to improve the accuracy of spacecraft Doppler tracking by revealing a conventional origin.
      With the occasion of the Juno mission arrival at Jupiter and the close flybys of this planet, that are currently been performed, we have developed  an  orbital  model  suited  to  the  time  window  close  to the perijove.  This model shows that an anomalous acceleration  of a fewmm/s2 is also present in this case.  The chance for overlooked conventional or possible unconventional explanations is discussed.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Augmentor on 12/03/2017 06:18 pm
Dustinthewind,

Warptech  is headed in the right direction. Compare his equation on acceleration and change in acceleration to Woodward's. As to QVF, that is beyond the scope of Woodward's GR derivation. Quantum Mach Effects (QME) are considered at this point to be "minuscule". Even so, QME is worth exploring theoretically.

The Mach Effect experimental device families (MET,  MEGA)  have asymmetric masses with a forced damped oscillator. Once resonance has been established, then timed electrical pulses add dielectric energy  resulting in expansion of the material (PZT et al). GR Mach Effects (GRME) occur when a internal acceleration occurs collinearly within an external acceleration; GRME can also occur for a system at velocity (momentum) and an external change in force (jerk) is applied. This can be seen in both Woodward's derivation as well as Warptech's approach.

ref: https://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/stargates.pdf

Woodward derives in a paper preceding his book, MSAS-2013, a formula of the form...

F = A a^2 + B j v 

where v is velocity, a is acceleration and j is the change in acceleration (jerk).
F has units kg-m/sec^2   and  a^2 and jv have units of m^2/sec^4

A and B are constants. So A and B have units of kg-sec^2/m

This formula applies to straight-line free travel in flat space. One should consider time dependencies of m, v, a and j as well the additional challenges of the orbital mechanics of a flyby and traveling along gravitational geodesics.

For applied Mach theory, you may also need to perform relativistic corrections for doppler effect and heat conduction among other things. IMHO the emDrive propulsion may be due in part to relativistic heat conduction.

Since Woodward derives Mach theory from General Relativity, consider four-vector implications.

Warptech does introduce four gradient. However, a comprehensive review of all four-vector physics is required eventually. From Wiki "Four vector", here is a nice checklist in the form of table of contents.

4   Fundamental four-vectors
   4.1   Four-position
   4.2   Four-gradient
5   Kinematics
   5.1   Four-velocity
   5.2   Four-acceleration
6   Dynamics
   6.1   Four-momentum
   6.2   Four-force
7   Thermodynamics
   7.1   Four-heat flux
   7.2   Four-baryon number flux
   7.3   Four-entropy
8   Electromagnetism
   8.1   Four-current
   8.2   Four-potential
9   Waves
   9.1   Four-frequency
   9.2   Four-wavevector
10   Quantum theory
   10.1   Four-probability current
   10.2   Four-spin
11   Other formulations
   11.1   Four-vectors in the algebra of physical space
   11.2   Four-vectors in spacetime algebra

The rocket equation derivation I will need to examine closer. One would have to relate Q to the rocket equation to make sense of what Warptech is proposing.

You mileage may be relativistic,

David
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 12/03/2017 09:07 pm
Is Temperature a Lorentz Invariant quantity in SR?

I found this: http://www.physastromath.ch/uploads/myPdfs/Relativ/T_SRT_en.pdf (http://www.physastromath.ch/uploads/myPdfs/Relativ/T_SRT_en.pdf)

It is an interesting question because energy is frame dependent, but temperature depends on molecular/atomic vibration.

Time dilation would suggest that relative to a fast-moving observer, all vibration should stop and the temperature should go to zero.  Same is true for the energy of blackbody oscillators, h*f goes to zero as time dilation increases.

On the other hand, Temperature ~ Kinetic Energy, which increases relative to a fast-moving observer.

Or, is Temperature an invariant because it is defined by an "absolute" Kelvin scale, and things such as boiling points, melting points and triple points, are not frame dependent, but rather material dependent.

If Temperature is invariant, then the Boltzmann constant must be frame dependent. That comes as a bit of a surprise to me, but it has to be one or the other. Either the Boltzmann constant is frame dependent or energy is not.

Is there any final consensus on this? It seems that after 100+ years of Relativity, the effects of SR on Thermodynamics are still unresolved. The consequences brought up in the article seem rather profound.

Thanks.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 12/03/2017 11:46 pm
Is Temperature a Lorentz Invariant quantity in SR?

I found this: http://www.physastromath.ch/uploads/myPdfs/Relativ/T_SRT_en.pdf (http://www.physastromath.ch/uploads/myPdfs/Relativ/T_SRT_en.pdf)

It is an interesting question because energy is frame dependent, but temperature depends on molecular/atomic vibration.

Time dilation would suggest that relative to a fast-moving observer, all vibration should stop and the temperature should go to zero.  Same is true for the energy of blackbody oscillators, h*f goes to zero as time dilation increases.

On the other hand, Temperature ~ Kinetic Energy, which increases relative to a fast-moving observer.

Or, is Temperature an invariant because it is defined by an "absolute" Kelvin scale, and things such as boiling points, melting points and triple points, are not frame dependent, but rather material dependent.

If Temperature is invariant, then the Boltzmann constant must be frame dependent. That comes as a bit of a surprise to me, but it has to be one or the other. Either the Boltzmann constant is frame dependent or energy is not.

Is there any final consensus on this? It seems that after 100+ years of Relativity, the effects of SR on Thermodynamics are still unresolved. The consequences brought up in the article seem rather profound.

Thanks.

WarpTech,

Temperature as far as it depends on atomic/molecular vibration would not be affected by the velocity of any fast moving observer. In its simplest case the the observer would still see the vibration of the atom/molecule as a constant if not uniform change in velocity of the atom/molecule.

For black body radiation the case may be made that depending on the fast moving observer’s velocity relative to the black body radiation, the observed “temperature” may go up or down, dependent upon whether the observer is moving toward or away from the radiating source.

… But would that really have any affect on the radiating source or just velocity defined ‘boundary’ conditions affecting observation and measurement?

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 12/04/2017 01:06 am
WarpTech,

Temperature as far as it depends on atomic/molecular vibration would not be affected by the velocity of any fast moving observer. In its simplest case the the observer would still see the vibration of the atom/molecule as a constant if not uniform change in velocity of the atom/molecule.

For black body radiation the case may be made that depending on the fast moving observer’s velocity relative to the black body radiation, the observed “temperature” may go up or down, dependent upon whether the observer is moving toward or away from the radiating source.

… But would that really have any affect on the radiating source or just velocity defined ‘boundary’ conditions affecting observation and measurement?

There is a difference between Doppler shift and higher/lower temperature. Atoms have very well defined spectral lines. When moving toward or away, the entire spectrum is Doppler shifted. The same is true for time dilation.

Whereas, if the temperature is increased or decreased, the spectrum doesn't shift. Increasing temperature just excites additional spectral lines in the atomic energy levels. The lower spectral lines are still there.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 12/04/2017 01:28 am
Quote from: Augmentor link=topic=42978.msg1755624#msg1755624
Your mileage may be relativistic,

That's a 10 pointer!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 12/04/2017 01:49 am
Roger Shawyer has kindly sent me these as a good start point for emdrive design. Am posting them here to ensure they are available to experimenters.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 12/04/2017 03:07 pm
WarpTech,

Temperature as far as it depends on atomic/molecular vibration would not be affected by the velocity of any fast moving observer. In its simplest case the the observer would still see the vibration of the atom/molecule as a constant if not uniform change in velocity of the atom/molecule.

For black body radiation the case may be made that depending on the fast moving observer’s velocity relative to the black body radiation, the observed “temperature” may go up or down, dependent upon whether the observer is moving toward or away from the radiating source.

… But would that really have any affect on the radiating source or just velocity defined ‘boundary’ conditions affecting observation and measurement?

There is a difference between Doppler shift and higher/lower temperature. Atoms have very well defined spectral lines. When moving toward or away, the entire spectrum is Doppler shifted. The same is true for time dilation.

Whereas, if the temperature is increased or decreased, the spectrum doesn't shift. Increasing temperature just excites additional spectral lines in the atomic energy levels. The lower spectral lines are still there.

Maybe I should just have said that while the velocity of an observer may affect observation and measurement, it would have no affect on the temperature of anything outside the observer’s own frame of reference. For that matter it would not affect the way an observer, experiences or measures anything within their own frame of reference.

I think I must have been unclear in my intent… or confused the issue by attempting to suggest that how “a fast moving observer” experiences blackbody radiation (from an external frame), which might be affected by the observer’s relative velocity (or time dilation), could not affect the temperature of the source of the blackbody radiation.

When you said, ”Time dilation would suggest that relative to a fast-moving observer, all vibration should stop and the temperature should go to zero.  Same is true for the energy of blackbody oscillators, h*f goes to zero as time dilation increases.”, I took it to suggest that time dilation of an observer might affect the temperature, basically of the universe! 

“Time dilation” of a fast moving observer only affects how the observer measures events outside the observer’s frame of reference. Within their own frame of reference the observer experiences no change… they would not even know “time dilation” is occurring, without an external frame of reference... Time dilation and velocity only affects measurements between frames. It does not actually change the temperatures, only experience and measurement.


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 12/04/2017 05:21 pm
WarpTech,

Temperature as far as it depends on atomic/molecular vibration would not be affected by the velocity of any fast moving observer. In its simplest case the the observer would still see the vibration of the atom/molecule as a constant if not uniform change in velocity of the atom/molecule.

For black body radiation the case may be made that depending on the fast moving observer’s velocity relative to the black body radiation, the observed “temperature” may go up or down, dependent upon whether the observer is moving toward or away from the radiating source.

… But would that really have any affect on the radiating source or just velocity defined ‘boundary’ conditions affecting observation and measurement?

There is a difference between Doppler shift and higher/lower temperature. Atoms have very well defined spectral lines. When moving toward or away, the entire spectrum is Doppler shifted. The same is true for time dilation.

Whereas, if the temperature is increased or decreased, the spectrum doesn't shift. Increasing temperature just excites additional spectral lines in the atomic energy levels. The lower spectral lines are still there.
I think there has been a miscommunication here. OnlyMe was discussing black body radiation, which is continuous across all frequencies unlike atomic spectral lines. As temperature increases, black body radiation increases at all frequencies and the peak of the distribution shifts as well.

I believe that the Doppler shifted pattern will appear identical to the spectrum from a temperature shift, but since this depends on viewing angle, it does not define a new temperature for a moving object in another frame. This indicates that temperature is similar to rest mass in that as generally defined is meaningful in the rest frame. To really answer whether temperature is frame dependent many equations involving temperature may need to be reworked to remove implicit assumptions about the frame. There may be more than 1 right answer depending on how definitions are chosen.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 12/04/2017 07:49 pm
WarpTech,

Temperature as far as it depends on atomic/molecular vibration would not be affected by the velocity of any fast moving observer. In its simplest case the the observer would still see the vibration of the atom/molecule as a constant if not uniform change in velocity of the atom/molecule.

For black body radiation the case may be made that depending on the fast moving observer’s velocity relative to the black body radiation, the observed “temperature” may go up or down, dependent upon whether the observer is moving toward or away from the radiating source.

… But would that really have any affect on the radiating source or just velocity defined ‘boundary’ conditions affecting observation and measurement?

There is a difference between Doppler shift and higher/lower temperature. Atoms have very well defined spectral lines. When moving toward or away, the entire spectrum is Doppler shifted. The same is true for time dilation.

Whereas, if the temperature is increased or decreased, the spectrum doesn't shift. Increasing temperature just excites additional spectral lines in the atomic energy levels. The lower spectral lines are still there.
I think there has been a miscommunication here. OnlyMe was discussing black body radiation, which is continuous across all frequencies unlike atomic spectral lines. As temperature increases, black body radiation increases at all frequencies and the peak of the distribution shifts as well.

I believe that the Doppler shifted pattern will appear identical to the spectrum from a temperature shift, but since this depends on viewing angle, it does not define a new temperature for a moving object in another frame. This indicates that temperature is similar to rest mass in that as generally defined is meaningful in the rest frame. To really answer whether temperature is frame dependent many equations involving temperature may need to be reworked to remove implicit assumptions about the frame. There may be more than 1 right answer depending on how definitions are chosen.

To my knowledge, the temperature will cause the spectral lines to widen but they will not shift in the same way that would result from a Doppler shift due to motion between frames. It will increase the intensity, the number of photons emitted at each frequency. See below.

It is an interesting thought to treat heat as part of the rest mass. I will consider this further, thanks.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: rq3 on 12/04/2017 10:26 pm
Roger Shawyer has kindly sent me these as a good start point for emdrive design. Am posting them here to ensure they are available to experimenters.

It's very nice that Roger Shawyer has provided you references to antique measurement techniques.

SeaShells and Monomorphic, where are you? You've both apparently spent phenomenal quantities of time, labor, and money on hardware, experimentation, and even laboratory space.

Why have neither of you "thrown the switch" and reported results? Monomorphic apparently has a torsion pendulum that equals some of the best in the world, as regards sensitivity and repeatability, perhaps surpassing that used by NASA in their peer reviewed report.

Are you making measurements that you can't believe? Are you making measurements that you won't believe? Are you making measurements that violate your own expectations? Are you making measurements?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RonM on 12/05/2017 12:07 am
Don't know about SeaShells, but Monomorphic is posting in the Woodward's Effect thread. Looks like he's working on that now.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31037.msg1754872#msg1754872
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: racevedo88 on 12/05/2017 12:51 am
Rq3

On a previous post monomorphic indicated that every once in a while he gets overwhelmed and likes to take a break, so it is very possible he is doing this know. Both shell and monomorphic are serious researchers and if they had thrown the switch they would have reported their results regardless of wether the drive worked or not.  It might not be what you meant, but the way you asked the last question,makes it seem that you are questioning their integrity. In the 3 years I had followed this thread, I have found that both of them had been extremellly open in sharing their experimental processes and findings.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 12/05/2017 02:17 am
Roger Shawyer has kindly sent me these as a good start point for emdrive design. Am posting them here to ensure they are available to experimenters.

It's very nice that Roger Shawyer has provided you references to antique measurement techniques.
(...)

Also recommended by Roger Shawyer;  'Microwave Engineering Passive Circuits.' by Peter A Rizzi, Published by Prentice Hall.

Good engineering practice is confirmed by test of time. If there are better ways you are welcome to share them here  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 12/05/2017 11:38 am
While working on thermal management for the 30W RF amplifier, I utilized the down time and free space on the pendulum, to test whether vibrating devices can produce false-positive thrust results on a torsional pendulum. To my surprise, it turned out to be quite easy to generate "thrust" traces by vibrating a 40g stainless steel mass at various frequencies.  Furthermore, physics-based simulations confirmed these results. My conclusion then was that a torsional pendulum is poorly suited for detecting minute amounts of thrust from vibrating devices. This is because when the contents of the device shift, the torsional pendulum beam reacts equally and oppositely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atnlRs-oKG8&t=

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LeCvMcEjIk

This has lead me to look more closely at "electrical hum" as a possible error source for some emdrive experiments. Most, if not all, RF amplifiers emit an audible hum when pushed at max RF power. In fact, my first 2W system produced a distinct hum that I would estimate was in the <100Hz range. As I run the new amplifier at ~80% capacity and use only 12.6V or less, that seems to have eliminated the electrical hum (from what I can hear). This is also why I am very interested in the US Navy's contactless RF connection and Peter Lauwer's method. I do not think Shawyer's frictionless air track is vulnerable to the same reaction problem as a torsional pendulum, as it can show an acceleration curve over a certain distance.  However, air tracks can be tricked in other ways.

I have one more series of tests to conduct using the asymmetric shaker, which includes a number of frequencies in sine, square, and sawtooth waveform - as well as some chirps. Once that is finished in the next few days, I will switch back over to the emdrive and resume testing there. But while the emdrive is sitting on the workbench, I would like to record a video to show how the cavity tuning system works as I think that's pretty neat.

Sorry for the delay, but it has been a fun diversion and the data collected will be useful.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 12/05/2017 07:17 pm

Also recommended by Roger Shawyer;  'Microwave Engineering Passive Circuits.' by Peter A Rizzi, Published by Prentice Hall.


Also recommended by me! It was used as textbook at the TU Delft in the 90s.  :-)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 12/05/2017 09:11 pm
I originally posted this in the Woodward effect thread but it seemed highly connected to this thread. 

Something related to WarpTech's equations above

...

Thanks WarpTech

I suspect I may have connected the dots that describe how the EM drive is related to the Woodward effect.  The magnetic field at the tip of the frustum, being up, is of greater magnitude than the magnetic field at the lower portion of the frustum, down.  There is a dynamic effect that occurs when this happens.  The magnetic fields in the EM drive when created may initially be at equilibrium but as energy rapidly builds in the frustum the equilibrium may shift to compress the magnetic field below as in the crushing of a spring. 
...
Dustinthewind,

Warptech  is headed in the right direction. Compare his equation on acceleration and change in acceleration to Woodward's. As to QVF, that is beyond the scope of Woodward's GR derivation. Quantum Mach Effects (QME) are considered at this point to be "minuscule". Even so, QME is worth exploring theoretically.

The Mach Effect experimental device families (MET,  MEGA)  have asymmetric masses with a forced damped oscillator. Once resonance has been established, then timed electrical pulses add dielectric energy  resulting in expansion of the material (PZT et al). GR Mach Effects (GRME) occur when a internal acceleration occurs collinearly within an external acceleration; GRME can also occur for a system at velocity (momentum) and an external change in force (jerk) is applied. This can be seen in both Woodward's derivation as well as Warptech's approach.

ref: https://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/stargates.pdf

Woodward derives in a paper preceding his book, MSAS-2013, a formula of the form...

F = A a^2 + B j v 

where v is velocity, a is acceleration and j is the change in acceleration (jerk).
F has units kg-m/sec^2   and  a^2 and jv have units of m^2/sec^4

A and B are constants. So A and B have units of kg-sec^2/m

This formula applies to straight-line free travel in flat space. One should consider time dependencies of m, v, a and j as well the additional challenges of the orbital mechanics of a flyby and traveling along gravitational geodesics.

For applied Mach theory, you may also need to perform relativistic corrections for doppler effect and heat conduction among other things. IMHO the emDrive propulsion may be due in part to relativistic heat conduction.

Since Woodward derives Mach theory from General Relativity, consider four-vector implications.

Warptech does introduce four gradient. However, a comprehensive review of all four-vector physics is required eventually. From Wiki "Four vector", here is a nice checklist in the form of table of contents.

4   Fundamental four-vectors
   4.1   Four-position
   4.2   Four-gradient
5   Kinematics
   5.1   Four-velocity
   5.2   Four-acceleration
6   Dynamics
   6.1   Four-momentum
   6.2   Four-force
7   Thermodynamics
   7.1   Four-heat flux
   7.2   Four-baryon number flux
   7.3   Four-entropy
8   Electromagnetism
   8.1   Four-current
   8.2   Four-potential
9   Waves
   9.1   Four-frequency
   9.2   Four-wavevector
10   Quantum theory
   10.1   Four-probability current
   10.2   Four-spin
11   Other formulations
   11.1   Four-vectors in the algebra of physical space
   11.2   Four-vectors in spacetime algebra

The rocket equation derivation I will need to examine closer. One would have to relate Q to the rocket equation to make sense of what Warptech is proposing.

You mileage may be relativistic,

David

Thanks Augmentor for the extra information - Ill take a peek.  I wasn't implying WarpTech was on the wrong track or right.  I was just thanking him as his suggestion spurred me to think about any asymmetric accelerations causing change in mass of charge in the cavity.  It struck me that the cavity may mimic such an effect.  Basically the cavity would be the larger mass and the electrons in a TE mode (maybe some other mode) would be the lighter mass. 

As energy rapidly builds up it may be possible the magnetic field at the tip of the frustum acts like a spring that grows in its spring constant more rapidly than the field below it.  This would compress the magnetic field below it as energy builds up in the cavity. 

This rapid compression of the field below corresponds to a shift in the current of the cavity walls (metal skin current compresses the magnetic fields to remain in the cavity).  I was pondering if it could shove the current (field) toward the large end in the process with large accelerations.  After energy input stops the Q (quality) of the cavity, or the low resistance to current, allows the energy to dissipate gradually.  This would then allow the newly created magnetic fields to gradually die out and un-compress. 

The asymmetric magnetic fields causing a dynamic effect, and the difference in the rate of input power to power dissipation being asymmetric, leading to unequal accelerations of the charge back and forth. 

This might possibly go back to everyone before me that was saying to ring it like a bell because this is exactly what would be happening.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: oyzw on 12/06/2017 12:29 am
While working on thermal management for the 30W RF amplifier, I utilized the down time and free space on the pendulum, to test whether vibrating devices can produce false-positive thrust results on a torsional pendulum. To my surprise, it turned out to be quite easy to generate "thrust" traces by vibrating a 40g stainless steel mass at various frequencies.  Furthermore, physics-based simulations confirmed these results. My conclusion then was that a torsional pendulum is poorly suited for detecting minute amounts of thrust from vibrating devices. This is because when the contents of the device shift, the torsional pendulum beam reacts equally and oppositely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atnlRs-oKG8&t=

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LeCvMcEjIk

This has lead me to look more closely at "electrical hum" as a possible error source for some emdrive experiments. Most, if not all, RF amplifiers emit an audible hum when pushed at max RF power. In fact, my first 2W system produced a distinct hum that I would estimate was in the <100Hz range. As I run the new amplifier at ~80% capacity and use only 12.6V or less, that seems to have eliminated the electrical hum (from what I can hear). This is also why I am very interested in the US Navy's contactless RF connection and Peter Lauwer's method. I do not think Shawyer's frictionless air track is vulnerable to the same reaction problem as a torsional pendulum, as it can show an acceleration curve over a certain distance.  However, air tracks can be tricked in other ways.

I have one more series of tests to conduct using the asymmetric shaker, which includes a number of frequencies in sine, square, and sawtooth waveform - as well as some chirps. Once that is finished in the next few days, I will switch back over to the emdrive and resume testing there. But while the emdrive is sitting on the workbench, I would like to record a video to show how the cavity tuning system works as I think that's pretty neat.

Sorry for the delay, but it has been a fun diversion and the data collected will be useful.
 
Hello, your experiment is very rigorous, but I suggest you use the air suspension platform as an experimental vehicle as soon as possible.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Slyver on 12/06/2017 12:52 am
While working on thermal management for the 30W RF amplifier, I utilized the down time and free space on the pendulum, to test whether vibrating devices can produce false-positive thrust results on a torsional pendulum. To my surprise, it turned out to be quite easy to generate "thrust" traces by vibrating a 40g stainless steel mass at various frequencies.  Furthermore, physics-based simulations confirmed these results. My conclusion then was that a torsional pendulum is poorly suited for detecting minute amounts of thrust from vibrating devices. This is because when the contents of the device shift, the torsional pendulum beam reacts equally and oppositely.
Monomorphic, you're my hero. Seriously.

EMDrive testing is in great hands!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 12/06/2017 01:05 pm
While working on thermal management for the 30W RF amplifier, I utilized the down time and free space on the pendulum, to test whether vibrating devices can produce false-positive thrust results on a torsional pendulum. To my surprise, it turned out to be quite easy to generate "thrust" traces by vibrating a 40g stainless steel mass at various frequencies.  Furthermore, physics-based simulations confirmed these results. My conclusion then was that a torsional pendulum is poorly suited for detecting minute amounts of thrust from vibrating devices. This is because when the contents of the device shift, the torsional pendulum beam reacts equally and oppositely.
...

Excellent work, Jamie.
I remember George Gillies treated this effect in one of his articles on torsion balances in the 90's (continuous deflection due to vibrations). Been looking in my archive, I don't know whether this one is the best treatment of it: Gillies & Ritter, Torsion balances, torsion pendulums, and related devices, Rev. Sci. Instrum., Vol. 64, 1993, pp. 283-309.
I'll dig deeper into the (paper) archive.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 12/06/2017 01:17 pm
.... test whether vibrating devices can produce false-positive thrust results on a torsional pendulum. ...
 
Hello, your experiment is very rigorous, but I suggest you use the air suspension platform as an experimental vehicle as soon as possible.

O, no, he shouldn't.  :o The air suspension platforms are very unreliable instruments to work with. For critiques, see, e.g., Marc Millis, Nonviable mechanical “antigravity devices, in: M.G. Millis and E.W. Davis (eds.), Frontiers of propulsion science, AIAA, 2009, pp. 249–261.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 12/06/2017 01:51 pm
.... test whether vibrating devices can produce false-positive thrust results on a torsional pendulum. ...
 
Hello, your experiment is very rigorous, but I suggest you use the air suspension platform as an experimental vehicle as soon as possible.

O, no, he shouldn't.  :o The air suspension platforms are very unreliable instruments to work with. For critiques, see, e.g., Marc Millis, Nonviable mechanical “antigravity devices, in: M.G. Millis and E.W. Davis (eds.), Frontiers of propulsion science, AIAA, 2009, pp. 249–261.

Monomorphic started his experiment with an air suspension rail. There were reasons why it was not good.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 12/06/2017 07:49 pm
Has someone information about; when videos and proceedings of the conference from november this year will be available here or at ssi.org?
I'm just curious about it.

Thanks
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: HMXHMX on 12/06/2017 09:59 pm
Has someone information about; when videos and proceedings of the conference from november this year will be available here or at ssi.org?
I'm just curious about it.

Thanks

As soon as our volunteer staff can edit everything into a useable format.  I'll check with them and see if there is a target date.  I do know that formal papers will be published by JBIS in an issue early next year but don't have specific timing.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: demofsky on 12/07/2017 12:14 am
Does anyone remember the recommended platform for testing ion drives.  I think the Cannae folks had built one.  Essentially it was a turntable in a reasonably sized vacuum chamber but can’t remember what the bearing was for that set up.  There may be a public NASA doc giving the specs. 

Monomorphic would those new bearings you purchased be more immune to this effect!  Thanks!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: oyzw on 12/07/2017 12:44 am
.... test whether vibrating devices can produce false-positive thrust results on a torsional pendulum. ...
 
Hello, your experiment is very rigorous, but I suggest you use the air suspension platform as an experimental vehicle as soon as possible.

O, no, he shouldn't.  :o The air suspension platforms are very unreliable instruments to work with. For critiques, see, e.g., Marc Millis, Nonviable mechanical “antigravity devices, in: M.G. Millis and E.W. Davis (eds.), Frontiers of propulsion science, AIAA, 2009, pp. 249–261.

Monomorphic started his experiment with an air suspension rail. There were reasons why it was not good.
I think it would be more appropriate to use a boat as a test vehicle in a static pool.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: otlski on 12/07/2017 12:47 am
.... test whether vibrating devices can produce false-positive thrust results on a torsional pendulum. ...
 
Hello, your experiment is very rigorous, but I suggest you use the air suspension platform as an experimental vehicle as soon as possible.

O, no, he shouldn't.  :o The air suspension platforms are very unreliable instruments to work with. For critiques, see, e.g., Marc Millis, Nonviable mechanical “antigravity devices, in: M.G. Millis and E.W. Davis (eds.), Frontiers of propulsion science, AIAA, 2009, pp. 249–261.

Be careful not to generalize too much on this subject.  I will say that without a doubt a professionally manufactured, well characterized air bearing will out perform all but perhaps a perfectly executed torsion balance.  And at that, I would have to think about it some more.  The air bearing is much more expensive yes, but inferior, no.  I say this having built hundreds of air bearings as part of our mass properties instruments, and having built hundreds of torsion instruments for measuring MOI.  The torsion instruments measure to within 0.1% for parts as small as a few grams and as large as 24,000 lbs.  The air bearings support similarly sized payloads.  I have purchased perhaps fifty air bearings from three different competitors that perform similarly to ours.

I have reliably measured torques down to tens of millions of a lb-inch. Extracting said signal out of motoring torque, viscous drag, turbulent drag, etc.  If my company were tasked with construction of an instrument to test EM Drives, our design kick-off meeting would settle on an air bearing as the heart of the instrument in two minutes.  The only complicating factor would be the application in a vacuum chamber where vacuum level required and pump capacity, I might go to one of our competitors for solutions.

The one Mono made was a valiant attempt but a linear bearing would be my last choice and the execution was the best he was willing to do at the time.  There is (both literally and performance-wise) a sizable gap between that attempt and one professionally made.

All that said, I would love to read the paper you cited if you had a link.  Always looking to learn more...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 12/07/2017 10:23 am
About problems with air bearings: do you remember Paul March's remarks (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40959.msg1613953#msg1613953) back to thread 8, after Eagleworks has tested their cavity on a rotary low-friction Cavendish balance supported on a spherical air-bearing?

Emphasis mine:
Quote from: Star-Drive
the EW team ran the same Integrated Copper Frustum Test Article (ICFTA) on a battery powered, spherical air-bearing supported, Cavendish-Balance (C-B) last summer, and it self-accelerated in both directions when the ICFTA was reversed on its mount.  Past that I can't reveal anymore on the C-B test campaign until Dr. White gets around to publishing those test results after some improvements are made to the spherical air bearing, which had some annoying swirl torques that disturbed the data runs, but did not hide the already noted results.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Pv4VNkmBP0

TheTraveller calculated the required force to accelerate the platform to the observed speed is only 17 µN, so he admitted the results of these tests are very uncertain.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: otlski on 12/07/2017 11:53 pm
What Paul March is calling swirl torque we call motoring a.k.a turbine effect. Motoring can be virtually nonexistent or problematic of course depending on magnitude.  Well made air bearings can motor but the motoring will be repeatable and easily characterized (using two different methods). 

in order for TT to calculate the torque required to achieve a particular angular acceleration rate, he would need to know the MOI of the test rig.  I did not see that posted anywhere back then.  Furthermore he would have to separate the retarding torque caused by viscous air drag and perhaps added mass.  The bare minimum required would be one full revolution of the test rig.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: xyzzy on 12/09/2017 11:06 am
Monomorphic,

Looking at your vibrational thrust test graphs, I think there is a significant experimental error: You seem to have neither eliminated nor accounted for the changing offset / DC component in the movement of the plunger in your shaking mechanism. The reason is that you are using a unipolar signal source for the excitation and that the source turns off (rather than maintaining the average bias current through the solenoid) between the test pulses. This change in biasing conditions and the corresponding mass shift in the shaker mechanism results in a mass shift of the entire torsional balance, which, together with the long time constant of the balance, makes it look like a thrust signal.

To perform such an experiment "cleanly" it would need 2 signal sources for the shaker:
1. A fixed, DC, current (not voltage) regulated, constant current bias supply that is always on for the duration of the experiment.
2. A AC-only signal source with no DC component in the output (preferably also a current source, but voltage would still be OK in a pinch) for the shaking signal.

Both sources need to drive the shaker in parallel but to prevent signal flows in undesired directions the bias DC source should be coupled through an inductor while the signal AC source is coupled through a capacitor. This makes sure that each signal component (DC and AC) can only take its appropriate path.

It's important that the DC source is current regulated (not voltage) because the solenoid coil will change resistance as it warms up and from a source that stays on a long time it will be warming up. The AC signal can be voltage regulated if need be, but beware that its absolute current magnitude must never exceed the DC bias, otherwise the polarity of the coil will start flipping at the peaks and this will make the average B-field and the average plunger position no longer fixed and well-defined.

Also beware that the entire signal must never drive the mechanical spring-mass-system out of linear operation (like by compressing a spring too much) and this also includes effects of resonance (the control of which is not always trivial).

P.S. It's also important for the bias current source to consistently maintain correct bias even when resonance effects drive the voltage across the solenoid coils to high peak levels (possibly negative and/or even higher than the voltage of the power supply that supplies the bias current source in the first place) - the bias source needs to maintain linear operation all the time and this also may not always be trivial.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 12/09/2017 12:32 pm
Looking at your vibrational thrust test graphs, I think there is a significant experimental error: You seem to have neither eliminated nor accounted for the changing offset / DC component in the movement of the plunger in your shaking mechanism. The reason is that you are using a unipolar signal source for the excitation and that the source turns off (rather than maintaining the average bias current through the solenoid) between the test pulses. This change in biasing conditions and the corresponding mass shift in the shaker mechanism results in a mass shift of the entire torsional balance, which, together with the long time constant of the balance, makes it look like a thrust signal.

I'm using a Voice Coil Actuator (VCA), not a solenoid. The VCA is driven by an analog audio signal. I use mono WAV files created in Audacity to generate the various signal frequencies and waveform shapes to test. Those are stored on microSD, which is accessed by the arduino, which then converts it to analog, sends it to the 3W amplifier, and finally to the VCA. 

In the image below, the two bottom waveforms are sinusoidal chirps, in case anyone was wondering what those looked like.

the corresponding mass shift in the shaker mechanism results in a mass shift of the entire torsional balance, which, together with the long time constant of the balance, makes it look like a thrust signal.

The shakers were designed to test the following criticism of the mach effect: "Due to the asymmetric motion inside the box, the center of mass of the box and its contents shifts relative to the box. But the center of mass must still remain where it was before (relative to the laboratory). So the box moves aside, while its center of mass stays put. Newton's laws were working properly, as they always do." 

The idea being that it is fairly easy to produce a false-positive thrust trace on a torsional pendulum with a vibrating device. I certainly do not believe I'm producing actual thrust with the shaker.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: xyzzy on 12/09/2017 01:02 pm
OK, a voice coil is quite another story. Sorry for the confusion.

A question remains however: how does the arduino output the analog signal and how does the power amplification work? From the graphs (especially the lower frequencies) it looks like the signal is not entirely DC-free.

A voice coil does not need a bias source, so forget everything I was telling about a bias supply. But a voice coil needs to be free of any DC bias however.

It looks like the digital-to-analog conversion is somewhere introducing an offset, each time that the shaker is operating. Maybe it's not a real DAC but some sort of PWM output mechanism with a filter - and the PWM is being switched off entirely (output going to zero) between the periods of shaker operation, rather than continuing to drive out a "neutral" 50% duty cycle.

Can you check this: what is the average voltage that comes out of the amplifier? Best to check with an analog DC voltmeter. If the signal is fully symmetric and has the correct "neutral" output between the periods of shaker operation (and if each period is itself DC-free) then the meter needle should not visibly move away from zero (it would vibrate in place, but not move on average).

Regards

P.S. Of course it's clear that the shaker does not produce thrust. I did not imply any such thing or belief  ;)

But it's easy to introduce a DC offset in the drive circuitry - either with each pulse or in the time between the pulses. The effect on the measurement of such a mistake would be enormous, orders of magnitude more than the effect you were testing for (mechanical nonlinearities in the materials when subject to vibration), and it would easily dwarf such nonlinearities in comparison if it happened.

P.P.S. If the meter needle makes a (visible) swing in opposite directions at the start and end of each pulse (of each period of operation) then something is clearly wrong with the DC offset difference between operation and non-operation.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 12/09/2017 01:29 pm
Can you check this: what is the average voltage that comes out of the amplifier? Best to check with an analog DC voltmeter. If the signal is fully symmetric and has the correct "neutral" output between the periods of shaker operation (and if each period is itself DC-free) then the meter needle should not visibly move away from zero (it would vibrate in place, but not move on average).

This is something I can easily check. And if present, I can compensate for it by adjusting the bias of the waveform in software rather than requiring physical biasing. That is much exaggerated in the image below to illustrate.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: xyzzy on 12/09/2017 02:18 pm
This is something I can easily check. And if present, I can compensate for it by adjusting the bias of the waveform in software rather than requiring physical biasing. That is much exaggerated in the image below to illustrate.

Please do. And if you happen to find anything strange, please also check the code logic for simple configuration mistakes - like forgetting to output a "neutral" 50% duty PWM (or to set a DAC to an appropriate "neutral" value) between output pulses (or generating the output pulses themselves with a wrong midpoint in amplitude). Note that some "hard" cases of such code mistakes cannot be completely compensated in the waveform offset (e.g. when the compensation would have required the output to go below a power supply rail).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 12/09/2017 03:56 pm
Can you check this: what is the average voltage that comes out of the amplifier? Best to check with an analog DC voltmeter. If the signal is fully symmetric and has the correct "neutral" output between the periods of shaker operation (and if each period is itself DC-free) then the meter needle should not visibly move away from zero (it would vibrate in place, but not move on average).

This is something I can easily check. And if present, I can compensate for it by adjusting the bias of the waveform in software rather than requiring physical biasing. That is much exaggerated in the image below to illustrate.

If your chirp is shifting the frequency, to avoid a DC offset you must maintain the same Volt-seconds in each half cycle. The period should only change like a staircase, shift some Hz ONLY after 1 complete cycle, not a continuous ramp. Otherwise, the DC will be inherent in the chirp input.

I know this because it's what causes transformer saturation in DC to AC Inverters that use power transformers. DC offset of the AC output when adjusting frequency can be a big problem and has to be accounted for in the design.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 12/12/2017 08:14 am
Can you check this: what is the average voltage that comes out of the amplifier? Best to check with an analog DC voltmeter. If the signal is fully symmetric and has the correct "neutral" output between the periods of shaker operation (and if each period is itself DC-free) then the meter needle should not visibly move away from zero (it would vibrate in place, but not move on average).

This is something I can easily check. And if present, I can compensate for it by adjusting the bias of the waveform in software rather than requiring physical biasing. That is much exaggerated in the image below to illustrate.

Jamie, did you try using a mix of sin and square (or trapezoidal) waves ?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 12/12/2017 11:51 am
Jamie, did you try using a mix of sin and square (or trapezoidal) waves ?

I am not sure how to go about creating a waveform shaped like that. My guess is it would have characteristics between the sine and square. Sine waves are the least energetic of the three from what I can tell. It's a gentler shake compared to square and sawtooth waves of equal magnitude.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 12/12/2017 02:15 pm

I am not sure how to go about creating a waveform shaped like that. My guess is it would have characteristics between the sin and square. Sin waves are the least energetic of the three from what I can tell. It's a gentler shake compared to square and sawtooth waves of equal magnitude.

Monomorphic, symmetrical waveforms with no DC does not guarantee symmetrical movements. Your voice coil works with a magnetic field, usually generated by permanent magnets. The field strengths usually are not equal on different side of the coil rest position. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 12/13/2017 04:16 pm
Jamie, did you try using a mix of sin and square (or trapezoidal) waves ?

I am not sure how to go about creating a waveform shaped like that. My guess is it would have characteristics between the sine and square. Sine waves are the least energetic of the three from what I can tell. It's a gentler shake compared to square and sawtooth waves of equal magnitude.

I have a full recording studio and can generate any waveform you might need.  Let me know frequency, any dF/dt, and waveshape and I'll see if I can help out.

-- Emory
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Stormbringer on 12/13/2017 05:59 pm
Jamie, did you try using a mix of sin and square (or trapezoidal) waves ?

I am not sure how to go about creating a waveform shaped like that. My guess is it would have characteristics between the sine and square. Sine waves are the least energetic of the three from what I can tell. It's a gentler shake compared to square and sawtooth waves of equal magnitude.

I have a full recording studio and can generate any waveform you might need.  Let me know frequency, any dF/dt, and waveshape and I'll see if I can help out.

-- Emory
The mischievous part of me wants to know if the following frequency pattern equals warp drive when used as driver frequencies for an EM drive or MET Drive? Its the voyager pulsar map coordinates for earth from Voyager's gold record with the map pulsar frequencies or harmonics thereof along with three vocal synthesizers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZYS98GrqQU

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 12/13/2017 07:19 pm
How about the Polish guys? Are they still having positive results?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 12/13/2017 09:13 pm
How about the Polish guys? Are they still having positive results?

They are in the process of upgrading their test rig for the next level of the competition. My understanding is they are currently trying to find a second-hand laser displacement sensor (LDS) in Poland with decent stats. They are also considering switching from a teeter-totter to a torsional pendulum, but I do not think they have made the final decision.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 12/15/2017 09:31 pm
The on-board PC has audio functionality, but it is "audio over HDMI." The signal is digital, not analog. This is why I originally went with an arduino as it can output an, albeit low quality, analog signal directly. The arduino is not only tedious, but also redundant since I already have a much more sophisticated on-board computer.

I had to use an HDMI audio extractor and display emulator so that I can use the computer to generate the signals. These signals are much higher quality than what the arduino can handle.  I also upgraded the 3W amplifier to 25W :D   

I would be further along but I got a stomach bug last week and then it snowed a bunch. But these upgrades should allow me to finish testing with the asymmetric shaker more quickly as now I can send any signal I wish at will without having to save to microSD.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: zellerium on 12/17/2017 05:31 pm
Hi all,

I wanted to publish my collected EM Drive report that I finished back in Dec 2015 on arXiv but realized I need an endorsement from someone who already has publications. Is anyone willing to endorse me?

Attached is the collected report, nothing has been updated since I finished it. Hopefully someone can find something useful in there!

Thanks,

Kurt

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 12/18/2017 12:41 am
Hi all,

I wanted to publish my collected EM Drive report that I finished back in Dec 2015 on arXiv but realized I need an endorsement from someone who already has publications. Is anyone willing to endorse me?

Attached is the collected report, nothing has been updated since I finished it. Hopefully someone can find something useful in there!

Thanks,

Kurt

Ability to endorse expires in 6 months. So I can not endorse you. But you can do as follows: browse current papers of your target field (I used pop-ph), find somebody who has the endorsement ability, directly send an endorsement request to him/her. Follow that request with an email with your paper attached. Often that person will just endorse you. If you do not hear back from him in 1 or 2 days, ask somebody else. Good luck!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 12/18/2017 01:46 am
Hi all,

I wanted to publish my collected EM Drive report that I finished back in Dec 2015 on arXiv but realized I need an endorsement from someone who already has publications. Is anyone willing to endorse me?

Attached is the collected report, nothing has been updated since I finished it. Hopefully someone can find something useful in there!

Thanks,

Kurt

Ability to endorse expires in 6 months. So I can not endorse you. But you can do as follows: browse current papers of your target field (I used pop-ph), find somebody who has the endorsement ability, directly send an endorsement request to him/her. Follow that request with an email with your paper attached. Often that person will just endorse you. If you do not hear back from him in 1 or 2 days, ask somebody else. Good luck!

Looks like a very thorough piece of work, Kurt.

But if the ability to endors expires in 6 months, this one expired a few days ago: https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.04999
I will check Tuesday, I will probably be fully occupied in the coming day.

Ch.. Peter
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 12/20/2017 10:25 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 12/20/2017 11:37 pm
https://www.ted.com/talks/adam_grant_the_surprising_habits_of_original_thinkers/transcript

Taking a break is good for creativity.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 12/21/2017 03:38 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg)

I'm waiting for more research in the metamaterials field to mature. While progress is being made most of it focuses on single layered materials which are a weak analogy to the EM Drive. Funding and time constraints drive the world but we watch keenly from the shadows regardless.

Chins up,
L.A.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: moreno7798 on 12/22/2017 12:25 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg)

Is that a modified version of EM Drive?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: covfefe on 12/22/2017 11:04 am
From what I understand, EMdrive requires a high-Q cavity. But then I read about designs using dielectrics. Don't dielectrics suffer from a loss, increasing with frequency, which would cause the Q to be low? Also, I see designs using Magnetrons. Aren't these very unstable and noisy, RF-wise? Also, Magnetrons have a low life-span as compared to transistors, with a lifespan of 2,000 hours or so, and this can be drastically shortened by abuse which reflects energy back into the Magnetron, such as a poorly tuned cavity. So they seem like a potential source of trouble. I think that using transistors is a better idea. These design issues are what I saw on Zeller and Kraft's paper which was recently posted here.

Elsewhere, I am not sure if it was on this forum or not, I saw the suggestion of using graphene as the RF surface (coated on top of a structural material) because it is an excellent conductor. But doesn't it absorb microwaves?

Regards
C. O'Vfefe
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 12/22/2017 03:06 pm
I'm not sure the chirp characteristics of the emitter on this cavity are conducive to MACH effect thrust generation...

 ::)

Wishing everyone a very Merry Christmas!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg)

Is that a modified version of EM Drive?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 12/22/2017 08:37 pm
From what I understand, EMdrive requires a high-Q cavity. But then I read about designs using dielectrics. Don't dielectrics suffer from a loss, increasing with frequency, which would cause the Q to be low? Also, I see designs using Magnetrons. Aren't these very unstable and noisy, RF-wise? Also, Magnetrons have a low life-span as compared to transistors, with a lifespan of 2,000 hours or so, and this can be drastically shortened by abuse which reflects energy back into the Magnetron, such as a poorly tuned cavity. So they seem like a potential source of trouble. I think that using transistors is a better idea. These design issues are what I saw on Zeller and Kraft's paper which was recently posted here.

Elsewhere, I am not sure if it was on this forum or not, I saw the suggestion of using graphene as the RF surface (coated on top of a structural material) because it is an excellent conductor. But doesn't it absorb microwaves?

Regards
C. O'Vfefe

I think I can safely answer "yes" to most of your questions and propositions.
Peter
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: R.W. Keyes on 12/24/2017 03:45 pm


From what I understand, EMdrive requires a high-Q cavity. But then I read about designs using dielectrics. Don't dielectrics suffer from a loss, increasing with frequency, which would cause the Q to be low? Also, I see designs using Magnetrons. Aren't these very unstable and noisy, RF-wise? Also, Magnetrons have a low life-span as compared to transistors, with a lifespan of 2,000 hours or so, and this can be drastically shortened by abuse which reflects energy back into the Magnetron, such as a poorly tuned cavity. So they seem like a potential source of trouble. I think that using transistors is a better idea. These design issues are what I saw on Zeller and Kraft's paper which was recently posted here.

Elsewhere, I am not sure if it was on this forum or not, I saw the suggestion of using graphene as the RF surface (coated on top of a structural material) because it is an excellent conductor. But doesn't it absorb microwaves?

Regards
C. O'Vfefe

I think I can safely answer "yes" to most of your questions and propositions.
Peter

I used to have some hope for magnetrons, because they are a cheap way of generating high power. I didn't know about the small service life, though I did know they could be damaged. I've seen microwave ovens with very nice spectrums, and some with horrible spectrums. There are ways to reactively clean-up the signal by varying voltage, but I've since abandoned the magnetron in favor of the amplified output of a SDR (software defined radio) used as a signal source, which is the amplified. Since the SDR can also be used to test the resonant frequency of the cavity, I figure than I can switch between measuring resonance and transmitting the power signal, adjusting for any resonance change due to heat deformation.

Do ALL dielectrics show loss at 'useful' frequencies? Maybe there is some unknown dielectric that doesn't exhibit these principles.

IMHO, any copper frustum is useful just to model resonance, because the resistance is just too high, and this will cause heating. The cavity really needs to be superconducting. The problem is the difficulty working with superconductors. A 'metallic' superconductor, easy to machine, is MgB2. While for such 'traditional' superconductors it has a high critical temperature of 39K, this is still too low to be easily achievable. Meanwhile, 'high temperature' superconductors, which can be adequately cooled with liquid nitrogen (YBCO and BSCCO) are ceramics and difficult to form into a frustum. My thoughts now are that my own knowledge of how to fabricate cuprate semiconductors is limited, so I'd be better off working with MgB2 and dealing with the trouble and expense of deep-cryonics, while keeping an eye on progress in high-temperature superconductor fabrication because that's what the practical exploitation of the EMdrive effect will use. But my work is stalled by economic considerations at this time.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: mikegem on 12/26/2017 12:14 am
Magnetrons routinely have longer MTBFs than 2,000 hours. I've had 2.45GHz maggies last >10K hours at full (2kW) power into well-behaved loads. 915MHz maggies have run at 50kW 15K hours for me, again in well-matched systems.

If you're willing to derate power by 50% or so, you can readily get 8K hours out of most oven microwave magnetrons, even in loads that aren't so well matched. Think running the nominal 1kW tube at 500W. There are air-cooled 2.45 GHz tubes that run at 2kW nominal, and could run for several K hours at 800 - 1000W.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: R.W. Keyes on 12/26/2017 04:05 am
Magnetrons routinely have longer MTBFs than 2,000 hours. I've had 2.45GHz maggies last >10K hours at full (2kW) power into well-behaved loads. 915MHz maggies have run at 50kW 15K hours for me, again in well-matched systems.

If you're willing to derate power by 50% or so, you can readily get 8K hours out of most oven microwave magnetrons, even in loads that aren't so well matched. Think running the nominal 1kW tube at 500W. There are air-cooled 2.45 GHz tubes that run at 2kW nominal, and could run for several K hours at 800 - 1000W.

Perhaps there's a difference in quality between the magnetrons used in cheap microwave ovens, and those used, for instance, in radar. If the load in a microwave oven is the food, in certainly changes, and this might account for the quoted short service life. The only reference I can find to the 2,000 hr lifetime is from a company that is selling transistors to replace magnetrons for heating, so they may have just picked the best sounding number for their advertisements. COVFEFE, what is your source for the 2,000 hr service life?

Derating, yes, that makes sense. Does running a magnetron at a lower than spec'd power improve its signal purity?

When using a superconducting cavity, there is the danger of imperfect resonance and other factors creating heat which, if not removed quickly, can 'quench' the superconductor, leading it to be non-conductive with a high EM load to dump, and KABLOOM! Cavity wrecked, and magnetron either outright destroyed or its service life lessened.  So, it makes sense to chill as far as is practical beyond the critical temperature, and quickly pump up cooling while cutting input power, and taking it offline for diagnostics. For this reason, a low-temperature superconductor such as niobium creates a real problem because there's not many degrees kelvin between ground state and it's superconductive state. MgB2 is better in this regard, but it's still not as good as the HTS (cuprates, etc).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 12/27/2017 02:53 pm
Btw, this must have been the quietest weeks of the EmDrive threads since they were established.
The coming year must be the year of truth, I think. Several government labs are involved now. Martin Tajmar of the TU Dresden for instance will probably have results to report. The Naval Research lab is probably already doing experiments. A couple of home builders, like Monomorphic and myself, will have results next year.
So, if the situation (the answer to whether the EmDrive generates an anomalous force or not) is still as vague as it is now next Christmas, we should be asking ourselves some critical questions.

All the best, Peter
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Eusa on 12/27/2017 05:03 pm
I already have my conclusions: artefacts all the way.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 12/27/2017 09:09 pm
I already have my conclusions: artefacts all the way.
And this forum is still interesting for you to follow?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: R.W. Keyes on 12/27/2017 10:33 pm
I already have my conclusions: artefacts all the way.
It's great that you have come to a decision of great personal importance. Now, you have to go back and tailor the facts, conjectures, experimental output, and experimental design to agree with your viewpoints. I've heard it's lots more fun than science is!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 12/27/2017 10:40 pm
New Emdrive crowd fund project that includes a familiar face from here:  http://emdriveteam.com/

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 12/27/2017 11:10 pm
I already have my conclusions: artefacts all the way.
It's great that you have come to a decision of great personal importance. Now, you have to go back and tailor the facts, conjectures, experimental output, and experimental design to agree with your viewpoints. I've heard it's lots more fun than science is!

There's really no need to be defensive about it; EM Drive will stand on its own merits, or it will fall on its own merits.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 12/27/2017 11:37 pm
Something I've been pondering over is that it makes sense to me (I think) that a massive object can have an infinite change in acceleration yet still have a finite acceleration and a finite velocity. Does that make sense?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 12/27/2017 11:50 pm
I'm not sure the chirp characteristics of the emitter on this cavity are conducive to MACH effect thrust generation...

 ::)

Wishing everyone a very Merry Christmas!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg)

Is that a modified version of EM Drive?

Interesting reading about how structural coloring and diffraction gratings work in nature. I don't think it applies to grasshoppers crickets though, but it does to other periodic structures found in beetle wings and peacocks.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_coloration
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction_grating
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: masterharper1082 on 12/28/2017 12:22 am
Something I've been pondering over is that it makes sense to me (I think) that a massive object can have an infinite change in acceleration yet still have a finite acceleration and a finite velocity. Does that make sense?
Perhaps in the sense of the Dirac Delta Function (an impulse)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_delta_function?wprov=sfla1

mh
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 12/28/2017 01:16 am
https://www.quora.com/If-we-place-a-laser-in-space-away-from-Earths-gravity-and-point-it-towards-an-observatory-on-Earth-can-we-somehow-see-the-time-dilation-effect

I see a symmetry here. If you have a gravitational body which causes observers to disagree about the frequency of the laser, then the symmetry is that if you have two lasers of different frequency interfering, then you should see an acceleration.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: oyzw on 12/28/2017 04:02 am
Sources say the satellite, which carries the emdrive of Chen yue, has been changing its orbit for a year.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 12/28/2017 11:36 am
I already have my conclusions: artefacts all the way.
It's great that you have come to a decision of great personal importance. Now, you have to go back and tailor the facts, conjectures, experimental output, and experimental design to agree with your viewpoints. I've heard it's lots more fun than science is!
It is common practice in politics.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 12/28/2017 01:29 pm
Sources say the satellite, which carries the emdrive of Chen yue, has been changing its orbit for a year.

"Sources". Unverifiable rumours.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Notsosureofit on 12/28/2017 03:10 pm
https://www.quora.com/If-we-place-a-laser-in-space-away-from-Earths-gravity-and-point-it-towards-an-observatory-on-Earth-can-we-somehow-see-the-time-dilation-effect

I see a symmetry here. If you have a gravitational body which causes observers to disagree about the frequency of the laser, then the symmetry is that if you have two lasers of different frequency interfering, then you should see an acceleration.

See:  http://emdrive.wiki/@notsosureofit_Hypothesis
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 12/28/2017 04:33 pm
I already have my conclusions: artefacts all the way.
It's great that you have come to a decision of great personal importance. Now, you have to go back and tailor the facts, conjectures, experimental output, and experimental design to agree with your viewpoints. I've heard it's lots more fun than science is!

There's really no need to be defensive about it; EM Drive will stand on its own merits, or it will fall on its own merits.

That's the ideal but the process can be quite messy, sometimes unnecessarily so, when real people with all their faults and biases are involved. We simply don't have enough information at the present time to make definitive judgments. Those who do make acceptance harder even when better evidence does come forth. Facts win out in the end but that can be delayed when hard attitudes form early on. So, some defensiveness is called for.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 12/28/2017 07:07 pm
Quote
The Committee of the Royal Aeronautical Society’s Space Group (chairman: Philip Davies FRAeS) has followed the controversy since at least 2005 when Roger Shawyer sought to publish an EmDrive paper in the Society’s The Aeronautical Journal. The Committee responded to the current situation with the following statement:

“Much time has been spent by many parties reviewing the claims of propellantless propulsion despite an apparent lack of reproducible results. The issue with all of these ‘thrusters’ is the lack of theoretical background to them, with each proponent claiming their own to be obvious and sound, yet with none of them agreeing. This was not how the jet engine was developed and is not how the Sabre hypersonic air-breathing engine is being developed by Reaction Engines (see AEROSPACE September 2013, p 39).

If the developers of such devices want to be taken more seriously, it’s incumbent upon them to allow greater scrutiny of their experiments or to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that they have something that works. We note the reluctance of the proponents to publish detailed results which is a barrier to acceptance by the scientific community and we support the AIAA in publishing a peer-reviewed paper on the subject. The lack of acceptance by the mainstream propulsion community will not change without a more open sharing of results and proofs, as well as a rigorous theoretical underpinning. We therefore encourage the inventors to facilitate the creation of a far stronger evidential basis – perhaps with the Society providing an impartial forum for this.”

by

Rob Coppinger
3 February 2017
Royal Aeronautical Society

https://www.aerosociety.com/news/flights-of-fancy/



Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: bad_astra on 12/29/2017 06:47 am
Sources say the satellite, which carries the emdrive of Chen yue, has been changing its orbit for a year.

That could probably be verified by observation, depending on what satellite it is. In what way is it changing its orbit? Inclination? Altitude? Does it have any other propulsion system that could be the source of the delta v?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: R.W. Keyes on 12/29/2017 02:42 pm
I already have my conclusions: artefacts all the way.
It's great that you have come to a decision of great personal importance. Now, you have to go back and tailor the facts, conjectures, experimental output, and experimental design to agree with your viewpoints. I've heard it's lots more fun than science is!
It is common practice in politics.
Indeed it is. But I hope that's not what we're devolving into.

I want to add, that there is an almost equally unscientific approach in believing the EMdrive works, and discounting any evidence to the contrary. It isn't as bad, though, because while the former 'artefacts' approach seeks to quash all further research into the effect, the latter will keep on trying, damn the weather, and might actually find something.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: R.W. Keyes on 12/29/2017 02:43 pm
Some of us were put on this Earth in order to get off of it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 12/29/2017 05:09 pm
Quote
The Committee of the Royal Aeronautical Society’s Space Group (chairman: Philip Davies FRAeS) has followed the controversy since at least 2005 when Roger Shawyer sought to publish an EmDrive paper in the Society’s The Aeronautical Journal. The Committee responded to the current situation with the following statement:

“Much time has been spent by many parties reviewing the claims of propellantless propulsion despite an apparent lack of reproducible results. The issue with all of these ‘thrusters’ is the lack of theoretical background to them, with each proponent claiming their own to be obvious and sound, yet with none of them agreeing. This was not how the jet engine was developed and is not how the Sabre hypersonic air-breathing engine is being developed by Reaction Engines (see AEROSPACE September 2013, p 39).

If the developers of such devices want to be taken more seriously, it’s incumbent upon them to allow greater scrutiny of their experiments or to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that they have something that works. We note the reluctance of the proponents to publish detailed results which is a barrier to acceptance by the scientific community and we support the AIAA in publishing a peer-reviewed paper on the subject. The lack of acceptance by the mainstream propulsion community will not change without a more open sharing of results and proofs, as well as a rigorous theoretical underpinning. We therefore encourage the inventors to facilitate the creation of a far stronger evidential basis – perhaps with the Society providing an impartial forum for this.”

by

Rob Coppinger
3 February 2017
Royal Aeronautical Society

https://www.aerosociety.com/news/flights-of-fancy/

Quote
The issue with all of these ‘thrusters’ is the lack of theoretical background to them, with each proponent claiming their own to be obvious and sound, yet with none of them agreeing.

No, it's not. The issue is whether or not the data is reliable not whether it can be explained or by whom.

Quote
This was not how the jet engine was developed and is not how the Sabre hypersonic air-breathing engine is being developed by Reaction Engines

Say what? Irrelevant! Are they proposing a secret government program?

Quote
If the developers of such devices want to be taken more seriously, it’s incumbent upon them to allow greater scrutiny of their experiments or to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that they have something that works

Taken seriously by whom? Does the Royal Aeronautical Society claim to speak for the whole community of engineers and scientists who may be interested? I wonder just what they think people are trying to do?

This statement appears to question not only EMDrive but also all propellent-less propulsion work which includes the Mach effect work.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 12/29/2017 05:27 pm

Taken seriously by whom? Does the Royal Aeronautical Society claim to speak for the whole community of engineers and scientists who may be interested? I wonder just what they think people are trying to do?

This statement appears to question not only EMDrive but also all propellent-less propulsion work which includes the Mach effect work.

There surely are something common between them.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 12/29/2017 05:36 pm

Taken seriously by whom? Does the Royal Aeronautical Society claim to speak for the whole community of engineers and scientists who may be interested? I wonder just what they think people are trying to do?

This statement appears to question not only EMDrive but also all propellent-less propulsion work which includes the Mach effect work.

There surely are something common between them.

Yes, they each have a discussion thread on this site. Add the opposition of many armchair critics.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 12/29/2017 05:54 pm

Taken seriously by whom? Does the Royal Aeronautical Society claim to speak for the whole community of engineers and scientists who may be interested? I wonder just what they think people are trying to do?

This statement appears to question not only EMDrive but also all propellent-less propulsion work which includes the Mach effect work.

There surely are something common between them.

Yes, they each have a discussion thread on this site. Add the opposition of many armchair critics.

How about, they both do not work?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 12/29/2017 06:04 pm

Taken seriously by whom? Does the Royal Aeronautical Society claim to speak for the whole community of engineers and scientists who may be interested? I wonder just what they think people are trying to do?

This statement appears to question not only EMDrive but also all propellent-less propulsion work which includes the Mach effect work.

There surely are something common between them.

Yes, they each have a discussion thread on this site. Add the opposition of many armchair critics.

How about, they both do not work?

So, is that your position?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 12/30/2017 12:52 am
The EM Drive still holds a roster of suitable mainstream explanations while the Mach Effect is singular and theoretically incomplete and experimentally unproven if not dubious to be quite frank (note here that this is my personal opinion). Equating them or comparing them is valid only if you enjoy using the affect bias or a few other cognitive biases (feel free to pause reading and search for a list of cognitive biases to refresh your memory) to motivate and frame your arguments.

Regarding proof so far a little reminder is in order...

For thrust measurements with low SNR we can't draw hard conclusions one way or another. As we perform experiments and identify error sources however, we can learn and integrate the practical lessons into better design and more rigorous analysis. A near perfect irrefutable experiment exists: we just lack the resources and the imagination to perform it. If a reader has access to, say, a heavily shielded test site with excellent ambient conditions and the budget to apply the best practices including supercooling and a refractive wall material (multiple theories on the wall - I will not be repeating them) showing an ideal high peak  TE013(or 3+) field pattern density, and corresponding axial energy asymmetry, then we are done with these initial threads as soon as it confirms thrust to a high confidence level. Any experiment not following all of the best practices is flawed and will serve as diatribe material for those who genuinely care about empirical proof. Since we are not expecting a constant stream of academic papers or CERN-like endeavours, skepticism is warranted for as long as we engage in DIY experiments light on accompanying statistics and methodology. Calculate or estimate your SNR and sensitivity if you want skeptics to shut up!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Augmentor on 12/30/2017 04:03 pm
The EM Drive still holds a roster of suitable mainstream explanations while the Mach Effect is singular and theoretically incomplete and experimentally unproven if not dubious to be quite frank (note here that this is my personal opinion). Equating them or comparing them is valid only if you enjoy using the affect bias or a few other cognitive biases (feel free to pause reading and search for a list of cognitive biases to refresh your memory) to motivate and frame your arguments.

Regarding proof so far a little reminder is in order...

For thrust measurements with low SNR we can't draw hard conclusions one way or another. As we perform experiments and identify error sources however, we can learn and integrate the practical lessons into better design and more rigorous analysis. A near perfect irrefutable experiment exists: we just lack the resources and the imagination to perform it. If a reader has access to, say, a heavily shielded test site with excellent ambient conditions and the budget to apply the best practices including supercooling and a refractive wall material (multiple theories on the wall - I will not be repeating them) showing an ideal high peak  TE013(or 3+) field pattern density, and corresponding axial energy asymmetry, then we are done with these initial threads as soon as it confirms thrust to a high confidence level. Any experiment not following all of the best practices is flawed and will serve as diatribe material for those who genuinely care about empirical proof.

Since we are not expecting a constant stream of academic papers or CERN-like endeavours, skepticism is warranted for as long as we engage in DIY experiments light on accompanying statistics and methodology. Calculate or estimate your SNR and sensitivity if you want skeptics to shut up!

An amusing analysis since nothing will end skeptictical speculations or playing Devil's advocate especially curmudgeons. Here are some notes ...



The Mach effect has been verified by three different labs in countries other than the US. Mach effects have been out of the noise for at least three years with SNR and sensitivity being improved. While some folks would like to achieve the nobel goal of high SNR and sensitivity, let's be serious. Low thrust units become an element in a large array so practical applications are within reach.

High SNR suggests amplification to at least mN levels where thrust measurements can be done by most any university lab or garage shop operation.  High sensitivity can be interpreted two ways: the ability to repeat and hold a thrust setting as well as the ability to perform thrust throttling. In an array, both are required. Ideally, one might be able to set and forget "cruise control" or "position hold" aka hover. In reality, drift compensation will be required at both the element and array level.

The emDrive experimental results may possibly be a Mach effect. However, the plethora of emDrive theories far exceeds any basis in physics and often borders on speculation and wishful thinking. General Relativity is a theory which at last count has survived over 100 years with at least 102 theories that have failed to replace GR. Mach effects stand on solid ground theoretically although engineers need more direction than has been provided, a condition that exists for the emDrive as well.

For space drive theory, mainstream physics is defined by General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. For field drives aka space drive, any approach needs to consider the following theories and how such theory may apply.

1. Mach effect theory
2. Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory
3. Transactional Interpretation of quantum mechanics
4. Pair creation, particularly the oscillation between photon and  electron/positron states
5. Quantum Field Theory

The Transactional Interpretation solves many of the issues of the Copenhagen Interpretation and even the Bohmian Interpretation. John Cramer's book, The Quantum Handshake, provides the extent of Transactional Interpretation; Ruth Kastler's book add quantum field theory in a speculative way.

 As John Cramer questioned in his "Alternate Views" column AV-173 in Analog,

                              "Is it space drive time?"


Your spacetime, theory, evidence and opinion may vary...


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: john smith 19 on 12/30/2017 04:32 pm
An amusing analysis since nothing will end skeptictical speculations or playing Devil's advocate especially curmudgeons. Here are some notes ...
Indeed. As always there are skeptics and Doubters.  Skeptics can be won round by better (and more transparent) experimental methods. Doubters will always doubt anything  until it's actually happened, even if you can explain a solid chain of logic from here to the finish line.

Quote from: Augmentor
The Mach effect has been verified by three different labs in countries other than the US. Mach effects have been out of the noise for at least three years with SNR and sensitivity being improved. While some folks would like to achieve the nobel goal of high SNR and sensitivity, let's be serious. Low thrust units become an element in a large array so practical applications are within reach.

High SNR suggests amplification to at least mN levels where thrust measurements can be done by most any university lab or garage shop operation.  High sensitivity can be interpreted two ways: the ability to repeat and hold a thrust setting as well as the ability to perform thrust throttling. In an array, both are required. Ideally, one might be able to set and forget "cruise control" or "position hold" aka hover. In reality, drift compensation will be required at both the element and array level.

The emDrive experimental results may possibly be a Mach effect. However, the plethora of emDrive theories far exceeds any basis in physics and often borders on speculation and wishful thinking. General Relativity is a theory which at last count has survived over 100 years with at least 102 theories that have failed to replace GR. Mach effects stand on solid ground theoretically although engineers need more direction than has been provided, a condition that exists for the emDrive as well.
There is of course a way to test all theories.

While the effect is slight over a very long journey in space if it's real it should appear.

It seems what's needed is a prize.

First EM Drive powered cubesat to Jupiter and back. $10m prize.  2nd or 3rd prize as well?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 12/30/2017 04:33 pm
The Mach effect has been verified by three different labs in countries other than the US.

I only know of Buldrini (Germany) and Tajmar (Austria). Of those two I have seen Buldrini's trace measurements. Woodward measured ~1uN, while Buldrini measured ~0.15uN. Are Tajmar's replication efforts a solid verification? Perhaps he had measurements at the latest conference in LA that have yet to be published?

Which is the third lab?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 12/30/2017 05:08 pm
The Mach effect has been verified by three different labs in countries other than the US.

I only know of Buldrini (Germany) and Tajmar (Austria). Of those two I have seen Buldrini's trace measurements. Woodward measured ~1uN, while Buldrini measured ~0.15uN. Are Tajmar's replication efforts a solid verification? Perhaps he had measurements at the latest conference in LA that have yet to be published?

Which is the third lab?

George Hathaway in Canada.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 12/30/2017 05:26 pm
George Hathaway in Canada.

Thanks. He wasn't listed on Heidi's NIAC presentation in September. If he has "verified" Woodward, I would be curious to see the measurements. Likewise with Tajmar.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 12/30/2017 06:02 pm
George Hathaway in Canada.

Thanks. He wasn't listed on Heidi's NIAC presentation in September. If he has "verified" Woodward, I would be curious to see the measurements. Likewise with Tajmar.
Correct, because this is the way that Hathaway wants to be quoted:

Quote from: Hathaway
"Using a sub-microNewton torsion balance of novel design, I have measured thrusts from a Woodward thruster in the range of 0.1 - 0.2 uN under forepump vacuum conditions at a voltage of 200Vp-p. However, these measurements were near the limit of resolution of the balance and even though most spurious influences had been taken into account, it was still possible that the thrusts observed were due to artificial forces."


For a literature source of Hathaway, Tajmar and Buldrini measurements, please see the Estes workshop articles by them in: http://ssi.org/2016-breakthrough-propulsion-proceedings/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 12/30/2017 07:07 pm
For a literature source of Hathaway, Tajmar and Buldrini measurements, please see the Estes workshop articles by them in: http://ssi.org/2016-breakthrough-propulsion-proceedings/

This is all I can find for Tajmar in the SSI literature: "First tests show thrust values in the sub-µN range, however, balance calibration, thermal drifts and power feeding line interactions are still under investigation before our first test campaign will be finalized." 

Were Tajmar's finalized results published at the recent Aerospace/SSI sponsored workshop and did he show any data?




Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 12/30/2017 07:32 pm
For a literature source of Hathaway, Tajmar and Buldrini measurements, please see the Estes workshop articles by them in: http://ssi.org/2016-breakthrough-propulsion-proceedings/

This is all I can find for Tajmar in the SSI literature: "First tests show thrust values in the sub-µN range, however, balance calibration, thermal drifts and power feeding line interactions are still under investigation before our first test campaign will be finalized." 

Were Tajmar's finalized results published at the recent Aerospace/SSI sponsored workshop and did he show any data?
Tajmar showed some new experimental data on the Woodward piezoelectric device as well as Finite Element analysis using ANSYS at the workshop at Aerospace Corp. but he wants to be quoted as that this is still a topic of research, he has several PhD students working on it and  a new balance with new foundation to address a number of issues.  My recollection is that Tajmar said that what is important for the future is to demonstrate at least a full revolution and not just a small displacement.    Tajmar also gave a talk at the Raumfahrt symposium in Nov 2017 ( http://www.nawi-zw.de/events/kalender.html ) , where the audience is usually mostly local students. I understand that he did not present anything new with respect to Aerospace Corp. workshop, which is understandable, since the presentations were less than a month apart. I would expect that his group would have newer results to present at the space propulsion conference in Sevilla, Spain in May 2018 ( http://spacepropulsion2018.com/ ).  Hope that SSI will post the Aerospace Corp. workshop videos soon, so that Tajmar's presentation at Aerospace Corp. workshop can be heard and seen so that people can make their own judgement on the state of affairs ...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Amit on 12/31/2017 07:19 am
https://neolegesmotus.wordpress.com/2017/12/05/more-experimental-evidences-about-pnn-inertia/

Sergio was contributing to this thread if I remember correctly.........
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: john smith 19 on 12/31/2017 08:35 am
To add a couple of data points for a cubesat test vehicle.

This shows a fairly comprehensive chart of various PV cells and their efficiencies  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin-film_solar_cell#/media/File:Best_Research-Cell_Efficiencies.png)

A figure of 14% for thin film and 22% for rigid types (both without using concentrators for simplicity)
would require 5.26 and 3.35 m^2 of solar cells in Earth orbit,  assuming AM0 at 1360W/m^2. Both numbers are within the the known SoA for a number of different cell technologies.

A 3U long test sat would therefor need to extend a panel 17.56 or 11.17m long for 1Kw of driver power.  That seems very tough, but the thin film design could be very thin, a few mils at most. That excludes losses and any control systems power needs.  You'd need to increase if you wanted to maintain thrust to say Mars.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SteveD on 01/01/2018 07:28 pm
At what point does it become cheaper to attempt a cubesat test instead of building a better terrestrial test setup?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Augmentor on 01/01/2018 08:42 pm
At what point does it become cheaper to attempt a cubesat test instead of building a better terrestrial test setup?

When one doesn't have to pay for pre-launch preparation, launch/flight insurance, launch/flight/retrieval costs, and
post-flight processing with debriefings. And the flight goes as planned.

NASA used to have a Hitchhiker program, and a Getaway special managed through the Shuttle Small Payloads Project.  Currently, Space Available and Standby flights need a government sponsor such as Darpa or NASA.

One should consider having a second device ready for cubesat testing, and a launch services option. Some private companies seem to have difficulty with rockets exploding.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: R.W. Keyes on 01/02/2018 03:44 pm
At what point does it become cheaper to attempt a cubesat test instead of building a better terrestrial test setup?

When one doesn't have to pay for pre-launch preparation, launch/flight insurance, launch/flight/retrieval costs, and
post-flight processing with debriefings. And the flight goes as planned.

NASA used to have a Hitchhiker program, and a Getaway special managed through the Shuttle Small Payloads Project.  Currently, Space Available and Standby flights need a government sponsor such as Darpa or NASA.

One should consider having a second device ready for cubesat testing, and a launch services option. Some private companies seem to have difficulty with rockets exploding.

My gut reaction is that actual usage ex-Earth is the best proof. It's very empirical, but with clashes of theories resulting in no generally accepted explanation, this type of demonstration may be the event needed in order to funnel more funds to EMdrive research. On the other hand, a failure could be devastating, giving critics enough to dismiss the EMdrive even if the failure was not related to the concept.  This brings to mind two alternative approaches. The first is a very ad-hoc, amateur/semi-pro effort such as a cubesat. Therefore, if it fails, then it can be chalked up to amateurism in the build (sorry, realpolitik). The second approach is the opposite, and more intellectually honest, and that is an a very well designed and executed professional project, which if the mission fails at least there would be adequate information on why it failed. But, I doubt that the latter will be funded any time soon. There's too much priority on 'back to the moon' or 'onwards to Mars' with rockets rather than a sideways step to test a potentially revolutionary concept which would completely change a Mars mission.

So, that leaves us with the Cubesat. Augmentor, I don't understand what you mean by 'retrieval' costs. I think of the Cubesat as anything but a satellite, but rather a simple design with no instrumentation other than on propulsion, velocity, and position. The only 'retrieval' cost would be a conventional propulsion system to de-orbit in case of complete failure, so as to not create more orbital space junk. Post-flight processing and debriefings doesn't sound very expensive. That still doesn't mean that the mission, on the whole, will not be expensive.

Expensive, but worth it. Can we start a cost-estimation?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Augmentor on 01/02/2018 07:29 pm
Retrieval costs include booster and sustainer shared costs. Flyback is becoming the standard of newspace folks.

Cubesat recovery costs may be either the cost of retrieving a cubesat including rentry all the way to earth labs for inspection and testing, or picking up the piece(s) in space i.e. cleanup.

D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 01/02/2018 10:02 pm
At what point does it become cheaper to attempt a cubesat test instead of building a better terrestrial test setup?

When one doesn't have to pay for pre-launch preparation, launch/flight insurance, launch/flight/retrieval costs, and
post-flight processing with debriefings. And the flight goes as planned.

NASA used to have a Hitchhiker program, and a Getaway special managed through the Shuttle Small Payloads Project.  Currently, Space Available and Standby flights need a government sponsor such as Darpa or NASA.

One should consider having a second device ready for cubesat testing, and a launch services option. Some private companies seem to have difficulty with rockets exploding.

Expensive, but worth it. Can we start a cost-estimation?

2nded, regarding mission control and manouever point coordination/selection plus liasoning with NORAD etc, I'm sure people here would be thrilled to participate if even only via video feed.

Best mission might be HEO with delta v being used to play around with eccentricity rather than trying to alter orbit altitude or maintain eccentricity. It could contain a tiny gyroscope or reaction wheel though this adds both power draw, complexity, and error sources. Mission end might be trying to reach escape velocity and intercepting another gravitational body. KISS applies here so a literal box with an engine in it might be best.

Rotating folding solar panels could be used in lieu of reaction wheels and to test attitudinal control. Onboard computer can also be fairly simple and tiny (could even be parasitical/integrated off the solar panel control chip or magnetron control chip). Maintaining torr pressures and controlling jetting are a primary concern so having multi functional valves on 3 sides of the cube wall and between cavities and cube wall for emergency thrust and venting might be interesting. A major issue is identifying solar weather conditions and solar wind can be difficult given the fluctuating magnetotail and periodic storms. Shielding therefore might be a major concern. Asymmetric heating will occur both inside the box and on the outside. A method to mitigate this and decrease rotational forces is to bathe the internal cavity in coolant or at the very least an inert gas (though this again introduces convection problems). Another alternative is to use a fine mesh or grating of layered thermally conductive and insulative material which should disrupt currents but still distribute heat (would also improve structural integrity). I'm thinking aerogel for the outside but SiC or some other Si compound for the inside. Boron Nitride balls might also be useful. Biradial antennas are also a must. More ideas could be developed... tempting to draw a rough sketch... also didn't this topic already get some discussion earlier? What about the Chinese satellite test or the other cubesat project from a year or so ago? The entire Dr. Yue story with the retraction and weird radio silence is strange to say the least.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: D_Dom on 01/02/2018 10:27 pm
At this point I am thinking it would be wise for all interested in a cubesat style experiment ( as I certainly am) to review TRL status of the concept and how that works during preparation for available launch vehicles.

Another thread, in May, Robotbeat had a good comment, keep in mind the number of stakeholders required to actually achieve orbit...
"...I do think there's some unnecessary ritual in the whole concept of the Technology Readiness Level formalism. It seems primarily a tool for getting multiple stakeholders to agree on whether a certain technology is mature enough for some application..."

https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/458490main_TRL_Definitions.pdf

What this means to me is quite simply, unless and until somebody has demonstrated suitable TRL no experiment will fly.

 Personally funding a launch is simply beyond my reach. YMMV
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 01/02/2018 11:49 pm
How about something very simple, powered by a LiPo battery, that does an experiment *inside* the ISS?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: MazonDel on 01/03/2018 12:59 am
How about something very simple, powered by a LiPo battery, that does an experiment *inside* the ISS?

Arguably the cost of doing this would likely exceed the cubesat costs. This is both because you now are taking Astronaut time (very valuable) but also you now need to go through extra safety checks because you are dealing with not only the ISS, but the interior of the ISS, and you want to bring RF and LiPo batteries into the mix...

Probably best to stick with a cubesat by comparison.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 01/03/2018 01:29 pm
Probably best to stick with a cubesat by comparison.

There needs to be a functioning device before there can be a cubesat. In my opinion, the next logical step (after confirmation on a torsional pendulum), is to construct a rotating test stand so that complete revolutions can be demonstrated.  This is what NASA did, but there were issues with the spherical air bearing that produced undesired results.

I've been thinking about designing a YBCO bearing that uses quantum levitation and magnetic locking effect. But then I have the problem of dealing with liquid nitrogen...


 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 01/03/2018 01:58 pm
Probably best to stick with a cubesat by comparison.

There needs to be a functioning device before there can be a cubesat. In my opinion, the next logical step (after confirmation on a torsional pendulum), is to construct a rotating test stand so that complete revolutions can be demonstrated.  This is what NASA did, but there were issues with the spherical air bearing that produced undesired results.

I've been thinking about designing a YBCO bearing that uses quantum levitation and magnetic locking effect. But then I have the problem of dealing with liquid nitrogen...

I have a design of rotary bearing that does not have the problems of air bearing or magnetic bearing. It is like this:

1. First construct a usual torsion pendulum.
2. Glue two signs to the high end and low end of the torsion wire respectively, to show their real time position/angle.
3. Mount the high end of the torsion wire to  a rotary server.
4. The rotary server rotates, controlled by computer or circuits so that the high end sign follows the low end sign, ensuring that the torsion in the wire is always very very low (for example, translate to 0.1 uN * beam_length, or 1/10 of the supposed thrust), and always to the other direction of the supposed EM-drive driven direction (drags, not drives).

This device works but documenting and video recording of the experiment is pivotal. This is because this design can be exploited if somebody wants to fake the thrust.





Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: bad_astra on 01/03/2018 04:26 pm
AMSAT has managed to keep their costs down by teaming up with universities for joint projects. AO-91 launched last year would not have been possible without that.

If a one-cube sat costs, say, $50k to orbit, combined with a university partner, I think the project could get enough crowd interest to fund it and test.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 01/03/2018 08:26 pm
AMSAT has managed to keep their costs down by teaming up with universities for joint projects. AO-91 launched last year would not have been possible without that.

If a one-cube sat costs, say, $50k to orbit, combined with a university partner, I think the project could get enough crowd interest to fund it and test.
That $50,000 AMSAT cubesat is 1U. I think 3U would be required at a minimum, including the cavity, battery, and supporting electronics. 6U or 12U would be preferable. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 01/04/2018 08:15 pm
How about something very simple, powered by a LiPo battery, that does an experiment *inside* the ISS?

Arguably the cost of doing this would likely exceed the cubesat costs. This is both because you now are taking Astronaut time (very valuable) but also you now need to go through extra safety checks because you are dealing with not only the ISS, but the interior of the ISS, and you want to bring RF and LiPo batteries into the mix...

Probably best to stick with a cubesat by comparison.
They should have Lithium-Ionen or Lithium-Polymer batteries in their laptops as well. The RF energy is trapped in case of the EM-Drive. The costs are a critical point but in respect to a possible new propulsion technology it seems worthwhile to test it there. This and similar revolutionary technologies are the reason why the space station is in place, just to check out such kind of capabilities, exploring new technologies. This guys stay there for months, it shouldn't be that hard to spend a few days with this subject to confirm or reject it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 01/04/2018 10:55 pm
...

Expensive, but worth it. Can we start a cost-estimation?

I do that for a living, and my group in NG builds some of the best cubesat hardware available.  We can handle up to about 500W of power (continuous) and a projected reliability of >80% at 3 years in single systems or way better than that with redundancy (which we also support).  That core HW, including flight software, launch costs, ground station support, and mission ops over a reasonable lifespan is on the order of $1M.
How cheap CAN you get it?  Probably <$100K but the projected reliability is in the trash can.  Satellites in this cost range have a >50% likelihood to never be heard from once deployed and will never survive deep space radiation.  Outside the Earth's magnetosphere, the radiation is HARSH.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 01/05/2018 01:20 am
...

Expensive, but worth it. Can we start a cost-estimation?

I do that for a living, and my group in NG builds some of the best cubesat hardware available.  We can handle up to about 500W of power (continuous) and a projected reliability of >80% at 3 years in single systems or way better than that with redundancy (which we also support).  That core HW, including flight software, launch costs, ground station support, and mission ops over a reasonable lifespan is on the order of $1M.
How cheap CAN you get it?  Probably <$100K but the projected reliability is in the trash can.  Satellites in this cost range have a >50% likelihood to never be heard from once deployed and will never survive deep space radiation.  Outside the Earth's magnetosphere, the radiation is HARSH.
Monomorphic built his shell on a 3-D printer, with a copper film interior. Would those kinds of thermoplastics (?) be able to be space rated?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 01/05/2018 12:54 pm
Monomorphic built his shell on a 3-D printer, with a copper film interior. Would those kinds of thermoplastics (?) be able to be space rated?

The PLA I used would out-gas in a vacuum. However, there is vacuum rated 3D printer filament available.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Phil Stooke on 01/05/2018 04:38 pm
FYI:

Acta Astronautica
Articles in Press


Comments on theoretical foundation of “EM Drive”

In Press, Accepted Manuscript, Available online 4 January 2018
C.-W. Wu
-------
Highlights

The theoretical derivation of the net thrust in “EM drive” is found to be inaccurate.

Self-contradiction in physics is found in the concept of “EM drive”.

The theoretical foundation of the “EM drive” is found to be not solid.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 01/05/2018 06:44 pm
FYI:

Acta Astronautica
Articles in Press


Comments on theoretical foundation of “EM Drive”

In Press, Accepted Manuscript, Available online 4 January 2018
C.-W. Wu
-------
Highlights

The theoretical derivation of the net thrust in “EM drive” is found to be inaccurate.

Self-contradiction in physics is found in the concept of “EM drive”.

The theoretical foundation of the “EM drive” is found to be not solid.

Here is the link:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576517317356


"Comments on theoretical foundation of “EM Drive” "
C.-W. Wu

Institute of Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, No.15 BeisihuanXi Road, Beijing 100190, China
Received 24 November 2017, Revised 29 December 2017, Accepted 4 January 2018, Available online 4 January 2018

Abstract
Quote
The concept of EM Drive has attracted much attention and groups of work have been conducted to prove or verify it, of which the published experimental outcome is criticized in great details while the theoretical foundation has not been discussed. The present essay investigates on the theoretical derivations of the net thrust in the “EM drive” and reveals the self-contradiction arising at the very start, when the law of conservation of momentum was utilized and opposed simultaneously.

pdf Article is behind $35.95 paywall

article contains one figure:  (https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/thumbimage/1-s2.0-S0094576517317356-gr1.sml)





Recall that Acta Astronautica was the peer-reviewed publication where Roger Shawyer published this article in 2015:

http://www.emdrive.com/IAC14publishedpaper.pdf

Acta Astronautica 116 (2015) 166–174

"Second generation EmDrive propulsion applied to SSTO launcher and interstellar probe"
Roger Shawyer
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Augmentor on 01/05/2018 08:51 pm
ref: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576517317356

Highlights are provided as follows:

• The theoretical derivation of the net thrust in “EM drive” is found to be inaccurate.

• Self-contradiction in physics is found in the concept of “EM drive”.

• The theoretical foundation of the “EM drive” is found to be not solid.

- end -

Now, the difficulty with any emDrive theory is that it appears to be a quantum phenomena which requires one to pick a quantum mechanic interpretation or invent a new one.

There are at least 18 major interpretations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

 and a few dozen minority interpretations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

The leading contenders are:

Copenhagen Interpretation - The standard interpretation which has a number of anomalies but has both historical traction and greatest momentum in universities.

deBroglie Bohm Interpretation - This interpretation explains a few of the anomalies. Couder's work using oil drops to demonstrate macro level effects similar to quantum effects makes this an interesting approach.Gaining momentum but falls short of being comprehensive.

Transactional Interpretation - Cramer's theory explains the most of the anomalies and is the leading interpretation. Kastner extends TI to quantum field theory (QFT). Comprehensive.

The real difficulty for emDrive theory is that the effect may be relativistic instead of quantum mechanic. Enter Mach effects especially for any closed or open cavity with dielectrics. Mach effects rely on General Relativity and parametric amplification.

Other efforts include Unruh radiation especially McCulloch and Dynamic Casimir effect. Both of which also are related to parametric amplification.

Loop quantum gravity theory combines both relativity and quantum mechanics. This theory may eventually prove to be required for any propellentless propulsion system.

In any emDrive theory, to ignore either quantum mechanics or general relativity is a rather dangerous game. Even so, one has to look at particle physics and quantum field theory to gain an appreciation and understanding of the complex processes occurring within the RF closed cavity system.

About the best anyone can do is use a Feynman diagram to explain their theory. Such a diagram would permit experiments at the particle level and permit exploring beyond photons and electrons to the quasiparticle realm of  phonons and polarons, and perhaps even Weyl fermions, massless charge quasiparticles.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 01/06/2018 12:25 am
So let's go back a couple of years in this thread and sum up: No one has proposed a complete explanation of the EM drive in a comprehensive manner that has garnered acceptance. Yet, of the results that have been published, there have been null and positive results, but replication has not been consistent. No results that I have seen rises so far above the noise floor to warrant a "Eureka" moment.

Major governments, including China, "may" be conducting in space tests, but they're not going to tell because of the national security implications. On top of that are the folks who ARE doing experiments who are fairly quiet, maybe because of concerns on protecting future economic rights.

Monomorphic, you're the one left that has been quite open and helpful but has not published a comprehensive set of results. So the Rebel Alliance of physicists and wannabe's wait.


"Help us Monomorphic, you're our only hope."  ;)


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThinkerX on 01/06/2018 03:43 am
So let's go back a couple of years in this thread and sum up: No one has proposed a complete explanation of the EM drive in a comprehensive manner that has garnered acceptance. Yet, of the results that have been published, there have been null and positive results, but replication has not been consistent. No results that I have seen rises so far above the noise floor to warrant a "Eureka" moment.

Major governments, including China, "may" be conducting in space tests, but they're not going to tell because of the national security implications. On top of that are the folks who ARE doing experiments who are fairly quiet, maybe because of concerns on protecting future economic rights.

Monomorphic, you're the one left that has been quite open and helpful but has not published a comprehensive set of results. So the Rebel Alliance of physicists and wannabe's wait.


"Help us Monomorphic, you're our only hope."  ;)

Mostly, I agree, though I continue to hold out hope that Shell will publish her research, and maybe a couple others. (Star Drive, maybe?)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 01/06/2018 04:29 am
Mostly, I agree, though I continue to hold out hope that Shell will publish her research, and maybe a couple others. (Star Drive, maybe?)
I do too. However....

One of the great strengths of this site was the open, near real time sharing of information. I think it portends a model of open discussion that could be close to a new revolution of science.

I think humans progress fastest when we openly share with each other. When the power of collaboration is shared within the offices of a great university, great things happen. When it's shared with humanity at large, I believe the attainments could rise exponentially.

Yes, the risks may be larger than the rewards. We won't know until we try.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: liang0yun on 01/06/2018 02:36 pm
...

Expensive, but worth it. Can we start a cost-estimation?

I do that for a living, and my group in NG builds some of the best cubesat hardware available.  We can handle up to about 500W of power (continuous) and a projected reliability of >80% at 3 years in single systems or way better than that with redundancy (which we also support).  That core HW, including flight software, launch costs, ground station support, and mission ops over a reasonable lifespan is on the order of $1M.
How cheap CAN you get it?  Probably <$100K but the projected reliability is in the trash can.  Satellites in this cost range have a >50% likelihood to never be heard from once deployed and will never survive deep space radiation.  Outside the Earth's magnetosphere, the radiation is HARSH.
Monomorphic built his shell on a 3-D printer, with a copper film interior. Would those kinds of thermoplastics (?) be able to be space rated?

EM引擎出现已经快20年了,尚未进入实用阶段,说明这个技术很不靠谱。
尽管如此,好多人都想自己动动手,制造一个emdrive。据说,,,能够制造出来具有推力的引擎,并且得到公认的人并不多。
那么如何制造这样一个引擎呢?有人制造过,却未能测到推力。他说费用在数万元。。。
各位大婶,,各位大神。。。
你们有没有知道怎么自行制造一个emdrive。。有没有资料。求共享。。
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 01/06/2018 04:30 pm

EM引擎出现已经快20年了,尚未进入实用阶段,说明这个技术很不靠谱。
尽管如此,好多人都想自己动动手,制造一个emdrive。据说,,,能够制造出来具有推力的引擎,并且得到公认的人并不多。
那么如何制造这样一个引擎呢?有人制造过,却未能测到推力。他说费用在数万元。。。
各位大婶,,各位大神。。。
你们有没有知道怎么自行制造一个emdrive。。有没有资料。求共享。。

Talk to oyzw. Either oyzw here or oyzw at https://lt.cjdby.net/forum-11-1.html.
Or browse monomorphic's posts here, if you can read English.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 01/06/2018 05:46 pm
ref: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576517317356

Highlights are provided as follows:

• The theoretical derivation of the net thrust in “EM drive” is found to be inaccurate.

• Self-contradiction in physics is found in the concept of “EM drive”.

• The theoretical foundation of the “EM drive” is found to be not solid.

- end -

Now, the difficulty with any emDrive theory is that it appears to be a quantum phenomena which requires one to pick a quantum mechanic interpretation or invent a new one.

There are at least 18 major interpretations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

 and a few dozen minority interpretations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

The leading contenders are:

Copenhagen Interpretation - The standard interpretation which has a number of anomalies but has both historical traction and greatest momentum in universities.

deBroglie Bohm Interpretation - This interpretation explains a few of the anomalies. Couder's work using oil drops to demonstrate macro level effects similar to quantum effects makes this an interesting approach.Gaining momentum but falls short of being comprehensive.

Transactional Interpretation - Cramer's theory explains the most of the anomalies and is the leading interpretation. Kastner extends TI to quantum field theory (QFT). Comprehensive.

The real difficulty for emDrive theory is that the effect may be relativistic instead of quantum mechanic. Enter Mach effects especially for any closed or open cavity with dielectrics. Mach effects rely on General Relativity and parametric amplification.

Other efforts include Unruh radiation especially McCulloch and Dynamic Casimir effect. Both of which also are related to parametric amplification.

Loop quantum gravity theory combines both relativity and quantum mechanics. This theory may eventually prove to be required for any propellentless propulsion system.

In any emDrive theory, to ignore either quantum mechanics or general relativity is a rather dangerous game. Even so, one has to look at particle physics and quantum field theory to gain an appreciation and understanding of the complex processes occurring within the RF closed cavity system.

About the best anyone can do is use a Feynman diagram to explain their theory. Such a diagram would permit experiments at the particle level and permit exploring beyond photons and electrons to the quasiparticle realm of  phonons and polarons, and perhaps even Weyl fermions, massless charge quasiparticles.
I think most people (certainly myself) were taught the instrumentalist view of Quantum Mechanics as expressed by the quote from David Mermin,

Quote from: David Mermin
Shut up and calculate


https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/David_Mermin

What's Wrong with this Pillow? by N. David Mermin, Cornell University, Physics Today, April 1989, page 9, doi:10.1063/1.2810963

http://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.1768652?journalCode=pto

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7440/13067838433_81e612e433.jpg)

(http://images.slideplayer.com/14/4313193/slides/slide_10.jpg)

(which is often misattributed to Richard Feynman, for good reason, as Feynman himself had some funny things to say about worrying about any of these interpretations  :)  ).   The contending interpretations, differing over whether quantum mechanics can be understood to be deterministic, which elements of quantum mechanics can be considered "real", and other matters, are more important to problems with single photons, rather than a problem like the EM Drive where one has a huge amount of photons, and therefore there are no apparent issues that arise from using the instrumentalist approach, because for a problem involving a huge amount of photons, all the mentioned interpretations should lead to the same calculated answer.

Rather than having a philosophical debate, if you (or others) disagree, please let us know what difference in the calculation of the EM Drive any of these interpretations can possible make.  Tell us about the calculation (not philosophical differences) pertaining to the EM Drive experiments  ;)  [not other experiments: not single photon, not double slit, not quantum entanglement, etc., but just the EM Drive experiment please]

Again, I expect that a number of people in the audience are very interested in philosophy and history of physics, and I am not criticizing such endeavors, which I agree are indeed quite worthwhile.  I am just asking people that write about the importance of these interpretations to teach me (us ?) what difference it can possibly make for calculations of the EM Drive Developments -related to space flight applications (not for other fundamental physical problems for which one may differentiate between the calculated responses from different interpretations  !!! )
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Augmentor on 01/06/2018 08:15 pm
...

Expensive, but worth it. Can we start a cost-estimation?

I do that for a living, and my group in NG builds some of the best cubesat hardware available.  We can handle up to about 500W of power (continuous) and a projected reliability of >80% at 3 years in single systems or way better than that with redundancy (which we also support).  That core HW, including flight software, launch costs, ground station support, and mission ops over a reasonable lifespan is on the order of $1M.
How cheap CAN you get it?  Probably <$100K but the projected reliability is in the trash can.  Satellites in this cost range have a >50% likelihood to never be heard from once deployed and will never survive deep space radiation.  Outside the Earth's magnetosphere, the radiation is HARSH.
Monomorphic built his shell on a 3-D printer, with a copper film interior. Would those kinds of thermoplastics (?) be able to be space rated?

EM引擎出现已经快20年了,尚未进入实用阶段,说明这个技术很不靠谱。
尽管如此,好多人都想自己动动手,制造一个emdrive。据说,,,能够制造出来具有推力的引擎,并且得到公认的人并不多。
那么如何制造这样一个引擎呢?有人制造过,却未能测到推力。他说费用在数万元。。。
各位大婶,,各位大神。。。
你们有没有知道怎么自行制造一个emdrive。。有没有资料。求共享。。

Translation (editor note)
EM engine has been (around) almost 20 years, yet has not entered the practical stage, indicating that this technology is not reliable.
However, many people want to (do it themselves and (use) their own hands (and resources) and make an emdrive. It is said that there are not many people who can produce engines with thrust and are recognized.
So how to make such an engine? Someone made, but failed to measure the thrust. He said the cost of tens of thousands of dollars. . .
Ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen. . .
Do you know how to make an emdrive yourself? There is no information. Seeking to share.
-end translation-

FWIW

D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 01/07/2018 01:49 am
...

Expensive, but worth it. Can we start a cost-estimation?

I do that for a living, and my group in NG builds some of the best cubesat hardware available.  We can handle up to about 500W of power (continuous) and a projected reliability of >80% at 3 years in single systems or way better than that with redundancy (which we also support).  That core HW, including flight software, launch costs, ground station support, and mission ops over a reasonable lifespan is on the order of $1M.
How cheap CAN you get it?  Probably <$100K but the projected reliability is in the trash can.  Satellites in this cost range have a >50% likelihood to never be heard from once deployed and will never survive deep space radiation.  Outside the Earth's magnetosphere, the radiation is HARSH.
Monomorphic built his shell on a 3-D printer, with a copper film interior. Would those kinds of thermoplastics (?) be able to be space rated?

EM引擎出现已经快20年了,尚未进入实用阶段,说明这个技术很不靠谱。
尽管如此,好多人都想自己动动手,制造一个emdrive。据说,,,能够制造出来具有推力的引擎,并且得到公认的人并不多。
那么如何制造这样一个引擎呢?有人制造过,却未能测到推力。他说费用在数万元。。。
各位大婶,,各位大神。。。
你们有没有知道怎么自行制造一个emdrive。。有没有资料。求共享。。



在这个网站上搜索monomorphic和RFMWGUY的帖子。 Monomorphic简化了EM驱动器的制造和测试。 它不需要几万美元,但有一些成本。 没有什么证明。 尝试在这里开始:
http://emdrive.wiki/Building
RFMWGUY是一个非常早期的建筑商,并发布了许多图片和视频。 Monomorphic大大推进了施工过程。 祝你好运。


[On this site search for posts by monomorphic and RFMWGUY. Monomorphic has simplified EM drive fabrication and testing. It does not take tens of thousand dollars, but is with some costs. Nothing is proven. Try here to start:
http://emdrive.wiki/Building

RFMWGUY was a very early builder and posted many pictures and video. Monomorphic has advanced construction process greatly. good luck to you.]
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 01/07/2018 05:01 am
So let's go back a couple of years in this thread and sum up: No one has proposed a complete explanation of the EM drive in a comprehensive manner that has garnered acceptance. Yet, of the results that have been published, there have been null and positive results, but replication has not been consistent. No results that I have seen rises so far above the noise floor to warrant a "Eureka" moment.

Major governments, including China, "may" be conducting in space tests, but they're not going to tell because of the national security implications. On top of that are the folks who ARE doing experiments who are fairly quiet, maybe because of concerns on protecting future economic rights.

Monomorphic, you're the one left that has been quite open and helpful but has not published a comprehensive set of results. So the Rebel Alliance of physicists and wannabe's wait.


"Help us Monomorphic, you're our only hope."  ;)
Bob,
wonderful as the Monomorph might be, he is far from being our only hope. Who knows how many builders or theorists there are out there, who will not publish till they are confident they can satisfy the critics  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 01/07/2018 05:12 am
FYI:

Acta Astronautica
Articles in Press


Comments on theoretical foundation of “EM Drive”

In Press, Accepted Manuscript, Available online 4 January 2018
C.-W. Wu
-------
Highlights

The theoretical derivation of the net thrust in “EM drive” is found to be inaccurate.

Self-contradiction in physics is found in the concept of “EM drive”.

The theoretical foundation of the “EM drive” is found to be not solid.

Phil,
there is as yet no theoretical foundation for the emdrive, which does not diverge wildly from established concepts.

Shawyers explanation is an attempt (in my opinion) to avoid controversy and the non-Machian explanations, at least appear to rely on things which don't exist.

Proof will be, if it will be, in the pudding, irrespective of theory. Show me any physical theory which has no paradox.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 01/07/2018 05:35 am
"Help us Monomorphic, you're our only hope."  ;)
Bob,
wonderful as the Monomorph might be, he is far from being our only hope. Who knows how many builders or theorists there are out there, who will not publish till they are confident they can satisfy the critics  :)
I was making a semi-joke out of the Star Wars line "Help me Obi-Wan-Kenobi, you're our only hope." - by Leia Organa
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 01/07/2018 06:44 pm
At this point I am thinking it would be wise for all interested in a cubesat style experiment ( as I certainly am) to review TRL status of the concept and how that works during preparation for available launch vehicles.

Another thread, in May, Robotbeat had a good comment, keep in mind the number of stakeholders required to actually achieve orbit...
"...I do think there's some unnecessary ritual in the whole concept of the Technology Readiness Level formalism. It seems primarily a tool for getting multiple stakeholders to agree on whether a certain technology is mature enough for some application..."

https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/458490main_TRL_Definitions.pdf

What this means to me is quite simply, unless and until somebody has demonstrated suitable TRL no experiment will fly.

 Personally funding a launch is simply beyond my reach. YMMV

I concur.   I think self-funding (rich patron, crowd funding, university cooperation) are the only approach to flying at this point, at least based on openly reported data to date. 

We had a fairly vigorous discussion on this forum of TRL for the EMdrive back about 4 or 6 threads and it was and likely still is clear that a) no-one is going to agree what various TRL levels  means WRT EMdrive and likewise  no-one is going to agree what TRL the EMdrive is at (now or even if more data are available b) I think the cost and time required to get launch providers/funders and other stakeholders  to accept an EMdrive  TRL and schedule and pay for a EMdrive mission would be prohibitive.   

 I personally am more familiar with the DOD definition of TRL but they are similar enough to either  support discussions; likewise they are different enough to support arguments and disagreements should that be anyone's goal . . .

graybeardsyseng
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 01/07/2018 06:55 pm
Monomorphic built his shell on a 3-D printer, with a copper film interior. Would those kinds of thermoplastics (?) be able to be space rated?

The PLA I used would out-gas in a vacuum. However, there is vacuum rated 3D printer filament available.

Anyone know if there is any data available on how various filaments tolerate radiation environments expected on LEO?

graybeardsyseng
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sabake on 01/07/2018 10:01 pm
Just out of curiosity - why haven't anyone tested with array of thrusters/fustrums?

It seems from the thread that the biggest issue for current and past tests is detecting reliable thrust signal from the background noise. Yet all developments have tried either to eliminate the noise sources.. or to elevate the power levels (also bringing up the background noise), but not adding to the thrust by adding thrusters.

Yet - if I understand correctly - thrust is expected to come from the fustrum and it should not be extremely hard to place 2 or 4 fustrums on the torsion balance. Yes, it would elevate the weight - but would also multiply the thrust signal while leaving feeding system and overall design pretty much the same. One would also be able to switch on fustrums independently, getting additional thrust with each additional fustrum powered up, that should be visible from analysis. In theory it would also be possible to add thrusters on both sides of torsion balance, adding to the stability of the system..
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Augmentor on 01/08/2018 01:19 am
Just out of curiosity - why haven't anyone tested with array of thrusters/fustrums?

It seems from the thread that the biggest issue for current and past tests is detecting reliable thrust signal from the background noise. Yet all developments have tried either to eliminate the noise sources.. or to elevate the power levels (also bringing up the background noise), but not adding to the thrust by adding thrusters.

Yet - if I understand correctly - thrust is expected to come from the fustrum and it should not be extremely hard to place 2 or 4 fustrums on the torsion balance. Yes, it would elevate the weight - but would also multiply the thrust signal while leaving feeding system and overall design pretty much the same. One would also be able to switch on fustrums independently, getting additional thrust with each additional fustrum powered up, that should be visible from analysis. In theory it would also be possible to add thrusters on both sides of torsion balance, adding to the stability of the system..

Think of an emDrive array as an array of radios or cellphones. One is affordable to work with; duplicating two more requires getting the first one right.

Arrays add another layer of complexity and assume the thrust elements can reliably produce thrust. In order to develop an array of units aka elements,  at the array level one has to duplicate all the testing for a single thruster, most importantly, electromagnetic compatibility, acceleration and thermal (aka EM, shake and bake).

Generally, the goal is a single unit would provide enough mission-level impulse (thrust x time). MilliNewtons per unit is helpful. Newtons would desirable.

The thrust is developed from amplified effects and powered by one or more energy storage devices, typically a battery or large capacitor. From solar to nuclear, other power sources are possible

Arrays are used for both multiplying thrust to mission level requirements especially when amplification methods have reached a maximum. Other uses of arrays include to provide throttling, positioning and steering.

Testing emDrives in arrays assumes one has the time and resources to build identical units to populate an array and continuously put out thrust in space.

Thrust levels per unit have to be in the millinewton range at a minimum.

Size and weight have to be minimized, and electric power efficiency - from generated vs delivered - has to be quite significant. For any thruster system, measures include Thrust per volume in cubic meters (ft^3), thrust per mass in kg (lb), and thrust per power, N/kWe (lb-force).

Cooling the power& propulsion system needs to be considered and adds to weight and volume of the basic emDrive since a basic emDrive is roughly 1 cubic foot ~12" on a side  ~30 cm, the power supply has to be portable, the electromagnetic compatibility -both emission and susceptibility - has to be determined for a single unit before producing multiples.

The unit drive is an element in an array, typically a linear or planar array. Linear arrays are 1D arrays with two orientations - inline (stack) and lateral (wing). A planar array can duplicated to become one of many boards stacked in a box typically secured on three or four sides; a box-of-boards array is a 2.5 D array.

In any array configuration, an additional requirement to emDrive testing is to determine if there are any E&M emissions from another emDrive that would impair operation of any drive. At the present time, there is no data to support emDrive to emDrive coupling.

The question of 3D arrays involves a framework structure. The first step would be to test at the 2.5 D level with Boards in a Box (BIB) array. In any BIB array or 3D framework structure, any absorption or emission by the structure needs to be considered including acoustic, thermal, RF, particle and fields.

A minor point...a good theory would be extremely helpful to explain the behavior of the emDrive.  While some folks "shut up and calculate", the presumptions are that one has data to calculate, and that the design/build was based on at least some theoretical conjecture instead of flights of fancy.

An array may require a team effort on many levels as well as in production of units. A collaborative effort could  build an array if a specification can be agreed to and funding can be obtained.

Other than that, it's easy.

David







Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 01/08/2018 02:09 am
Just out of curiosity - why haven't anyone tested with array of thrusters/fustrums?

It seems from the thread that the biggest issue for current and past tests is detecting reliable thrust signal from the background noise. Yet all developments have tried either to eliminate the noise sources.. or to elevate the power levels (also bringing up the background noise), but not adding to the thrust by adding thrusters.

Yet - if I understand correctly - thrust is expected to come from the fustrum and it should not be extremely hard to place 2 or 4 fustrums on the torsion balance. Yes, it would elevate the weight - but would also multiply the thrust signal while leaving feeding system and overall design pretty much the same. One would also be able to switch on fustrums independently, getting additional thrust with each additional fustrum powered up, that should be visible from analysis. In theory it would also be possible to add thrusters on both sides of torsion balance, adding to the stability of the system..

Think of an emDrive array as an array of radios or cellphones. One is affordable to work with; duplicating two more requires getting the first one right.

Arrays add another layer of complexity and assume the thrust elements can reliably produce thrust. In order to develop an array of units aka elements,  at the array level one has to duplicate all the testing for a single thruster, most importantly, electromagnetic compatibility, acceleration and thermal (aka EM, shake and bake).

Generally, the goal is a single unit would provide enough mission-level impulse (thrust x time). MilliNewtons per unit is helpful. Newtons would desirable.

The thrust is developed from amplified effects and powered by one or more energy storage devices, typically a battery or large capacitor. From solar to nuclear, other power sources are possible

Arrays are used for both multiplying thrust to mission level requirements especially when amplification methods have reached a maximum. Other uses of arrays include to provide throttling, positioning and steering.

Testing emDrives in arrays assumes one has the time and resources to build identical units to populate an array and continuously put out thrust in space.

Thrust levels per unit have to be in the millinewton range at a minimum.

Size and weight have to be minimized, and electric power efficiency - from generated vs delivered - has to be quite significant. For any thruster system, measures include Thrust per volume in cubic meters (ft^3), thrust per mass in kg (lb), and thrust per power, N/kWe (lb-force).

Cooling the power& propulsion system needs to be considered and adds to weight and volume of the basic emDrive since a basic emDrive is roughly 1 cubic foot ~12" on a side  ~30 cm, the power supply has to be portable, the electromagnetic compatibility -both emission and susceptibility - has to be determined for a single unit before producing multiples.

The unit drive is an element in an array, typically a linear or planar array. Linear arrays are 1D arrays with two orientations - inline (stack) and lateral (wing). A planar array can duplicated to become one of many boards stacked in a box typically secured on three or four sides; a box-of-boards array is a 2.5 D array.

In any array configuration, an additional requirement to emDrive testing is to determine if there are any E&M emissions from another emDrive that would impair operation of any drive. At the present time, there is no data to support emDrive to emDrive coupling.

The question of 3D arrays involves a framework structure. The first step would be to test at the 2.5 D level with Boards in a Box (BIB) array. In any BIB array or 3D framework structure, any absorption or emission by the structure needs to be considered including acoustic, thermal, RF, particle and fields.

A minor point...a good theory would be extremely helpful to explain the behavior of the emDrive.  While some folks "shut up and calculate", the presumptions are that one has data to calculate, and that the design/build was based on at least some theoretical conjecture instead of flights of fancy.

An array may require a team effort on many levels as well as in production of units. A collaborative effort could  build an array if a specification can be agreed to and funding can be obtained.

Other than that, it's easy.

David
Another couple of points...


Once a test series is completed in atmosphere, a follow-up then is testing in a vacuum chamber. Unless you have lot's of cash, most test rigs will need to fit within a relatively small vacuum chamber as NASA Eagleworks did. Arrays of frustums the size of Monomorphic's would require a much larger vacuum chamber to fit in, as I understand it.


In threads back it was my recollection that no one who tried to build a small frustum was able to detect thrust. The hypothesis was that smaller frustums with much shorter wavelengths of radiation might produce higher orders of thrust, but it was not seen. TE013 modes in Mono's frustum design have  a wavelength of 2.449 GHZ, which is about the same as microwave oven magnetrons at 2.45 GHZ, which is where these DYI experiments started and thrust may have been generated.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 01/08/2018 03:12 am

(...)
 The contending interpretations, differing over whether quantum mechanics can be understood to be deterministic, which elements of quantum mechanics can be considered "real", and other matters, are more important to problems with single photons, rather than a problem like the EM Drive where one has a huge amount of photons, and therefore there are no apparent issues that arise from using the instrumentalist approach, because for a problem involving a huge amount of photons, all the mentioned interpretations should lead to the same calculated answer.

Rather than having a philosophical debate, if you (or others) disagree, please let us know what difference in the calculation of the EM Drive any of these interpretations can possible make.  Tell us about the calculation (not philosophical differences) pertaining to the EM Drive experiments  ;)  [not other experiments: not single photon, not double slit, not quantum entanglement, etc., but just the EM Drive experiment please]

Again, I expect that a number of people in the audience are very interested in philosophy and history of physics, and I am not criticizing such endeavors, which I agree are indeed quite worthwhile.  I am just asking people that write about the importance of these interpretations to teach me (us ?) what difference it can possibly make for calculations of the EM Drive Developments -related to space flight applications (not for other fundamental physical problems for which one may differentiate between the calculated responses from different interpretations  !!! )
Rodal, if you will forgive a philosophical reply,
       if all charges continually interact electrically, then there is a huge difference between the potential for remote interaction which that indicates and the dearth of interactive potential which all objects which are in sum, neutral, have with respect to distant matter when it is only their overall neutrality which is considered.
       Time dilation acts upon charges individually, not upon macroscopic objects in totality. Non? Am of course looking for help calculating this difference for an emdrive frustum (I don't believe any engineer should rely on unchecked method or calculation  :) )
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: JasonAW3 on 01/08/2018 02:30 pm
Interesting development;


      I'm uncertain as to whether or not that this may have any bearing on this discussion, but the effect is interesting;

https://newatlas.com/negative-mass-particles/52848/ (https://newatlas.com/negative-mass-particles/52848/)

      The "negative mass" effect seems similar to some of what appears to be going on with the EM drive.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 01/08/2018 05:24 pm
Interesting development;


      I'm uncertain as to whether or not that this may have any bearing on this discussion, but the effect is interesting;

https://newatlas.com/negative-mass-particles/52848/ (https://newatlas.com/negative-mass-particles/52848/)

      The "negative mass" effect seems similar to some of what appears to be going on with the EM drive.

Not an EM Drive [radio frequency asymmetric, empty, copper cavity] as conceived by Shawyer or as tested by EM Drive testers so far.

Actual paper:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys4303.pdf

Optically resonant cavities involving nanoscale light–matter interactions obtained by embedding a single layer of an atomically thin semiconductor (molybdenum diselenide = MoSe2) in a monolithic optical cavity based on distributed Bragg reflectors. (A monolayer of MoSe2 is embedded between the top and bottom distributed Bragg reflectors).

(https://media.springernature.com/m685/nature-static/assets/v1/image-assets/nphys4303-f1.jpg)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molybdenum_diselenide

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polariton
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_cavity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_Bragg_reflector
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 01/08/2018 06:51 pm
FYI:

Acta Astronautica
Articles in Press


Comments on theoretical foundation of “EM Drive”

In Press, Accepted Manuscript, Available online 4 January 2018
C.-W. Wu
-------
Highlights

The theoretical derivation of the net thrust in “EM drive” is found to be inaccurate.

Self-contradiction in physics is found in the concept of “EM drive”.

The theoretical foundation of the “EM drive” is found to be not solid.

Here is the link:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576517317356


"Comments on theoretical foundation of “EM Drive” "
C.-W. Wu

Institute of Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, No.15 BeisihuanXi Road, Beijing 100190, China
Received 24 November 2017, Revised 29 December 2017, Accepted 4 January 2018, Available online 4 January 2018

Abstract
Quote
The concept of EM Drive has attracted much attention and groups of work have been conducted to prove or verify it, of which the published experimental outcome is criticized in great details while the theoretical foundation has not been discussed. The present essay investigates on the theoretical derivations of the net thrust in the “EM drive” and reveals the self-contradiction arising at the very start, when the law of conservation of momentum was utilized and opposed simultaneously.

pdf Article is behind $35.95 paywall

article contains one figure:  (https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/thumbimage/1-s2.0-S0094576517317356-gr1.sml)





Recall that Acta Astronautica was the peer-reviewed publication where Roger Shawyer published this article in 2015:

http://www.emdrive.com/IAC14publishedpaper.pdf

Acta Astronautica 116 (2015) 166–174

"Second generation EmDrive propulsion applied to SSTO launcher and interstellar probe"
Roger Shawyer


Actual paper can now be read for free as uploaded by the author (C.W. Wu) on Jan 06, 2018:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322261866_Comments_on_theoretical_foundation_of_EM_Drive

(click on download link on the upper right hand corner of the above webpage)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SteveD on 01/10/2018 05:01 am
Interesting development;


      I'm uncertain as to whether or not that this may have any bearing on this discussion, but the effect is interesting;

https://newatlas.com/negative-mass-particles/52848/ (https://newatlas.com/negative-mass-particles/52848/)

      The "negative mass" effect seems similar to some of what appears to be going on with the EM drive.

Not an EM Drive [radio frequency asymmetric, empty, copper cavity] as conceived by Shawyer or as tested by EM Drive testers so far.

Actual paper:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys4303.pdf

Optically resonant cavities involving nanoscale light–matter interactions obtained by embedding a single layer of an atomically thin semiconductor (molybdenum diselenide = MoSe2) in a monolithic optical cavity based on distributed Bragg reflectors. (A monolayer of MoSe2 is embedded between the top and bottom distributed Bragg reflectors).

(https://media.springernature.com/m685/nature-static/assets/v1/image-assets/nphys4303-f1.jpg)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molybdenum_diselenide

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polariton
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_cavity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_Bragg_reflector

Is this negative mass as in an Alcubbier drive or is it using negative mass to describe some other phenomenon?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 01/10/2018 06:07 am
I've had a thought in the back of my mind for some time now that it might be interesting to see what happens to an EM Drive cavity if you run a current through the resonant cavity before and while injecting it with RF, just to see if there are some interesting dynamics that come from it. Anomalous dispersion and other phenomena don't make that inkling go away.  8)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 01/10/2018 12:57 pm
Quote from: SteveD link=topic=42978.msg1769764#msg1769764 date1515564065
...
Is this negative mass as in an Alcubbier drive or is it using negative mass to describe some other phenomenon?
The article does not deal with mass of a macroscopic body.  Instead the article deals with the concept of "effective mass" as used in solid-state physics, more specifically in this case "effective mass" of quantum mechanical quasiparticles.  See:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_mass_(solid-state_physics)

Quote
In solid state physics, a particle's effective mass... is the mass that it seems to have when responding to forces, or the mass that it seems to have when interacting with other identical particles in a thermal distribution. One of the results from the band theory of solids is that the movement of particles in a periodic potential, over long distances larger than the lattice spacing, can be very different from their motion in a vacuum. The effective mass is a quantity that is used to simplify band structures by modeling the behavior of a free particle with that mass. For some purposes and some materials, the effective mass can be considered to be a simple constant of a material. In general, however, the value of effective mass depends on the purpose for which it is used, and can vary depending on a number of factors.
...
At the highest energies of the valence band in many semiconductors (Ge, Si, GaAs, ...), and the lowest energies of the conduction band in some semiconductors (GaAs, ...), the band structure E(k) can be locally approximated as


(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/ae332afd945f0b0d92e9b2fcbdb4b2b7f0f487e1)

where E(k) is the energy of an electron at wavevector k in that band, E0 is a constant giving the edge of energy of that band, and m* is a constant (the effective mass).

It can be shown that the electrons placed in these bands behave as free electrons except with a different mass, as long as their energy stays within the range of validity of the approximation above. As a result, the electron mass in models such as the Drude model must be replaced with the effective mass.

One remarkable property is that the effective mass can become negative, when the band curves downwards away from a maximum. As a result of the negative mass, the electrons respond to electric and magnetic forces by gaining velocity in the opposite direction compared to normal; even though these electrons have negative charge, they move in trajectories as if they had positive charge (and positive mass). This explains the existence of valence-band holes, the positive-charge, positive-mass quasiparticles that can be found in semiconductors.

In any case, if the band structure has the simple parabolic form described above, then the value of effective mass is unambiguous. Unfortunately, this parabolic form is not valid for describing most materials. In such complex materials there is no single definition of "effective mass" but instead multiple definitions, each suited to a particular purpose. The rest of the article describes these effective masses in detail.

These polaritons are quantum mechanical quasiparticles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiparticle) which are used to describe interactions in a solid.  They are bosonic quasiparticles resulting from strong coupling of electromagnetic waves with an electric or magnetic dipole‐carrying excitation.  The article describes a type of polariton called exciton‐polariton: resulting from the coupling of photons of visible light with an exciton  (an electron and hole bound together: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exciton ) .  The authors describe an effective mass as given by the equation at the bottom of the first column on page 3 of https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys4303.pdf : due to the second derivative of the energy E with respect to the wavevector k.  Also see the analogous equation here for the effective mass tensor:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_mass_(solid-state_physics)#Inertial_effective_mass_tensor

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/f957f7fc76a87e070504ad67640f3eeeb3179e1a)

where ħ = h/2π is the reduced Planck constant and ki and kj are the ith and jth components of the wavevector k, respectively, and E is the total energy of the quasiparticle

and note:

Quote
The inertial expression for effective mass is commonly used, but note that its properties can be counter-intuitive:

The effective mass tensor generally varies depending on k, meaning that the mass of the particle actually changes after it is subject to an impulse. The only cases in which it remains constant are those of parabolic bands, described above.
The effective mass tensor diverges (becomes infinite) for linear dispersion relations, such as with photons or electrons in graphene. (These particles are sometimes said to be massless, however this refers to their having zero rest mass; rest mass is a distinct concept from effective mass.)

Also, most importantly, note that the "acceleration" in this definition is the rate of change of the group velocity:

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/4f4359fc54b950ac8140b47027f4ff9b841c15a1)




The second derivative of a function describes its curvature and therefore one can associate this "effective mass" with the curvature of the energy of the polarization wave.  Regarding physical effects due to "negative mass" that might be observable, it is important to remark that the authors have not performed any push or pull experiments (and it is not clear yet whether or how could such experiments be conducted: we are dealing with quasiparticles).

See page 776 of this book:  http://bit.ly/2Eu28J9

Confined Electrons and Photons: New Physics and Applications
edited by Elias Burstein, Claude Weisbuch
Hardcover: 907 pages
Publisher: Springer; 1995 edition (May 31, 1995)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0306449900
ISBN-13: 978-0306449901

The spatial dispersion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_dispersion) relation for real wave vectors for polaritons can result in a positive "mass" (Fig 4a) or a "negative mass" (Fig4b) case, depending on the sign of the curvature of the energy vs the wavevector. The "effective mass" being discussed is a measure of the (second derivative or) curvature of the uncoupled polarization wave.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 01/11/2018 12:49 am
The weather was so cold for so long that I could not keep the lab area above 65F (18C), even with the new space heater. Now that more moderate temperatures have returned, I was able to get some work done. Adding insulation to the torsional pendulum beam seems to have greatly improved the signal -to-noise ratio (SNR). Before I had only insulated the aluminum support and draft enclosure. I also increased the on-board computer storage from 32GB to 64GB.

The cavity is still on the workbench as I plan on recording a video showing how impedance is matched and the cavity length is tuned for maximum resonance.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 01/11/2018 12:49 am
Quote from: SteveD link=topic=42978.msg1769764#msg1769764 date1515564065
...
Is this negative mass as in an Alcubbier drive or is it using negative mass to describe some other phenomenon?
The article does not deal with mass of a macroscopic body.  Instead the article deals with the concept of "effective mass" as used in solid-state physics, more specifically in this case "effective mass" of quantum mechanical quasiparticles.  See:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_mass_(solid-state_physics)

Quote
In solid state physics, a particle's effective mass... is the mass that it seems to have when responding to forces, or the mass that it seems to have when interacting with other identical particles in a thermal distribution. One of the results from the band theory of solids is that the movement of particles in a periodic potential, over long distances larger than the lattice spacing, can be very different from their motion in a vacuum. The effective mass is a quantity that is used to simplify band structures by modeling the behavior of a free particle with that mass. For some purposes and some materials, the effective mass can be considered to be a simple constant of a material. In general, however, the value of effective mass depends on the purpose for which it is used, and can vary depending on a number of factors.
...
At the highest energies of the valence band in many semiconductors (Ge, Si, GaAs, ...), and the lowest energies of the conduction band in some semiconductors (GaAs, ...), the band structure E(k) can be locally approximated as


(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/ae332afd945f0b0d92e9b2fcbdb4b2b7f0f487e1)

where E(k) is the energy of an electron at wavevector k in that band, E0 is a constant giving the edge of energy of that band, and m* is a constant (the effective mass).

It can be shown that the electrons placed in these bands behave as free electrons except with a different mass, as long as their energy stays within the range of validity of the approximation above. As a result, the electron mass in models such as the Drude model must be replaced with the effective mass.

One remarkable property is that the effective mass can become negative, when the band curves downwards away from a maximum. As a result of the negative mass, the electrons respond to electric and magnetic forces by gaining velocity in the opposite direction compared to normal; even though these electrons have negative charge, they move in trajectories as if they had positive charge (and positive mass). This explains the existence of valence-band holes, the positive-charge, positive-mass quasiparticles that can be found in semiconductors.

In any case, if the band structure has the simple parabolic form described above, then the value of effective mass is unambiguous. Unfortunately, this parabolic form is not valid for describing most materials. In such complex materials there is no single definition of "effective mass" but instead multiple definitions, each suited to a particular purpose. The rest of the article describes these effective masses in detail.

These polaritons are quantum mechanical quasiparticles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiparticle) which are used to describe interactions in a solid.  They are bosonic quasiparticles resulting from strong coupling of electromagnetic waves with an electric or magnetic dipole‐carrying excitation.  The article describes a type of polariton called exciton‐polariton: resulting from the coupling of photons of visible light with an exciton  (an electron and hole bound together: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exciton ) .  The authors describe an effective mass as given by the equation at the bottom of the first column on page 3 of https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys4303.pdf : due to the second derivative of the energy E with respect to the wavevector k.  Also see the analogous equation here for the effective mass tensor:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_mass_(solid-state_physics)#Inertial_effective_mass_tensor

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/f957f7fc76a87e070504ad67640f3eeeb3179e1a)

where ħ = h/2π is the reduced Planck constant and ki and kj are the ith and jth components of the wavevector k, respectively, and E is the total energy of the quasiparticle

and note:

Quote
The inertial expression for effective mass is commonly used, but note that its properties can be counter-intuitive:

The effective mass tensor generally varies depending on k, meaning that the mass of the particle actually changes after it is subject to an impulse. The only cases in which it remains constant are those of parabolic bands, described above.
The effective mass tensor diverges (becomes infinite) for linear dispersion relations, such as with photons or electrons in graphene. (These particles are sometimes said to be massless, however this refers to their having zero rest mass; rest mass is a distinct concept from effective mass.)

Also, most importantly, note that the "acceleration" in this definition is the rate of change of the group velocity:

(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/4f4359fc54b950ac8140b47027f4ff9b841c15a1)




The second derivative of a function describes its curvature and therefore one can associate this "effective mass" with the curvature of the energy of the polarization wave.  Regarding physical effects due to "negative mass" that might be observable, it is important to remark that the authors have not performed any push or pull experiments (and it is not clear yet whether or how could such experiments be conducted: we are dealing with quasiparticles).

See page 776 of this book:  http://bit.ly/2Eu28J9

Confined Electrons and Photons: New Physics and Applications
edited by Elias Burstein, Claude Weisbuch
Hardcover: 907 pages
Publisher: Springer; 1995 edition (May 31, 1995)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0306449900
ISBN-13: 978-0306449901

The spatial dispersion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_dispersion) relation for real wave vectors for polaritons can result in a positive "mass" (Fig 4a) or a "negative mass" (Fig4b) case, depending on the sign of the curvature of the energy vs the wavevector. The "effective mass" being discussed is a measure of the (second derivative or) curvature of the uncoupled polarization wave.

I don't know if this is relevant but this reminded me that copper can be made into a solar cell by burning it till copper oxide forms.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy8TVDMpY3s

Could there be some asymmetric distribution of copper oxide inside the cavity via internal temperature or some other reason? - maybe arcing?

Something I found describing holes in copper oxide and change in effective mass: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0022-3719/9/8/014
Cyclotron resonance of electrons and of holes in cuprous oxide, Cu2O

something else below that may, or may not be of relevance.
https://atlasofscience.org/copper-oxide-for-low-cost-and-stable-perovskite-solar-cells/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 01/11/2018 12:00 pm
Just out of curiosity - why haven't anyone tested with array of thrusters/fustrums?

It seems from the thread that the biggest issue for current and past tests is detecting reliable thrust signal from the background noise. Yet all developments have tried either to eliminate the noise sources.. or to elevate the power levels (also bringing up the background noise), but not adding to the thrust by adding thrusters.

Yet - if I understand correctly - thrust is expected to come from the fustrum and it should not be extremely hard to place 2 or 4 fustrums on the torsion balance. Yes, it would elevate the weight - but would also multiply the thrust signal while leaving feeding system and overall design pretty much the same. One would also be able to switch on fustrums independently, getting additional thrust with each additional fustrum powered up, that should be visible from analysis. In theory it would also be possible to add thrusters on both sides of torsion balance, adding to the stability of the system..

Think of an emDrive array as an array of radios or cellphones. One is affordable to work with; duplicating two more requires getting the first one right.

Arrays add another layer of complexity and assume the thrust elements can reliably produce thrust. In order to develop an array of units aka elements,  at the array level one has to duplicate all the testing for a single thruster, most importantly, electromagnetic compatibility, acceleration and thermal (aka EM, shake and bake).

Generally, the goal is a single unit would provide enough mission-level impulse (thrust x time). MilliNewtons per unit is helpful. Newtons would desirable.

The thrust is developed from amplified effects and powered by one or more energy storage devices, typically a battery or large capacitor. From solar to nuclear, other power sources are possible

Arrays are used for both multiplying thrust to mission level requirements especially when amplification methods have reached a maximum. Other uses of arrays include to provide throttling, positioning and steering.

Testing emDrives in arrays assumes one has the time and resources to build identical units to populate an array and continuously put out thrust in space.

Thrust levels per unit have to be in the millinewton range at a minimum.

Size and weight have to be minimized, and electric power efficiency - from generated vs delivered - has to be quite significant. For any thruster system, measures include Thrust per volume in cubic meters (ft^3), thrust per mass in kg (lb), and thrust per power, N/kWe (lb-force).

Cooling the power& propulsion system needs to be considered and adds to weight and volume of the basic emDrive since a basic emDrive is roughly 1 cubic foot ~12" on a side  ~30 cm, the power supply has to be portable, the electromagnetic compatibility -both emission and susceptibility - has to be determined for a single unit before producing multiples.

The unit drive is an element in an array, typically a linear or planar array. Linear arrays are 1D arrays with two orientations - inline (stack) and lateral (wing). A planar array can duplicated to become one of many boards stacked in a box typically secured on three or four sides; a box-of-boards array is a 2.5 D array.

In any array configuration, an additional requirement to emDrive testing is to determine if there are any E&M emissions from another emDrive that would impair operation of any drive. At the present time, there is no data to support emDrive to emDrive coupling.

The question of 3D arrays involves a framework structure. The first step would be to test at the 2.5 D level with Boards in a Box (BIB) array. In any BIB array or 3D framework structure, any absorption or emission by the structure needs to be considered including acoustic, thermal, RF, particle and fields.

A minor point...a good theory would be extremely helpful to explain the behavior of the emDrive.  While some folks "shut up and calculate", the presumptions are that one has data to calculate, and that the design/build was based on at least some theoretical conjecture instead of flights of fancy.

An array may require a team effort on many levels as well as in production of units. A collaborative effort could  build an array if a specification can be agreed to and funding can be obtained.

Other than that, it's easy.

David
Another couple of points...


Once a test series is completed in atmosphere, a follow-up then is testing in a vacuum chamber. Unless you have lot's of cash, most test rigs will need to fit within a relatively small vacuum chamber as NASA Eagleworks did. Arrays of frustums the size of Monomorphic's would require a much larger vacuum chamber to fit in, as I understand it.


In threads back it was my recollection that no one who tried to build a small frustum was able to detect thrust. The hypothesis was that smaller frustums with much shorter wavelengths of radiation might produce higher orders of thrust, but it was not seen. TE013 modes in Mono's frustum design have  a wavelength of 2.449 GHZ, which is about the same as microwave oven magnetrons at 2.45 GHZ, which is where these DYI experiments started and thrust may have been generated.

Bob and Augmentor

Excellent points both of you -

Just one MORE fun challenge I would add - since we don't know what the  underlying theory of EMdrive is(assuming there is one) we can't assume effects are additive at all or how they will sum.   Generally arrays of antennas or other RF systems must be modeled and tuned carefully as there ARE interactions between individual components, not to mention support structure etc.   Those can be modeled and simulated (e.g. a vertical stack of yagi's or a beam forming array for a electrically steerable radar) BECAUSE we understand (at least pretty well heh heh ) how they work.   

Now, personally, I strongly SUSPECT that, if EMDrive is real and produces thrust, then any practical application likely WILL be an array of 'thrusters', particularly if used as primary delta V source - although  steering/stationkeeping might be able to be accomplished with practically realizable single thrusters (again assuming there ARE such things as practically realizable thrusters).

N. B.  This suspicion  is a completely NON Scientific viewpoint based on work experience - i.e. it is a GUESS with some history behind it a.k.a. "engineering judgment" . . . so take it with a supersized grain of doubt. 

Herman
graybeardsyseng
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: R.W. Keyes on 01/11/2018 06:12 pm

 (lots cut for the sake of brevity )

Just one MORE fun challenge I would add - since we don't know what the  underlying theory of EMdrive is(assuming there is one) we can't assume effects are additive at all or how they will sum.   Generally arrays of antennas or other RF systems must be modeled and tuned carefully as there ARE interactions between individual components, not to mention support structure etc.   Those can be modeled and simulated (e.g. a vertical stack of yagi's or a beam forming array for a electrically steerable radar) BECAUSE we understand (at least pretty well heh heh ) how they work.   

That's possible, but not likely, by my reckoning. An EMDrive would have to convert all of its EMfields to thrust in order to be efficient. Any leakage would appear as heat.

Now, personally, I strongly SUSPECT that, if EMDrive is real and produces thrust, then any practical application likely WILL be an array of 'thrusters', particularly if used as primary delta V source - although  steering/stationkeeping might be able to be accomplished with practically realizable single thrusters (again assuming there ARE such things as practically realizable thrusters).

N. B.  This suspicion  is a completely NON Scientific viewpoint based on work experience - i.e. it is a GUESS with some history behind it a.k.a. "engineering judgment" . . . so take it with a supersized grain of doubt. 

When you say "array", consider that such an array would be 3D. Without specific inter-EM drive interaction, then EMdrives could be placed outside of a specific formation. I think it is safe to say that any successful EMdrive is going to be high-Q, and therefore require superconductors, which means cold or colder temperatures need to be maintained on operating drives. Such temperatures are not compatible with a compartment heated for human habitation, and not compatible with being exposed to sources of high radiation. The 'sunny side' may change due to the spacecraft's orientation, requiring certain emdrives on the sunny side to be powered off, while the 'shadow side' drives would be powered. The other drive location considerations are: distance from electrical source, proper fit to superstructure, and accessibility for diagnostics/replacement/repair.

It may be difficult to picture this configuration, after all of the pictures we have in our minds from 'rocketships'. Consider no central point of thrust generation, but instead, emdrive modules tucked away in various places throughout the spacecraft. I picture hundreds to thousands of such modules, each being a standardized affair which can be taken out of service for repair or replacement without considerable effect on the total thrust of the spacecraft. Distributed EMdrives would also encourage separate electrical sources, which may also be modular, probably to a lesser degree, perhaps with various types to allow the use of differing types of fuel and technology (nuclear fission and fusion of several types, antimatter, coal [J/K]).

However, my implementation scheme has little to do with actual testing. In the case of terrestrial testing, it does seem likely that there will be single devices tested, and not an array. However, the test-stand might be standardized to quickly allow the substitution of one type of EMdrive for another, making it easier to both empirically find higher-performance units, as well as to run experiments to come towards theoretical understanding.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Augmentor on 01/12/2018 02:14 am

 (lots cut for the sake of brevity )

Just one MORE fun challenge I would add - since we don't know what the  underlying theory of EMdrive is(assuming there is one) we can't assume effects are additive at all or how they will sum.   Generally arrays of antennas or other RF systems must be modeled and tuned carefully as there ARE interactions between individual components, not to mention support structure etc.   Those can be modeled and simulated (e.g. a vertical stack of yagi's or a beam forming array for a electrically steerable radar) BECAUSE we understand (at least pretty well heh heh ) how they work.   

That's possible, but not likely, by my reckoning. An EMDrive would have to convert all of its EMfields to thrust in order to be efficient. Any leakage would appear as heat.

Now, personally, I strongly SUSPECT that, if EMDrive is real and produces thrust, then any practical application likely WILL be an array of 'thrusters', particularly if used as primary delta V source - although  steering/stationkeeping might be able to be accomplished with practically realizable single thrusters (again assuming there ARE such things as practically realizable thrusters).

N. B.  This suspicion  is a completely NON Scientific viewpoint based on work experience - i.e. it is a GUESS with some history behind it a.k.a. "engineering judgment" . . . so take it with a supersized grain of doubt. 

When you say "array", consider that such an array would be 3D. Without specific inter-EM drive interaction, then EMdrives could be placed outside of a specific formation. I think it is safe to say that any successful EMdrive is going to be high-Q, and therefore require superconductors, which means cold or colder temperatures need to be maintained on operating drives. Such temperatures are not compatible with a compartment heated for human habitation, and not compatible with being exposed to sources of high radiation. The 'sunny side' may change due to the spacecraft's orientation, requiring certain emdrives on the sunny side to be powered off, while the 'shadow side' drives would be powered. The other drive location considerations are: distance from electrical source, proper fit to superstructure, and accessibility for diagnostics/replacement/repair.

It may be difficult to picture this configuration, after all of the pictures we have in our minds from 'rocketships'. Consider no central point of thrust generation, but instead, emdrive modules tucked away in various places throughout the spacecraft. I picture hundreds to thousands of such modules, each being a standardized affair which can be taken out of service for repair or replacement without considerable effect on the total thrust of the spacecraft. Distributed EMdrives would also encourage separate electrical sources, which may also be modular, probably to a lesser degree, perhaps with various types to allow the use of differing types of fuel and technology (nuclear fission and fusion of several types, antimatter, coal [J/K]).

However, my implementation scheme has little to do with actual testing. In the case of terrestrial testing, it does seem likely that there will be single devices tested, and not an array. However, the test-stand might be standardized to quickly allow the substitution of one type of EMdrive for another, making it easier to both empirically find higher-performance units, as well as to run experiments to come towards theoretical understanding.

If any space drive produces momentum change internally, and does not interfere externally with the local spacetime, particles or fields...or other space drive units, then close packed 3D arrays are a possibility. On the way to 3D arrays, the precursor will be 2.5 D arrays where 2D boards of thrusters are a planar array, and when the boards are stacked as in rack or backplane box, a Box of Boards (BOB) array allows easy physical access any unit in the array for installation and replacement.

However, if you look closely at some space designs, the MEGA for example, the piezo material is crystalline array in a disc or square format a 3D dimensional array ( molecular level 3D) , and multiple discs are used to create a stack array (disc level 1D linear array). So a MEGA unit already is a nested array structure.

A physical array of MEGA units on a board is yet another level (1D unit level, 2D array). BOBs are a 2.5D board array, and MBOBs are multiple BOB arrays ( boxes array 1D, 2D or 3D.)

With an emDrive, the elementary/atomic/molecular level is a 3D amorphous array of energy and particles in a box. MBOBs - multiple emDrive boxes - are possible in 1D-stack, 2D-planar, and 3D cubic.

Array can also be circular or spherical. Elements can be on a square grid,  rectangular grid, a radial grid or a concentric ring grid. Other geometries are possible as well.

In any space drive unit or array, navigating the craft under main power is made easier and faster by symmetric placement of the units with respect to the centerline of mass and the thrust vector sum.   

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 01/12/2018 03:14 am
Does this actually mean anything in suggesting some form of induced momentum via copper oxide?
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=3092911990202711870&hl=en&as_sdt=0,26
Exciton-phonon interaction breaking all antiunitary symmetries in external magnetic fields
Frank Schweiner, Patric Rommel, Jörg Main, Günter Wunner
Quote
We have shown analytically that the combined presence
of the cubic valence band structure and external
fields breaks all antiunitary symmetries for excitons in
Cu2O. When neglecting the exciton-phonon interaction,
this symmetry breaking appears only if the plane spanned
by the external fields is not identical to one of the symmetry
planes of the cubic lattice of Cu2O. We have discussed
that for these cases the additional presence of the
exciton-phonon interaction is not able to restore the broken
symmetries.
For the specific orientations of the external fields,
where the plane spanned by the fields is identical to one
of the symmetry planes of the cubic lattice, the excitonphonon
interaction becomes important. This interaction
causes a finite momentum of the exciton center of mass,
which leads to the motional Stark effect in an external
10
magnetic field. If the cubic valence band structure is
considered, the effective electric field connected with the
motional Stark effect finally leads to the breaking of all
antiunitary symmetries. Since the exciton-phonon interaction
is always present in the solid, we have thus shown
that GUE statistics will be observable in all spectra of
magnetoexcitons irrespective of the orientation of the external
magnetic field, which is in agreement with the experimental
observations in Refs.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Augmentor on 01/12/2018 03:36 am
If any space drive produces momentum change internally, and does not interfere externally with the local spacetime, particles or fields...or other space drive units, then close packed 3D arrays are a possibility. On the way to 3D arrays, the precursor will be 2.5 D arrays where 2D boards of thrusters are a planar array, and when the boards are stacked as in rack or backplane box, a Box of Boards (BOB) array allows easy physical access any unit in the array for installation and replacement.

However, if you look closely at some space designs, the MEGA for example, the piezo material is crystalline array in a disc or square format a 3D dimensional array ( molecular level 3D) , and multiple discs are used to create a stack array (disc level 1D linear array). So a MEGA unit already is a nested array structure.

A physical array of MEGA units on a board is yet another level (1D unit level, 2D array). BOBs are a 2.5D board array, and MBOBs are multiple BOB arrays ( boxes array 1D, 2D or 3D.)

With an emDrive, the elementary/atomic/molecular level is a 3D amorphous array of energy and particles in a box. MBOBs - multiple emDrive boxes - are possible in 1D-stack, 2D-planar, and 3D cubic.

Array can also be circular or spherical. Elements can be on a square grid,  rectangular grid, a radial grid or a concentric ring grid. Other geometries are possible as well.

In any space drive unit or array, navigating the craft under main power is made easier and faster by symmetric placement of the units with respect to the centerline of mass and the thrust vector sum.   

In the case of any complex system such as a space-drive thruster, every level requires integration and test by integrating the parts and synthesizing the tangible physical parts with the power flow and fields.

From a single unit thrust to an array of thrusters on a board to multiple boxes of thrusters in a system, in such complex systems performing different functions, there is not just bench and lab testing, there is an independent prototype specification test as well as environmental testing - shake and bake. EMC testing including emissions and susceptibility is also performed at each levels.

If a problem is left to fester in design, build, integration, test or manufacturing, then she combination of customer and field support will need to involve engineering - hardware, software, signal and control - an issue in a complex system that requires a systems engineer to drive a solution gracefully.
 
Together, manufacturing gears up with engineering and support for alpha, beta and product release.Then there is alpha testing - innovators or first adopters - at a client's facility or field location with deep support of highly capable people and facilities. Beta test is an expansion to more clients who are first adopters.

For arrays of units, each unit has to be tested, and then there are integration tests at the array level both of line replaceable units - boards in a BOB - as well as at the BOB level.

So, spacedrive arrays such as MEGA or emDrive include four levels: unit, board, box and network. Scaling and throttling needs to be controlled at each level in amplification, active units at the board and box level, and total number of units in the network.

In a spacedrive system, beyond amplification and multiplication in order to meet throttling  and acceleration specifications,  the thrust to power ratio in Newtons per kWe is key consideration. N/kWe defines the power conversion for Newtons thrust output to power input.

Arrays will be controlled using fly-by-wire, fly-by-fiber, and fly-by-remote. Also, autonomous and AI controlled flying replaces the human with a computer using local computing power and programming such as general or dedicated processors , gate arrays, digital signal or even AI processors.

In any space drive, spaceship or spaceplatform, in order to support a variety of systems and missions, a combination of units, arrays and networks will be required, both individually and collectively.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 01/12/2018 04:40 am
If any space drive produces momentum change internally, and does not interfere externally with the local spacetime, particles or fields...or other space drive units, then close packed 3D arrays are a possibility. On the way to 3D arrays, the precursor will be 2.5 D arrays where 2D boards of thrusters are a planar array, and when the boards are stacked as in rack or backplane box, a Box of Boards (BOB) array allows easy physical access any unit in the array for installation and replacement.

I just want to be noted that I am FIRMLY behind a multi-thruster unit that can power an interstellar craft to be called a BOB Drive!!!!

It just seems so, logical...  ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 01/12/2018 10:17 am
If any space drive produces momentum change internally, and does not interfere externally with the local spacetime, particles or fields...or other space drive units, then close packed 3D arrays are a possibility. On the way to 3D arrays, the precursor will be 2.5 D arrays where 2D boards of thrusters are a planar array, and when the boards are stacked as in rack or backplane box, a Box of Boards (BOB) array allows easy physical access any unit in the array for installation and replacement.

I just want to be noted that I am FIRMLY behind a multi-thruster unit that can power an interstellar craft to be called a BOB Drive!!!!

It just seems so, logical...  ;)
Ahead BOB factor 5, Engage.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 01/12/2018 10:39 am

 (lots cut for the sake of brevity )

Just one MORE fun challenge I would add - since we don't know what the  underlying theory of EMdrive is(assuming there is one) we can't assume effects are additive at all or how they will sum.   Generally arrays of antennas or other RF systems must be modeled and tuned carefully as there ARE interactions between individual components, not to mention support structure etc.   Those can be modeled and simulated (e.g. a vertical stack of yagi's or a beam forming array for a electrically steerable radar) BECAUSE we understand (at least pretty well heh heh ) how they work.   

That's possible, but not likely, by my reckoning. An EMDrive would have to convert all of its EMfields to thrust in order to be efficient. Any leakage would appear as heat.

Now, personally, I strongly SUSPECT that, if EMDrive is real and produces thrust, then any practical application likely WILL be an array of 'thrusters', particularly if used as primary delta V source - although  steering/stationkeeping might be able to be accomplished with practically realizable single thrusters (again assuming there ARE such things as practically realizable thrusters).

N. B.  This suspicion  is a completely NON Scientific viewpoint based on work experience - i.e. it is a GUESS with some history behind it a.k.a. "engineering judgment" . . . so take it with a supersized grain of doubt. 

When you say "array", consider that such an array would be 3D. Without specific inter-EM drive interaction, then EMdrives could be placed outside of a specific formation. I think it is safe to say that any successful EMdrive is going to be high-Q, and therefore require superconductors, which means cold or colder temperatures need to be maintained on operating drives. Such temperatures are not compatible with a compartment heated for human habitation, and not compatible with being exposed to sources of high radiation. The 'sunny side' may change due to the spacecraft's orientation, requiring certain emdrives on the sunny side to be powered off, while the 'shadow side' drives would be powered. The other drive location considerations are: distance from electrical source, proper fit to superstructure, and accessibility for diagnostics/replacement/repair.

It may be difficult to picture this configuration, after all of the pictures we have in our minds from 'rocketships'. Consider no central point of thrust generation, but instead, emdrive modules tucked away in various places throughout the spacecraft. I picture hundreds to thousands of such modules, each being a standardized affair which can be taken out of service for repair or replacement without considerable effect on the total thrust of the spacecraft. Distributed EMdrives would also encourage separate electrical sources, which may also be modular, probably to a lesser degree, perhaps with various types to allow the use of differing types of fuel and technology (nuclear fission and fusion of several types, antimatter, coal [J/K]).

However, my implementation scheme has little to do with actual testing. In the case of terrestrial testing, it does seem likely that there will be single devices tested, and not an array. However, the test-stand might be standardized to quickly allow the substitution of one type of EMdrive for another, making it easier to both empirically find higher-performance units, as well as to run experiments to come towards theoretical understanding.

Very thought provoking!   

First I completely agree that such arrays will be 3D assemblages of standardized, easily maintained/replaced units with distributed power, control and support infrastructure.  This brings to mind the similarity to RF beam forming networks such that the thrust vector would be controllable and steerable.  Very nice.

But I am a bit less sanguine that an a practical EMDrive would only  have 'leakage' as heat.   In building complex 3D arrays we will need to fully understand potential and actual interactions.   I mentioned RF interaction originally but other interaction might occur.

 Always with the caveat of "If there is an EMdrive effect".   

graybeardsyseng
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Augmentor on 01/13/2018 03:25 am
If the emDrive turns out to be nothing more than a fancy user of heat from a microwave, then the emDrive simply needs to become a heat pump that produces momentum change.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 01/13/2018 06:50 pm
https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys4303

This stuff about polaritons and anomalous behaviors if polaritons and resonant cavities have the same frequency has me wondering if we're looking for an excitation state in the surface of copper-oxides.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Stormbringer on 01/15/2018 03:07 pm
well i was going to post this https://phys.org/news/2018-01-device-negative-massand-lasers.html  but i guess it is the same thing. Still; it gets the weird effect thing across doesn't it?

So this is yet another way to get negative mass/energy whether  just apparent or really real.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 01/18/2018 10:44 am
well i was going to post this https://phys.org/news/2018-01-device-negative-massand-lasers.html  but i guess it is the same thing. Still; it gets the weird effect thing across doesn't it?

So this is yet another way to get negative mass/energy whether  just apparent or really real.
Interesting article and comments following article.   

No posts for three days in this thread - hmmm - or did I miss a switch to a new thread??

graybeardsyseng
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Stormbringer on 01/18/2018 04:35 pm
well i was going to post this https://phys.org/news/2018-01-device-negative-massand-lasers.html  but i guess it is the same thing. Still; it gets the weird effect thing across doesn't it?

So this is yet another way to get negative mass/energy whether  just apparent or really real.
Interesting article and comments following article.   

No posts for three days in this thread - hmmm - or did I miss a switch to a new thread??

graybeardsyseng
nope. It's really weird. I was feeling guilty because I thought I broke it or posted something so out of bounds it drove everyone away or have really bad personal hygiene or something.    :-\
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 01/18/2018 05:21 pm
well i was going to post this https://phys.org/news/2018-01-device-negative-massand-lasers.html  but i guess it is the same thing. Still; it gets the weird effect thing across doesn't it?

So this is yet another way to get negative mass/energy whether  just apparent or really real.
Interesting article and comments following article.   

No posts for three days in this thread - hmmm - or did I miss a switch to a new thread??

graybeardsyseng
nope. It's really weird. I was feeling guilty because I thought I broke it or posted something so out of bounds it drove everyone away or have really bad personal hygiene or something.    :-\

Right? A couple of years ago we had multiple experimenters all committing to getting to the bottom of this. Now it's like they all disappeared and nothing new is being reported. Peter? Jamie? Shells?  Crickets!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 01/18/2018 05:54 pm
well i was going to post this https://phys.org/news/2018-01-device-negative-massand-lasers.html  but i guess it is the same thing. Still; it gets the weird effect thing across doesn't it?

So this is yet another way to get negative mass/energy whether  just apparent or really real.
Interesting article and comments following article.   

No posts for three days in this thread - hmmm - or did I miss a switch to a new thread??

graybeardsyseng
nope. It's really weird. I was feeling guilty because I thought I broke it or posted something so out of bounds it drove everyone away or have really bad personal hygiene or something.    :-\

Right? A couple of years ago we had multiple experimenters all committing to getting to the bottom of this. Now it's like they all disappeared and nothing new is being reported. Peter? Jamie? Shells?  Crickets!
Guys and Gals,

I'm still here and still committed to unraveling this enigma. Sadly it's slower going living at the top of the Rockies, the weather slows things down.

Not much more to report other than getting the new area set up correctly. It is tough trying to measure snow flakes, make sure you get it right and account for all the systemic errors.  I'm also working on a paper when I need to be inside and snuggled next to the fire.

I know Paul and Jamie are working on their projects, so have faith and have patience, we are still taking notes and kicking you know what.

My Very Best to some of the finest people I know,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 01/18/2018 10:06 pm
Right? A couple of years ago we had multiple experimenters all committing to getting to the bottom of this. Now it's like they all disappeared and nothing new is being reported. Peter? Jamie? Shells?  Crickets!

It's still too cold to get any work done. I thought moderate temperatures had returned, but then we've been having 14°F nights and days that barely get above freezing.  I live in the south, so this is a little unusual. My workshop is fairly well insulated, but it is a large room and the small space heater just doesn't cut it.

Everything is finished and ready to go. As soon as warmer weather arrives, I will be completing the first round of tests using the new 30W amplifier and heat sink. In the mean time, I've been trying to record another walk-around video, but need to get an adapter for my tripod that fits my new iphone.

I've also been working with the Polish group to get their test rig updated with a laser displacement sensor. I set them up with the FEKO files they needed to run simulations of their own. Jakub found that with slight modifications to their current cavity, they should be able to excite mode TE012 within the frequency range of their amplifier, at ~2.35Ghz. Below is an image from them.  I believe they will be in Philadelphia in May.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 01/19/2018 01:54 am
  I believe they will be in Philadelphia in May.


A public conference?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 01/19/2018 02:05 am
A public conference?

It is a competition: https://www.crazynauka.pl/explory-2017-znamy-juz-zwyciezcow-tego-konkursu-naukowego/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 01/19/2018 04:28 am
A public conference?

It is a competition: https://www.crazynauka.pl/explory-2017-znamy-juz-zwyciezcow-tego-konkursu-naukowego/
Its the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair (ISEF) I think - IIRC there is usually an open to the public day I think it is 17 May this year; although usually they are also looking for volunteer judges etc.   Some of the best and brightest students from around the world.

graybeardsyseng
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 01/19/2018 11:19 am
I recently checked, if there is some development about the EmDrive and I found out that two days ago many russian news sites posted about something in China.

The following text is translated from the the russian site - https://vistanews.ru/science/203299
I asked Oywz if he can find the chinese original. Or if there was any paper released for their claims. If there are any other chinese people that can help that would be great.

"Scientists from the Chinese Academy of Sciences explained why the work of the EmDrive sensational engine is in full compliance with the laws of physics. Previously, specialists did not take into account the strengths of the horizontal components when calculating the thrust, erroneously claiming a violation of the laws of physics by a unique engine.

Until now, calculation of thrust EmDrive took into account only 2 vertical forces, while the horizontal components were completely ignored. It is the consideration of all the above elements of the formula that avoids the erroneous opinion about the violation of the laws of physics by the sensational engine, scientists from CAS emphasize. EmDrive looks like an ordinary gilded bucket. The author of the project assured the scientific community of the ability of a unique engine to convert radiation into cravings. Since 1999 (the moment of invention EmDrive) disputes about the peculiarities of engine operation and its "relationships" with the laws of physics have not abated."

End of the text.

Ok found the original russian text here - https://dni.ru/tech/2018/1/16/389086.html

The principle of the EmDrive engine does not violate the laws of physics. The secrets of his work were explained by Chinese scientists.

The engine's creator, Roger Scheuer, calculated the thrust developed by EmDrive with only two forces acting vertically. And the forces that have horizontal components, the British decided to neglect. The work aroused controversy among the colleagues of the inventor - it seemed to them that the engine violated the law of conservation of momentum.

The scientist Chen Wu (Chrochne note: keep in mind google translation of names is horrible) of the Institute of Mechanics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences offered his explanation to the experts. In his opinion, it is precisely the account of horizontal forces that avoids the seeming contradiction. Their contribution mathematically reduces to the surface integral from the Umov-Poynting vector (the vector of the energy flux density of the electromagnetic field), and physically to the radiation pressure on the side walls of the EmDrive cavity.

Presented by Schoyer in 1999, the design, according to the inventor, should convert radiation into traction. EmDrive consists of a magnetron that generates microwaves, and a resonator that accumulates the energy of their oscillations. Outwardly, the unit resembles a bucket.

In 2016, a group of NASA scientists reported on the tests of EmDrive. In the article it was noted that the motor in a vacuum develops a thrust of 1.2 milliNontons per kilowatt. Errors in the design of the testers were not found, but they did not find the retroactive force responsible for the developed EmDrive reactive thrust. The latter must be present in accordance with the law of conservation of momentum. This fact caused heated debate in the academic community, writes Lenta.ru with reference to the journal Acta Astronautica.

The EmDrive technology can be described as a "fuelless rocket engine". It does not require fuel, and the absence of large volumes of fuel on board will make space ships easier. Theoretically, they will be easier to set in motion, and production will be much cheaper. In addition, the hypothetical engine will achieve incredibly high speeds: astronauts will be able to get to the outer boundaries of the solar system in a matter of months.

However, the concept of motion without reactive ejection of mass does not dovetail with the Newtonian law of conservation of momentum. In accordance with this within the closed system, the linear and angular momenta remain constant values, regardless of the changes occurring within this system. That is, if you do not apply an external force to the body, then you can not move it from its place.

End of text
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 01/20/2018 10:40 am
I recently checked, if there is some development about the EmDrive and I found out that two days ago many russian news sites posted about something in China.
...
"Scientists from the Chinese Academy of Sciences explained why the work of the EmDrive sensational engine is in full compliance with the laws of physics. Previously, specialists did not take into account the strengths of the horizontal components when calculating the thrust, erroneously claiming a violation of the laws of physics by a unique engine.

Until now, calculation of thrust EmDrive took into account only 2 vertical forces, while the horizontal components were completely ignored. It is the consideration of all the above elements of the formula that avoids the erroneous opinion about the violation of the laws of physics by the sensational engine, scientists from CAS emphasize. EmDrive looks like an ordinary gilded bucket. The author of the project assured the scientific community of the ability of a unique engine to convert radiation into cravings. Since 1999 (the moment of invention EmDrive) disputes about the peculiarities of engine operation and its "relationships" with the laws of physics have not abated."
...

It does not sound very impressive.  ::)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 01/20/2018 04:22 pm
The principle of the EmDrive engine does not violate the laws of physics. The secrets of his work were explained by Chinese scientists.
...
However, the concept of motion without reactive ejection of mass does not dovetail with the Newtonian law of conservation of momentum. In accordance with this within the closed system, the linear and angular momenta remain constant values, regardless of the changes occurring within this system. That is, if you do not apply an external force to the body, then you can not move it from its place.
These sentences simply contradict each other, unless the first one also left out saying "the emDrive does nothing useful." The so-called explanation in between still describes "motion without reactive ejection of mass."
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThinkerX on 01/21/2018 12:10 am
Quote
These sentences simply contradict each other, unless the first one also left out saying "the emDrive does nothing useful." The so-called explanation in between still describes "motion without reactive ejection of mass."

The posted bits looked like a poor summary gleaned from public sources...at least to me.  It also looks like translation issues abound. 




Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: as58 on 01/21/2018 09:54 pm
I think the article that the Russian sites are discussing is https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322261866

The article doesn't seem to say anything that hasn't been said many times before.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 01/23/2018 03:40 pm
Just this morning I noticed the NovaTech banner advertisement that supports every single NSF webpage view in the top right corner.

Even though I've seen it tens of thousands of times by now, I finally took a moment to actually look at their banner ad.

It turns out that they are an engineering company that specializes in developing customized force measurement solutions.

https://www.novatechloadcells.co.uk

How appropriate is that?!?

It sure would be nice if they'd participate in our Emdrive design and measurement discussions. *hint hint mods*

Perhaps because I am using an iOS device but I found no banner ad of any kind at the linked page.., or several layers deeper from that page?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: D_Dom on 01/23/2018 03:45 pm
I have contacted them in the past. Their instrumentation is capable of measurement at this scale. Very helpful and responded right away to my inquiry.
Exchanged private message with RERT at the time, he provided this link; www.micronewton.co.uk/info.html
This was some time ago, I haven't built anything suitable for experimentation yet...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 01/23/2018 04:26 pm
Just this morning I noticed the NovaTech banner advertisement that supports every single NSF webpage view in the top right corner.

Even though I've seen it tens of thousands of times by now, I finally took a moment to actually look at their banner ad.

It turns out that they are an engineering company that specializes in developing customized force measurement solutions.

https://www.novatechloadcells.co.uk

How appropriate is that?!?

It sure would be nice if they'd participate in our Emdrive design and measurement discussions. *hint hint mods*

Perhaps because I am using an iOS device but I found no banner ad of any kind at the linked page.., or several layers deeper from that page?

The banner ad is on THIS page. Clicking on the ad takes you to the page that was linked.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 01/23/2018 04:45 pm
Just this morning I noticed the NovaTech banner advertisement that supports every single NSF webpage view in the top right corner.

Even though I've seen it tens of thousands of times by now, I finally took a moment to actually look at their banner ad.

It turns out that they are an engineering company that specializes in developing customized force measurement solutions.

https://www.novatechloadcells.co.uk

How appropriate is that?!?

It sure would be nice if they'd participate in our Emdrive design and measurement discussions. *hint hint mods*

Perhaps because I am using an iOS device but I found no banner ad of any kind at the linked page.., or several layers deeper from that page?

The banner ad is on THIS page. Clicking on the ad takes you to the page that was linked.

Dah… Got it. Shows how much attention I pay to banner ads.

P.S. Still when mentioned I’d did check it out.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 01/23/2018 05:20 pm
I have contacted them in the past. Their instrumentation is capable of measurement at this scale. Very helpful and responded right away to my inquiry.
Exchanged private message with RERT at the time, he provided this link; www.micronewton.co.uk/info.html
This was some time ago, I haven't built anything suitable for experimentation yet...

Nice that it can measure micro-Newtons, but my MEGA Drive weighs 1.4 kg. This load cell can't support the weight of the device AND measure the forces. Any suggestions? It would be nice to have a device that can hang a MEGA and measure such small changes in weight.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 01/23/2018 07:36 pm
I have contacted them in the past. Their instrumentation is capable of measurement at this scale. Very helpful and responded right away to my inquiry.
Exchanged private message with RERT at the time, he provided this link; www.micronewton.co.uk/info.html
This was some time ago, I haven't built anything suitable for experimentation yet...

Nice that it can measure micro-Newtons, but my MEGA Drive weighs 1.4 kg. This load cell can't support the weight of the device AND measure the forces. Any suggestions? It would be nice to have a device that can hang a MEGA and measure such small changes in weight.

Here is anther thought.  Two opposing MET drives mounted on a pendulum.  One driven in propulsion mode the other in a neutral mode. 

The pendulum uses a bounced laser and you operate the drives at the resonant frequency of the pendulum.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1691070#msg1691070
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 01/23/2018 07:39 pm
http://s1039.photobucket.com/user/shells2bells2002/library/CE%20Electromagnetic%20Reaction%20Thruster?sort=2&page=1

You can do a balance beam like I did a couple years ago on my first build. After setting a counter balance weight at one end I used a micrometer to raise and lower the beam to set the scales.
My Very Best,
Shell

I have contacted them in the past. Their instrumentation is capable of measurement at this scale. Very helpful and responded right away to my inquiry.
Exchanged private message with RERT at the time, he provided this link; www.micronewton.co.uk/info.html
This was some time ago, I haven't built anything suitable for experimentation yet...

Nice that it can measure micro-Newtons, but my MEGA Drive weighs 1.4 kg. This load cell can't support the weight of the device AND measure the forces. Any suggestions? It would be nice to have a device that can hang a MEGA and measure such small changes in weight.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 01/23/2018 08:11 pm
I have contacted them in the past. Their instrumentation is capable of measurement at this scale. Very helpful and responded right away to my inquiry.
Exchanged private message with RERT at the time, he provided this link; www.micronewton.co.uk/info.html
This was some time ago, I haven't built anything suitable for experimentation yet...

Nice that it can measure micro-Newtons, but my MEGA Drive weighs 1.4 kg. This load cell can't support the weight of the device AND measure the forces. Any suggestions? It would be nice to have a device that can hang a MEGA and measure such small changes in weight.

Here is anther thought.  Two opposing MET drives mounted on a pendulum.  One driven in propulsion mode the other in a neutral mode. 

The pendulum uses a bounced laser and you operate the drives at the resonant frequency of the pendulum.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1691070#msg1691070

The pendulum frequency will be much too low. The MEGA is operating at 21.5kHz. I don't think you can make a pendulum that will swing that fast.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 01/24/2018 01:16 am
Off topic but...


(http://scontent-amt2-1.cdninstagram.com/t51.2885-15/e15/11287674_904192169637488_437740892_n.jpg)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: madengr on 01/24/2018 01:20 am
Has the possibility of circulating DC current within the resonant cavity been considered, creating the torque via the Earth's magnetic field?  I'm specifically thinking about impurities at the copper surface (i.e. copper oxide) causing rectification of the resonant mode.  Passive InterModulation (PIM) is troublesome in high-power RF connectors, but in that case it's not the DC component, but 3rd order IM and harmonics that are the issue.  Though any nonlinearity will generate a DC component.

PIM is usually between two joints/surfaces, but has been observed as a distributed effect in copper foils:

https://www.4taconic.com/uploads/ADD%20Technical%20Articles/1453316395_Distributed%20sources%20of%20passive%20intermodulation%20on%20printed%20lines.pdf

Given the high Q of the resonator and high drive power, I'd think there would be some small nonlinear effects.  The NASA paper, they took care to twist the power cables to minimize any static magnetic field.  Though I didn't see a mention of cavity currents.  I emailed one of the NASA authors several months ago but did not get a reply.  Just stumbled on this thread today, so thought I'd bring up the topic.

I regularly use CST (I'm an RF/ Microwave EE) but have never read about modeling a non-linear surface impedance.  Given the resonant mode is 2 along the circumference, that may yield two current paths along the circumference.

Anyway, just a thought.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 01/24/2018 01:23 am
I have contacted them in the past. Their instrumentation is capable of measurement at this scale. Very helpful and responded right away to my inquiry.
Exchanged private message with RERT at the time, he provided this link; www.micronewton.co.uk/info.html
This was some time ago, I haven't built anything suitable for experimentation yet...

Nice that it can measure micro-Newtons, but my MEGA Drive weighs 1.4 kg. This load cell can't support the weight of the device AND measure the forces. Any suggestions? It would be nice to have a device that can hang a MEGA and measure such small changes in weight.

Here is anther thought.  Two opposing MET drives mounted on a pendulum.  One driven in propulsion mode the other in a neutral mode. 

The pendulum uses a bounced laser and you operate the drives at the resonant frequency of the pendulum.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1691070#msg1691070

The pendulum frequency will be much too low. The MEGA is operating at 21.5kHz. I don't think you can make a pendulum that will swing that fast.

Just make the voltage to the M.E.T.'s vary sinusoidal at the lower frequency of maybe 1 hz.  Run them at 21.5 khz but turn them on and off (or vary their voltage sinusoidal between min max) at maybe 1 hz or what ever the resonant frequency of the pendulum is.  Might help them run more cool. 

Never seen one built before. 

 I am not sure if it might require specialized mirrors unfortunately.

OK never mind it looks like these people built one

Angle amplification for nanoradian measurements
Marco Pisani and Milena Astrua
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=17562303010736805268&hl=en&as_sdt=0,26
Quote
A method to amplify the rotation angle of a mirror, based on multiple reflections between two quasi-parallel
mirrors, is presented. The method allows rotations of fractions of nanoradians to be measured with a simple
setup. The working principle, the experimental setup, and the results are presented.


On second thought I might not recommend using mirrors because the MET's might cause the mirrors to vibrate causing problems with measurements!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Augmentor on 01/24/2018 03:32 pm
A structure of material supporting a superpolsihed surface may be useful.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 01/24/2018 04:01 pm
Hi everybody, a small sign of life from my side, after being almost absend for a few months.
I don't have the cold weather as an excuse, like some Americans on this forum (on the contrary, here in the Netherlands the hottest January 24nd since measurements started in 1901 has been recorded). But my EmDrive project almost got to a standstill because I had to empty my parents house after my mother went to a residential home. Quite a daunting task.

Nevertheless, I recently did some tests with the torsion balance, see the attached pictures. The initial tests I usually do with a paper chart recorder since you have better overview, especially when rotating the wire for zero output and to observe drift. When everything seems to work fine, I shift to using an ADC and LabView software.
The unrest is higher than I had in the past with these electronics and sensors. The frame and portal is a little different, more compact then before. It is placed on the floor for better stability (and also because of too small lab-space, I have to admit  ;) ), the cover is a temporary one but should be OK.
The portal should be covered, of course. And maybe the temperature difference between the floor and the top of the cover is too large (of the order of 1 degree Celsius) and I have to add some thermal insulation. The damping is about right, slightly overdamped I estimate from the measurement in the last picture (the step-function force is made with a small bar magnet/solenoid system, force = about 15-20 micronewton. It is not calibrated yet).
So far the torsion balance system, first I am going to do some microwave measurements on the frustum and coupling.
The torsion balance arm which can be seen in the picture, is a symmetrical one for testing purposes of the system only. Another balance arm for holding the microwave cavity (e.g., the frustum shaped one) is under construction.

Cheers,
Peter
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 01/25/2018 01:12 pm
Hi everybody, a small sign of life from my side, after being almost absend for a few months.
I don't have the cold weather as an excuse, like some Americans on this forum (on the contrary, here in the Netherlands the hottest January 24nd since measurements started in 1901 has been recorded). But my EmDrive project almost got to a standstill because I had to empty my parents house after my mother went to a residential home. Quite a daunting task.

Nevertheless, I recently did some tests with the torsion balance, see the attached pictures. The initial tests I usually do with a paper chart recorder since you have better overview, especially when rotating the wire for zero output and to observe drift. When everything seems to work fine, I shift to using an ADC and LabView software.
The unrest is higher than I had in the past with these electronics and sensors. The frame and portal is a little different, more compact then before. It is placed on the floor for better stability (and also because of too small lab-space, I have to admit  ;) ), the cover is a temporary one but should be OK.
The portal should be covered, of course. And maybe the temperature difference between the floor and the top of the cover is too large (of the order of 1 degree Celsius) and I have to add some thermal insulation. The damping is about right, slightly overdamped I estimate from the measurement in the last picture (the step-function force is made with a small bar magnet/solenoid system, force = about 15-20 micronewton. It is not calibrated yet).
So far the torsion balance system, first I am going to do some microwave measurements on the frustum and coupling.
The torsion balance arm which can be seen in the picture, is a symmetrical one for testing purposes of the system only. Another balance arm for holding the microwave cavity (e.g., the frustum shaped one) is under construction.

Cheers,
Peter

Peter -

Very nice build progress!   When you have time could you provide more detail on the design of the torsion balance and support system (and my apologies of I missed this earlier).  Drawing or sketch perhaps.

   And I love the strip chart recorder - excellent especially for initial system tuning.   Digital recording is great and useful but something about pen on paper just feels right too.   Maybe my age is showing LOL.   Big plus for Labview too - it is worth the effort and cost.

We here in Texas would be happy to trade some of that warm weather.   We have had several days down to nearly -10C where I live.  That has stopped all work here.

BTW -best wishes for your mother and you in the new living arrangements  - having gone through that recently myself that can be a very traumatic and stressful process.   Family comes first but it can be very challenging.

Best Wishes,
Herman
graybeardsyseng

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 01/25/2018 02:10 pm
I have contacted them in the past. Their instrumentation is capable of measurement at this scale. Very helpful and responded right away to my inquiry.
Exchanged private message with RERT at the time, he provided this link; www.micronewton.co.uk/info.html
This was some time ago, I haven't built anything suitable for experimentation yet...

Nice that it can measure micro-Newtons, but my MEGA Drive weighs 1.4 kg. This load cell can't support the weight of the device AND measure the forces. Any suggestions? It would be nice to have a device that can hang a MEGA and measure such small changes in weight.

This appears to be a friction-less slip ring for conveying power to a rotary system.  I couldn't figure out where to buy one of how much but if its affordable it might be handy for conveying power to some rotating system such as a pendulum or something.   

https://powerbyproxi.com/products/proxi-point-150w/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvR_aj6D-8c
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 01/25/2018 09:38 pm
This appears to be a friction-less slip ring for conveying power to a rotary system.  I couldn't figure out where to buy one of how much but if its affordable it might be handy for conveying power to some rotating system such as a pendulum or something.   

I found it very easy to use LiPo batteries for power and 5G wifi for communication. 5G because I am testing the emdrive on the 2.4Ghz band - so anyone testing the MET could get away with 2.4G wireless since there are no problems with RF interference. The RF amplifier draws ~10A at 12V (120W), which is only a little less than the ~1A at ~200V (~200W) for the MET. My current electrical system could easily handle the added demand. The only drawback is having to change out the battery, though with a little work I could make it so the battery stays attached and I charge it by cable only.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 01/26/2018 06:33 pm
I have contacted them in the past. Their instrumentation is capable of measurement at this scale. Very helpful and responded right away to my inquiry.
Exchanged private message with RERT at the time, he provided this link; www.micronewton.co.uk/info.html
This was some time ago, I haven't built anything suitable for experimentation yet...

Nice that it can measure micro-Newtons, but my MEGA Drive weighs 1.4 kg. This load cell can't support the weight of the device AND measure the forces. Any suggestions? It would be nice to have a device that can hang a MEGA and measure such small changes in weight.

I might have an alternative to bouncing a laser between two mirrors.  If you still want to do the pendulum approach to amplify thrust displacement you could use two large capacitor plates.  They are large and very flat because you want a large area and small distance of  separation ~A/d*k=C.  A small change in distance leads to a rapid change in capacitance.  Applying a known voltage or current allows you to measure that change in capacitance.  The main advantage is that for a viberating system you can integrate the change in capacitance probably more easily than trying to observe a rapidly fluctuating laser beam.  I'll have to work out the details when I have the time.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: sanman on 01/26/2018 06:40 pm
Has anyone heard of the use of variable attenuation for production of large energy pulses from a resonant cavity, and could the inverse of this be used to generate a sharper accelerative impulse for better signal-to-noise ratio on the measurement side?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 01/26/2018 06:51 pm
I have contacted them in the past. Their instrumentation is capable of measurement at this scale. Very helpful and responded right away to my inquiry.
Exchanged private message with RERT at the time, he provided this link; www.micronewton.co.uk/info.html
This was some time ago, I haven't built anything suitable for experimentation yet...

Nice that it can measure micro-Newtons, but my MEGA Drive weighs 1.4 kg. This load cell can't support the weight of the device AND measure the forces. Any suggestions? It would be nice to have a device that can hang a MEGA and measure such small changes in weight.

I might have an alternative to bouncing a laser between two mirrors.  If you still want to do the pendulum approach to amplify thrust displacement you could use two large capacitor plates.  They are large and very flat because you want a large area and small distance of  separation ~A/d*k=C.  A small change in distance leads to a rapid change in capacitance.  Applying a known voltage or current allows you to measure that change in capacitance.  The main advantage is that for a viberating system you can integrate the change in capacitance probably more easily than trying to observe a rapidly fluctuating laser beam.  I'll have to work out the details when I have the time.
Capacitive distance sensors are state of the art but i think less useful in such pendulum experiment because of the (distant dependent!) additional force applied by charged capacitor plates.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 01/27/2018 02:44 am
I have contacted them in the past. Their instrumentation is capable of measurement at this scale. Very helpful and responded right away to my inquiry.
Exchanged private message with RERT at the time, he provided this link; www.micronewton.co.uk/info.html
This was some time ago, I haven't built anything suitable for experimentation yet...

Nice that it can measure micro-Newtons, but my MEGA Drive weighs 1.4 kg. This load cell can't support the weight of the device AND measure the forces. Any suggestions? It would be nice to have a device that can hang a MEGA and measure such small changes in weight.

I might have an alternative to bouncing a laser between two mirrors.  If you still want to do the pendulum approach to amplify thrust displacement you could use two large capacitor plates.  They are large and very flat because you want a large area and small distance of  separation ~A/d*k=C.  A small change in distance leads to a rapid change in capacitance.  Applying a known voltage or current allows you to measure that change in capacitance.  The main advantage is that for a viberating system you can integrate the change in capacitance probably more easily than trying to observe a rapidly fluctuating laser beam.  I'll have to work out the details when I have the time.
Capacitive distance sensors are state of the art but i think less useful in such pendulum experiment because of the (distant dependent!) additional force applied by charged capacitor plates.

Edit: I see what your saying.

Good point.  I was pondering applying a constant voltage to one plate with AC voltage to the other which would cause it to osculate but not be attracted.  Still this applies more force with distance changing osculation behavior. 

You can use a very small voltage to minimize force but the change with distance may be a problem.

 Edit2: Well hold on a minute.  What about keeping one capacitor plate charged at a set voltage and the other plate varying sinusoidally at that voltage between negative and positive.  If the frequency is much higher than the frequency of the pendulum there shouldn't be a net force. 

Edit3: Nevermind the striked through should not work.   I am not sure there is a way to make the plates as equally repulsive as they are attractive.

Correction: My integral of change in charge is off by a multiplier of 2 because for every charge you separate from one plate leaves another positive charge on the other so 2 charges created.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 01/28/2018 01:21 am
I have contacted them in the past. Their instrumentation is capable of measurement at this scale. Very helpful and responded right away to my inquiry.
Exchanged private message with RERT at the time, he provided this link; www.micronewton.co.uk/info.html
This was some time ago, I haven't built anything suitable for experimentation yet...

Nice that it can measure micro-Newtons, but my MEGA Drive weighs 1.4 kg. This load cell can't support the weight of the device AND measure the forces. Any suggestions? It would be nice to have a device that can hang a MEGA and measure such small changes in weight.

Here is anther thought.  Two opposing MET drives mounted on a pendulum.  One driven in propulsion mode the other in a neutral mode. 

The pendulum uses a bounced laser and you operate the drives at the resonant frequency of the pendulum.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1691070#msg1691070

The pendulum frequency will be much too low. The MEGA is operating at 21.5kHz. I don't think you can make a pendulum that will swing that fast.

Just make the voltage to the M.E.T.'s vary sinusoidal at the lower frequency of maybe 1 hz.  Run them at 21.5 khz but turn them on and off (or vary their voltage sinusoidal between min max) at maybe 1 hz or what ever the resonant frequency of the pendulum is.  Might help them run more cool. 

Never seen one built before. 

 I am not sure if it might require specialized mirrors unfortunately.

OK never mind it looks like these people built one

Angle amplification for nanoradian measurements
Marco Pisani and Milena Astrua
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=17562303010736805268&hl=en&as_sdt=0,26
Quote
A method to amplify the rotation angle of a mirror, based on multiple reflections between two quasi-parallel
mirrors, is presented. The method allows rotations of fractions of nanoradians to be measured with a simple
setup. The working principle, the experimental setup, and the results are presented.


On second thought I might not recommend using mirrors because the MET's might cause the mirrors to vibrate causing problems with measurements!

Maybe the dual mirrors would work after all.  I am guessing you might want to mount the mirrors on damping devices such as a type of rubber maybe so it would absorb vibrations. 

I had another crazy thought which was use a set of pezioelectric disks to sense viberations as a 1st layer.  The 2nd layer then creates an equal and opposite vibration to actively cancel vibrations to the mirror.  Sort of like those sound canceling head phones. 

Acoustic damping might be achievable by some devices they already have out for excluding local conversations beyond a range and external noise from beyond the range to the local conversation.

Would be interesting to see the maximum sensitivity achievable. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZEhe5vGonM
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 01/29/2018 05:41 pm

.....

Capacitive distance sensors are state of the art but i think less useful in such pendulum experiment because of the (distant dependent!) additional force applied by charged capacitor plates.

.....

Edit3: Nevermind the striked through should not work.   I am not sure there is a way to make the plates as equally repulsive as they are attractive.


Perhaps put one capacitive distance sensor on each side, one tending to rotate the torsion wire clockwise and one anti-clockwise.
If the force from each is constant, you are done - at worst the torsion wire will just settle off-centre if the forces are different. If the forces are non-constant with distance, to first order you probably just change the effective stiffness of the torsion wire a little if the change in force is linear with displacement on each side.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 01/31/2018 11:24 am
Hi everybody, a small sign of life from my side, after being almost absend for a few months.
I don't have the cold weather as an excuse, like some Americans on this forum (on the contrary, here in the Netherlands the hottest January 24nd since measurements started in 1901 has been recorded). But my EmDrive project almost got to a standstill because I had to empty my parents house after my mother went to a residential home. Quite a daunting task.

Nevertheless, I recently did some tests with the torsion balance, see the attached pictures. The initial tests I usually do with a paper chart recorder since you have better overview, especially when rotating the wire for zero output and to observe drift. When everything seems to work fine, I shift to using an ADC and LabView software.
The unrest is higher than I had in the past with these electronics and sensors. The frame and portal is a little different, more compact then before. It is placed on the floor for better stability (and also because of too small lab-space, I have to admit  ;) ), the cover is a temporary one but should be OK.
The portal should be covered, of course. And maybe the temperature difference between the floor and the top of the cover is too large (of the order of 1 degree Celsius) and I have to add some thermal insulation. The damping is about right, slightly overdamped I estimate from the measurement in the last picture (the step-function force is made with a small bar magnet/solenoid system, force = about 15-20 micronewton. It is not calibrated yet).
So far the torsion balance system, first I am going to do some microwave measurements on the frustum and coupling.
The torsion balance arm which can be seen in the picture, is a symmetrical one for testing purposes of the system only. Another balance arm for holding the microwave cavity (e.g., the frustum shaped one) is under construction.

Cheers,
Peter

Peter -

Very nice build progress!   When you have time could you provide more detail on the design of the torsion balance and support system (and my apologies of I missed this earlier).  Drawing or sketch perhaps.

   And I love the strip chart recorder - excellent especially for initial system tuning.   Digital recording is great and useful but something about pen on paper just feels right too.   Maybe my age is showing LOL.   Big plus for Labview too - it is worth the effort and cost.

We here in Texas would be happy to trade some of that warm weather.   We have had several days down to nearly -10C where I live.  That has stopped all work here.

BTW -best wishes for your mother and you in the new living arrangements  - having gone through that recently myself that can be a very traumatic and stressful process.   Family comes first but it can be very challenging.

Best Wishes,
Herman
graybeardsyseng

Hello Herman,
Well, thank you very much! I see the temperatures are a bit higher now in Texas.
I will post some more details about the torsion balance soon (say the coming weeks).

Cheers,
Peter
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 01/31/2018 11:55 am
EmDrive research at Naval Research Lab

In the meantime, I learned from one of my sources ( ;)) that the Naval Research Lab in the US also uses contactless microwave signal coupling in their EmDrive experiments.
They are using a kind of "stripline finger" to couple directly into the cavity under research.
It seems to me that they must be using a very rigid measurement instrument (torsion balance), because such a stripline will not enable movements of... probably smaller then 1 mm.
On the other hand, the stripline is probably more wideband than the "cavity coupling" I am using [see https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.04999].

Peter
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 01/31/2018 02:48 pm
SSI to begin releasing videos of the 2017 Advanced Propulsion Workshop


http://ssi.org/advanced-propulsion-workshop-2017/

Quote
Last November Space Studies Institute NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts (NIAC) Team Principal Investigator Dr. Heidi Fearn and Team Consultant Dr. James Woodward invited a group of friends and colleagues to discuss updates in engineering and testing of Propellant-less Propulsion, The “Woodward Effect,” The Machian Principle and other advanced physics and propulsion engineering topics.

Greg Meholic of The Aerospace Corporation, a presenter at the 2016 Estes Park Breakthrough Propulsion Workshop, offered an excellent space for this gathering in the Sally Ride Board Room at The Aerospace Corporation’s El Segundo, California headquarters.

The Space Studies Institute recorded the three day event and we are proud to begin releasing the full-length videos of the presentations starting this week on the SSI YouTube Channel

https://www.youtube.com/c/SSISpaceStudiesInstitute

There were a few papers about the EM Drive presented at this workshop...

For example, this one by Prof. Martin Tajmar that was just posted a few minutes ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36Hpgxb9MdU&t=1185s

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 01/31/2018 09:57 pm
SSI to begin releasing videos of the 2017 Advanced Propulsion Workshop


http://ssi.org/advanced-propulsion-workshop-2017/

Quote
Last November Space Studies Institute NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts (NIAC) Team Principal Investigator Dr. Heidi Fearn and Team Consultant Dr. James Woodward invited a group of friends and colleagues to discuss updates in engineering and testing of Propellant-less Propulsion, The “Woodward Effect,” The Machian Principle and other advanced physics and propulsion engineering topics.

Greg Meholic of The Aerospace Corporation, a presenter at the 2016 Estes Park Breakthrough Propulsion Workshop, offered an excellent space for this gathering in the Sally Ride Board Room at The Aerospace Corporation’s El Segundo, California headquarters.

The Space Studies Institute recorded the three day event and we are proud to begin releasing the full-length videos of the presentations starting this week on the SSI YouTube Channel

https://www.youtube.com/c/SSISpaceStudiesInstitute

There were a few papers about the EM Drive presented at this workshop...

For example, this one by Prof. Martin Tajmar that was just posted a few minutes ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36Hpgxb9MdU&t=1185s

Thanks Jose', the presentation is very enlightening and i am very happy you was there to ask the right questions as well as to trigger important points to discuss things related to the subject.
A special thanks goes to SSI.org for supporting the whole theme in this way.
I would be happy to be present at the next (scheduled?) conference.
So please keeping on your great work, it's nice to follow (as well right now :) ).

Prof. Martin Tajmar and his students (as well as many others!) are doing a great job in regard to detect the small forces involved and he gave a honest report of the work that was done as well as the future callenges . I like the ideas like the liquid metal coaxial contacts, very nice work.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 02/01/2018 12:59 am
SSI to begin releasing videos of the 2017 Advanced Propulsion Workshop


http://ssi.org/advanced-propulsion-workshop-2017/

Quote
Last November Space Studies Institute NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts (NIAC) Team Principal Investigator Dr. Heidi Fearn and Team Consultant Dr. James Woodward invited a group of friends and colleagues to discuss updates in engineering and testing of Propellant-less Propulsion, The “Woodward Effect,” The Machian Principle and other advanced physics and propulsion engineering topics.

Greg Meholic of The Aerospace Corporation, a presenter at the 2016 Estes Park Breakthrough Propulsion Workshop, offered an excellent space for this gathering in the Sally Ride Board Room at The Aerospace Corporation’s El Segundo, California headquarters.

The Space Studies Institute recorded the three day event and we are proud to begin releasing the full-length videos of the presentations starting this week on the SSI YouTube Channel

https://www.youtube.com/c/SSISpaceStudiesInstitute

There were a few papers about the EM Drive presented at this workshop...

For example, this one by Prof. Martin Tajmar that was just posted a few minutes ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36Hpgxb9MdU&t=1185s

Very good presentation by Dr. Tajmar. I'm working through all of the other videos. Thanks for bringing these to our attention Dr. Rodal. I wish the NRL would report. In my opinion below, I believe that the lessons learned from the "copper can" versions of the EMdrive have been learned, and they've had their day, and it's time to apply what we've learned from the EMdrive more generally and to greater effect by adding together the effect of countless millions of smaller cavities. We've discussed microcavities in previous threads, and more recently I brought up the idea I found in a work of fiction, which served to confirm my bias.

https://imgur.com/gallery/aGJN3
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 02/01/2018 02:43 am

.....

Capacitive distance sensors are state of the art but i think less useful in such pendulum experiment because of the (distant dependent!) additional force applied by charged capacitor plates.

.....

Edit3: Nevermind the striked through should not work.   I am not sure there is a way to make the plates as equally repulsive as they are attractive.


Perhaps put one capacitive distance sensor on each side, one tending to rotate the torsion wire clockwise and one anti-clockwise.
If the force from each is constant, you are done - at worst the torsion wire will just settle off-centre if the forces are different. If the forces are non-constant with distance, to first order you probably just change the effective stiffness of the torsion wire a little if the change in force is linear with displacement on each side.

Thanks.  I think it would change the expected behavior of the pendulum unless the forces are reduced to being insignificant.  If the capacitor is kept at constant voltage then the force varies something like the inverse of distance squared.  Other issues are that if your using an AC signal to measure capacitance there are some repulsive forces via the changing magnetic field.  Another issue is for a pendulum one of the capacitor plates doesn't just come closer but slightly changes in angle. 

The laser method seems inherently better at measuring small changes in angle "if" you want to enhance an already existing pendulum.  I guess the torsion pendulums are already quite sensitive and one would have to determine if they were enhancing it beyond what is needed, or if it is needed. 

Osculating a torsion pendulum to enhance amplitude of deflection may be more than enough if one needed to enhance detection. 

A torsion pendulum plus osculation plus angled precision mirrors may be over kill. 

Probably the most important is eliminating unwanted measurements such as thermal effects and magnetic interference.  That was my primary reason for suggesting double enclosing a pendulum in a free to rotate ferrous box, which is enclosed in a non-rotating ferrous box.   The non rotating ferrous box shunts external magnetic fields around the device.  The internal ferrous box shunts internal magnetic fields from the pendulum back to the pendulum.  Ideally the pendulum is then free to osculate with out regards to interference.

Enclosing the device in an airtight insulated bubble may help eliminate thrust from uneven heating but limits heat dissipation.  May contribute to buoyancy which may not be a problem with a torsion pendulum. 

The contact-less power transfer peter suggested may help if not using batteries.

I was considering was how to eliminate vibrations from a vibrating MET (mach effect thruster) with the laser method.  The laser method is probably overkill and not good for vibrations but had the neat idea of using the pezio sensors to active damp viberations.  If a pendulum isn't enough, pulsing thrust at the resonant frequency of the pendulum may be. 

I think some have a laser mounted on the pendulum and let it deflect over a distance and for "small angle" 2*pi*r*theta/360=dx . 

Interferometry is another I think so maybe not overkill in that light.

It's exciting to see their plans in the video for a free rotating system in vacuum.  I guess that's better than storing energy in osculations with damping.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 02/01/2018 09:51 am
SSI to begin releasing videos of the 2017 Advanced Propulsion Workshop


http://ssi.org/advanced-propulsion-workshop-2017/

Quote
Last November Space Studies Institute NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts (NIAC) Team Principal Investigator Dr. Heidi Fearn and Team Consultant Dr. James Woodward invited a group of friends and colleagues to discuss updates in engineering and testing of Propellant-less Propulsion, The “Woodward Effect,” The Machian Principle and other advanced physics and propulsion engineering topics.

Greg Meholic of The Aerospace Corporation, a presenter at the 2016 Estes Park Breakthrough Propulsion Workshop, offered an excellent space for this gathering in the Sally Ride Board Room at The Aerospace Corporation’s El Segundo, California headquarters.

The Space Studies Institute recorded the three day event and we are proud to begin releasing the full-length videos of the presentations starting this week on the SSI YouTube Channel

https://www.youtube.com/c/SSISpaceStudiesInstitute

There were a few papers about the EM Drive presented at this workshop...

For example, this one by Prof. Martin Tajmar that was just posted a few minutes ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36Hpgxb9MdU&t=1185s

I only had time to browse through the first part of Tajmar's presentation. At first glance, it doesn't sound very positive for the existence of an "EmDrive effect".

What I understand from my brief views:
- They measured forces of a few micronewton/watt with the frustum at normal orientation (0 degrees)
- The force reversed when rotating the frustum by 180 degrees
So far so good. But
- They also measured these forces when putting the frustum upright (90 degrees rotation)
Which sounds rather suspect: Probably heat effect or Lorentz forces. And
- They measured with a 40 dB attenuator before the frustum input. And still measured the same forces.
Again: probably Lorentz forces or heat effect (but not from the frustum, therefore not a heat effect which would depend on the orientation of the frustum).
It remains strange then, considering all this, that the forces reversed when rotating the frustum by 180 degrees.
Yes, I have to study Tajmar's presentation more carefully.

Peter
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 02/01/2018 10:38 am
I only had time to browse through the first part of Tajmar's presentation. At first glance, it doesn't sound very positive for the existence of an "EmDrive effect".

What I understand from my brief views:
- They measured forces of a few micronewton/watt with the frustum at normal orientation (0 degrees)
- The force reversed when rotating the frustum by 180 degrees
So far so good. But
- They also measured these forces when putting the frustum upright (90 degrees rotation)
Which sounds rather suspect: Probably heat effect or Lorentz forces. And
- They measured with a 40 dB attenuator before the frustum input. And still measured the same forces.
Again: probably Lorentz forces or heat effect (but not from the frustum, therefore not a heat effect which would depend on the orientation of the frustum).
It remains strange then, considering all this, that the forces reversed when rotating the frustum by 180 degrees.
Yes, I have to study Tajmar's presentation more carefully.

Peter

Agreed, very pessimistic. Your last point seems only a small ray of hope. I hope he doesn't give up before implementing the mu-metal shielding and Helmholtz coils, which could be definitive. They seem to have a fabulous measurement setup and should find what the thrust is, even if it is essentially zero.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 02/01/2018 01:08 pm
Agreed, very pessimistic. Your last point seems only a small ray of hope.
...

Or one must assume that the frustum under test generates a force with a direction of 45 degrees (between the axis and the vertical).
  ;D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 02/01/2018 01:40 pm
I only had time to browse through the first part of Tajmar's presentation. At first glance, it doesn't sound very positive for the existence of an "EmDrive effect".

What I understand from my brief views:
- They measured forces of a few micronewton/watt with the frustum at normal orientation (0 degrees)
- The force reversed when rotating the frustum by 180 degrees
So far so good. But
- They also measured these forces when putting the frustum upright (90 degrees rotation)
Which sounds rather suspect: Probably heat effect or Lorentz forces. And
- They measured with a 40 dB attenuator before the frustum input. And still measured the same forces.
Again: probably Lorentz forces or heat effect (but not from the frustum, therefore not a heat effect which would depend on the orientation of the frustum).
It remains strange then, considering all this, that the forces reversed when rotating the frustum by 180 degrees.
Yes, I have to study Tajmar's presentation more carefully.

Peter

Agreed, very pessimistic. Your last point seems only a small ray of hope. I hope he doesn't give up before implementing the mu-metal shielding and Helmholtz coils, which could be definitive. They seem to have a fabulous measurement setup and should find what the thrust is, even if it is essentially zero.

I think they have a lot more to test.  Testing on a dummy load instead, or maybe operation of a null mode "if we knew what that was".  More than one cavity to test.  Dielectrics.  Different modes of operation.  I would be curious the mode they did test and the apparent stretching of the wavelength.  Thermal images of excitation matching predicted currents.  I think they are only getting started.  Even after all testing a definitive negative result is better than inconclusive.  It's exciting they have more than one propellant-less option to test such as MET's. 

After the video there was also a moving mirror device based on the dynamic casimir force.  I pondered if the optimal displacement of the mirror could be related to the optimal displacement of the MET's but its a little different in that they can just shut the mirror off.  Still might work though.  Pondered if the moving mirror could possibly be related to an advancing front of quasi particles or advancing holes.  Not sure I know enough about it. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Augmentor on 02/01/2018 03:22 pm
Dynamic Casimir effect has not been excluded yet.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 02/01/2018 03:51 pm
Agreed, very pessimistic. Your last point seems only a small ray of hope.
...

Or one must assume that the frustum under test generates a force with a direction of 45 degrees (between the axis and the vertical).
  ;D

I think it has to do with feeding the frustum from the side and not from the concentric axis. The antenna + coaxial cable will recoil when the field is emitted by the antenna. Since the feed is on the side...  It would be nice if we knew which side the input was on when that test was done, but he didn't show it or mention it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 02/01/2018 05:23 pm
The Navy Research Lab's presentation has been posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnJ0_9MRcDU

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 02/01/2018 07:04 pm
The Navy Research Lab's presentation has been posted:


This looks like the kind of experiment needed to close the debate of the existence of the Emdrive.

If this one and Dr. Tajmar's experiments find nothing, the debate is over for me. If there's still something... I don't dare speculate.

A negative result may be disappointing for most people following this, but let's remember that knowing the truth is way better than not.

Also and regardless of the outcome, it leaves a legacy of public awareness of what it takes to prove similar proposals and ideas.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: oyzw on 02/02/2018 12:02 am
The Navy Research Lab's presentation has been posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnJ0_9MRcDU
Hello !  Can you tell me the conclusion of the us naval laboratory?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 02/02/2018 07:14 am
The Navy Research Lab's presentation has been posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnJ0_9MRcDU
Hello !  Can you tell me the conclusion of the us naval laboratory?

The video discusses how they plan to conduct the experiment. There are no results to report yet.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 02/02/2018 09:02 am
I only had time to browse through the first part of Tajmar's presentation. At first glance, it doesn't sound very positive for the existence of an "EmDrive effect".

What I understand from my brief views:
- They measured forces of a few micronewton/watt with the frustum at normal orientation (0 degrees)
- The force reversed when rotating the frustum by 180 degrees
So far so good. But
- They also measured these forces when putting the frustum upright (90 degrees rotation)
Which sounds rather suspect: Probably heat effect or Lorentz forces. And
- They measured with a 40 dB attenuator before the frustum input. And still measured the same forces.
Again: probably Lorentz forces or heat effect (but not from the frustum, therefore not a heat effect which would depend on the orientation of the frustum).
It remains strange then, considering all this, that the forces reversed when rotating the frustum by 180 degrees.
Yes, I have to study Tajmar's presentation more carefully.

Peter

Agreed, very pessimistic. Your last point seems only a small ray of hope. I hope he doesn't give up before implementing the mu-metal shielding and Helmholtz coils, which could be definitive. They seem to have a fabulous measurement setup and should find what the thrust is, even if it is essentially zero.

Jim Woodward builds Mach Effect Thrusters aka MEGA drives himself (well, with the help of other people, as it's a teamwork) at CSUF, then ships these test articles directly to researchers anywhere in the world, who investigate their behavior on their own balance rig, trying to replicate Woodward's data and better characterize these devices. Martin Tajmar has one or several of these stacks for testing at TU Dresden.

Why in the world nobody asks Roger Shawyer to send them an old EmDrive design (copper 1st gen) to test on their own setup? Why everyone tries to reinvent the wheel without even bothering to ask Shawyer for a working (and according to him, very efficient, with several hundreds of mN/kW) thruster, exactly like Woodward does?

Sonny White didn't even bother to ask Shawyer for one of his thrusters nor his basic design principles, so Paul March had to handmade a frustum at home in his own living room for Eagleworks, apparently similar but having in fact fundamental differences departing from canonical EmDrives (especially regarding Shawyer's design factor and small end "cut-off rule" as well as the use of dielectrics). Tajmar at least asked for Shawyer's advice for his first inefficient mini design out of resonance, with an abysmal Q factor and a giant hole on one side, although we do not know exactly at what point of the development, nor how much Shawyer gave recommendations.

Why every lab (Eagleworks, NWPU, TU Dresden, NRL…) tries to replicate Shawyer's EmDrive design by approximately rebuilding a frustum, instead of asking Shawyer to test a thruster he has already made, is beyond me.

Only Boeing acknowledged to have done so ten years ago, but since their test results are still classified, this is pointless.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Kenjee on 02/02/2018 11:30 am
Using exceptional points coalescing waves stopping light (http://www.sciencealert.com/using-exceptional-points-coalescing-waves-stopping-light)

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.013901 (https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.013901)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: francesco nicoli on 02/02/2018 12:00 pm
I only had time to browse through the first part of Tajmar's presentation. At first glance, it doesn't sound very positive for the existence of an "EmDrive effect".

What I understand from my brief views:
- They measured forces of a few micronewton/watt with the frustum at normal orientation (0 degrees)
- The force reversed when rotating the frustum by 180 degrees
So far so good. But
- They also measured these forces when putting the frustum upright (90 degrees rotation)
Which sounds rather suspect: Probably heat effect or Lorentz forces. And
- They measured with a 40 dB attenuator before the frustum input. And still measured the same forces.
Again: probably Lorentz forces or heat effect (but not from the frustum, therefore not a heat effect which would depend on the orientation of the frustum).
It remains strange then, considering all this, that the forces reversed when rotating the frustum by 180 degrees.
Yes, I have to study Tajmar's presentation more carefully.

Peter

Agreed, very pessimistic. Your last point seems only a small ray of hope. I hope he doesn't give up before implementing the mu-metal shielding and Helmholtz coils, which could be definitive. They seem to have a fabulous measurement setup and should find what the thrust is, even if it is essentially zero.

Jim Woodward builds Mach Effect Thrusters aka MEGA drives himself (well, with the help of other people, as it's a teamwork) at CSUF, then ships these test articles directly to researchers anywhere in the world, who investigate their behavior on their own balance rig, trying to replicate Woodward's data and better characterize these devices. Martin Tajmar has one or several of these stacks for testing at TU Dresden.

Why in the world nobody asks Roger Shawyer to send them an old EmDrive design (copper 1st gen) to test on their own setup? Why everyone tries to reinvent the wheel without even bothering to ask Shawyer for a working (and according to him, very efficient, with several hundreds of mN/kW) thruster, exactly like Woodward does?

Sonny White didn't even bother to ask Shawyer for one of his thrusters nor his basic design principles, so Paul March had to handmade a frustum at home in his own living room for Eagleworks, apparently similar but having in fact fundamental differences departing from canonical EmDrives (especially regarding Shawyer's design factor and small end "cut-off rule" as well as the use of dielectrics). Tajmar at least asked for Shawyer's advice for his first inefficient mini design out of resonance, with an abysmal Q factor and a giant hole on one side, although we do not know exactly at what point of the development, nor how much Shawyer gave recommendations.

Why every lab (Eagleworks, NWPU, TU Dresden, NRL…) tries to replicate Shawyer's EmDrive design by approximately rebuilding a frustum, instead of asking Shawyer to test a thruster he has already made, is beyond me.

Only Boeing acknowledged to have done so ten years ago, but since their test results are still classified, this is pointless.

1. afaik, Shawyer never wanted to share details. And for the "working prototype" he would have asked substantial money (as he did with Boeing?) and his own supervision.
2. Are you sure Boeing results are "classified"? afaik, they simply terminated the contract saying they are not interested. Different thing.
3. I am pretty sure  that they would be very glad if Shawyer sent him a test item for trials and validation. I am pretty sure it won't happen.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 02/02/2018 01:10 pm
1. afaik, Shawyer never wanted to share details. And for the "working prototype" he would have asked substantial money (as he did with Boeing?) and his own supervision.
So what? Doesn't it cost money also to build oneself a proper, dimensionally stable or tuning frustum with a high Q factor, from scratch and without years of refining such design? What is the purpose of these labs: to build the cheapest test article with copper foils themselves, which may not work; to make a particular lab or researcher look good in the media; or to finally measure thrust levels clearly above the noise? One should decide. This is not a hobby.

Let's remember Shawyer's first prototype would have produced a thrust of 16mN @850W in 2002, and the subsequent Demonstrator Engine shown on websites is claimed to have produced an effective measured thrust of ~120 mN @400W (specific thrust of ~300 mN/kW) in 2006. This is not the same playground than anything that has been tested elsewhere since.

I may add that the Flight thruster Boeing acquired, that you mentioned, was at that time some very "advanced" model at SPR Ltd, in 2010. Eight years laters, advanced projects have moved to cryogenic and superconducting designs according to Shawyer, yet only an access to the prior demonstrator or even the now fifteen years old "archaic" first prototype would be enough. Not even the Flight Thruster. Because a thrust efficiency of hundreds of millinewtons per kilowatt of input RF power would be enough to settle the case without keeping asking about how much convection currents play a role, or thermal expansion, or Lorentz forces with or without DC ground loops, or any unknown bizarre lateral force component, etc.

Quote
2. Are you sure Boeing results are "classified"? afaik, they simply terminated the contract saying they are not interested. Different thing.
Some turn of phrase indeed. But my point is: Boeing tested the thing, but never released the data, period. If a research center, a magazine, an organization, whatever… (not just one ordinary man in the street) ask them to analyse the data, they should give it, as the results are said to be negative and they claim they are "no longer pursuing this avenue". But they won't (at least I think so, but did anyone ever tried?*). Why? I don't know, but existing information that nobody can access is the same thing for me as classified information. Pretty much the same definition. Give it the term "secrete" or "sensitive" instead, if you think that the term "classified" refers too much to some governmental thingy. But secrete or sensitive information unavailable to anyone about something that does not work and is no longer studied is weird, to say the least.

Quote
3. I am pretty sure  that they would be very glad if Shawyer sent him a test item for trials and validation. I am pretty sure it won't happen.
Maybe, but as I said above for myself, thinking (being "pretty sure") is not knowing for a fact. This is a preconception. So why people in that research circle do not even try to ask him?

This would settle a bit more the degree of desire of Roger Shawyer to shed some light and give some credit about his technology, without compromising his commercial NDA contracts about "more advanced designs".

* At least a year ago I tried myself to do something concrete (http://www.theblackvault.com/community/forum/freedom-of-information-act/foia-request-to-access-boeingusaf-dod-emdrive-propellantless-thruster-data/), i.e. to encourage (as a non-US citizen but closer to circles who are able, know and already did it) people to make an FOIA request in order to access Boeing's data of SPR Ltd flight thruster testing. Nobody seemed interested.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 02/02/2018 02:16 pm
...

I looked at the "Deep Space" wiki page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_1 , and it said (color added by me),

"The NASA Solar Technology Application Readiness (NSTAR) electrostatic ion thruster, developed at NASA Glenn, achieves a specific impulse of 1000–3000 seconds. This is an order of magnitude higher than traditional space propulsion methods, resulting in a mass savings of approximately half. This leads to much cheaper launch vehicles. Although the engine produces just 92 millinewtons (0.33 ozf) thrust at maximal power (2,100 W on DS1), the craft achieved high speeds because ion engines thrust continuously for long periods."

Now look at Shawyer's thruster, as you said, "120 mN @400W in 2006". If it is true, there is no reason for him to hide it for 12 years and counting, especially with the fact that he is not young any more. The only reasonable conclusion is he had not achieved even 1/10 of the claimed thrust.


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 02/03/2018 03:29 pm
...

I looked at the "Deep Space" wiki page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_1 , and it said (color added by me),

"The NASA Solar Technology Application Readiness (NSTAR) electrostatic ion thruster, developed at NASA Glenn, achieves a specific impulse of 1000–3000 seconds. This is an order of magnitude higher than traditional space propulsion methods, resulting in a mass savings of approximately half. This leads to much cheaper launch vehicles. Although the engine produces just 92 millinewtons (0.33 ozf) thrust at maximal power (2,100 W on DS1), the craft achieved high speeds because ion engines thrust continuously for long periods."

Now look at Shawyer's thruster, as you said, "120 mN @400W in 2006". If it is true, there is no reason for him to hide it for 12 years and counting, especially with the fact that he is not young any more. The only reasonable conclusion is he had not achieved even 1/10 of the claimed thrust.

I suspect you are correct.   While I'm not quite ready to say that is the "ONLY" reasonable conclusion - I can conjure other scenarios which "MIGHT" be reasonable - I fear that your analysis is most probably correct.  I fail to understand how Shawyer's decades long approach to dribbling bits and pieces of frequently outdated information - often partial data for a specific design - so as to virtually prevent anyone from duplicating his work - can be anything but some for of disinformation campaign.   Perhaps it is motivated by some commercial advantage viewpoint, perhaps from some attempt to protect classified information, but I suspect it is primarily self aggrandizement and self promotion.

graybeardsyseng
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 02/03/2018 09:42 pm
I think a good idea is to move away from microwave cavities and instead to counterpropagate (when I say counterpropagate, I mean launch laser light through each end of the bundle in order to create a partial standing wave, vice a standing wave; unequal amplitude so you need dissipation, or unequal wavelength to create beats, but you still need dissipation so that energy doesn't remain constant) light modes through photonic crystal fiber bundles. The cavities in photonic crystal fibers are an analogue to the EMdrive cavity, only obviously shorter wavelength and more of them. I'm thinking in lines of curl G=- 2/c dBg/dt (from Mashhoon and Bini et al) and my reasoning is trying to accelerate (really abruptly change the acceleration of) the invariant mass of counterpropagating photons to achieve a very weak effect (gravitational induction) and to place in linear superposition many tiny effects (unmeasurable acceleration with curl) into a cumulative large macroscopic effect.

I'm pretty serious about this, I decided to buy a thousand .3mm ID capillary tubes after some research into figuring out what I needed to engineer, and fill them with diatoms (a natural photonic crystal) to try out thanks to some inspiration from a complete work of fiction I read (yeah I know, it's funny how that works, it actually really bothers me) that popped out to me from the noise because I learned about the physics they were talking about from studying the EMdrive for the past few years. The author sure has a gift for blurring fact and fiction to say the least. I didn't want to talk about it, but I decided that I must be honest with others no matter what. It's weird experiencing something like this and I wonder if it's something others have experienced throughout history, getting ideas from fiction which have their roots in basic research.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 02/03/2018 10:45 pm
... to try out thanks to some inspiration from a complete work of fiction I read (yeah I know, it's funny how that works, it actually really bothers me) ...
You should not let this bother you  ;) ! On the contrary, it makes sense that creativity (really new ideas) may be triggered by works of fiction.  And many scientists not only read fiction, but actually write fiction !.  You are not going to be really creative and break the mold by making small increments on what has been done for decades  ;)

(http://thecombine.co/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Einstein_problems-300x297.jpg)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 02/04/2018 12:10 am
The Navy Research Lab's presentation has been posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnJ0_9MRcDU

Go Navy!

https://youtu.be/T-3ws7b4sZg
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 02/04/2018 04:53 am
I think a good idea is to move away from microwave cavities and instead to counterpropagate (when I say counterpropagate, I mean launch laser light through each end of the bundle in order to create a partial standing wave, vice a standing wave; unequal amplitude so you need dissipation, or unequal wavelength to create beats, but you still need dissipation so that energy doesn't remain constant) light modes through photonic crystal fiber bundles. The cavities in photonic crystal fibers are an analogue to the EMdrive cavity, only obviously shorter wavelength and more of them. …


It would seem far better to me, to stay in the range, or close to the 2.45 ghz range until some better clean and hopefully reproducible results are established. With no clear theory of operation, there is only the engineering and limited past data to go on. Even then it seems there has very little really consistent design, from one to another build, to know whether even small variations might have significant affects on success or failure.

Once…, or if anyone winds up with a truly successful build at or around 2.45 ghz, even be that only low mN of measurable thrust, there will be time to begin exploring how altering the frequency and materials might affect or improve.....

Got to have a build that everyone can agree actually produces useable thrust, before trying to apply, what at this point is mostly guess work as far as theory (the how of it) to significant changes in design.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 02/04/2018 01:33 pm
I think a good idea is to move away from microwave cavities and instead to counterpropagate (when I say counterpropagate, I mean launch laser light through each end of the bundle in order to create a partial standing wave, vice a standing wave; unequal amplitude so you need dissipation, or unequal wavelength to create beats, but you still need dissipation so that energy doesn't remain constant) light modes through photonic crystal fiber bundles. The cavities in photonic crystal fibers are an analogue to the EMdrive cavity, only obviously shorter wavelength and more of them. …


It would seem far better to me, to stay in the range, or close to the 2.45 ghz range until some better clean and hopefully reproducible results are established. With no clear theory of operation, there is only the engineering and limited past data to go on. Even then it seems there has very little really consistent design, from one to another build, to know whether even small variations might have significant affects on success or failure.

Once…, or if anyone winds up with a truly successful build at or around 2.45 ghz, even be that only low mN of measurable thrust, there will be time to begin exploring how altering the frequency and materials might affect or improve.....

Got to have a build that everyone can agree actually produces useable thrust, before trying to apply, what at this point is mostly guess work as far as theory (the how of it) to significant changes in design.

This all really boils down to Relativity. Tested and proven.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariant_mass

https://books.google.com/books?id=7SDNBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=invariant+mass+of+counterpropagating+photons&source=bl&ots=dRZpEimA4d&sig=FpCSPG68wZPqzvjab-7P6Iy01d0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiPpZLLuNrYAhUB2lMKHdQkDDo4ChDoAQgLMAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

(Url shortener broke the above long link, it should come out to page 61 of the book High Field Electrodynamics. Screenshot below if the link doesn't work. Fair use.)

https://einstein.stanford.edu/SPACETIME/spacetime4.html#gravito_electromagnetism
And with these results, I'm confident that the notion of gravitational induction is a real feature of our universe and not just a mathematical curiosity.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 02/05/2018 04:15 am
(...)
https://einstein.stanford.edu/SPACETIME/spacetime4.html#gravito_electromagnetism
And with these results, I'm confident that the notion of gravitational induction is a real feature of our universe and not just a mathematical curiosity.

Yes, thankyou muchly good Mulletron, yes!    :)
Title: Shawyer superconductor
Post by: Mark7777777 on 02/05/2018 08:32 am
Hi TheTraveller

Do you know if Roger has reported any thrust from his superconductor Emdrive yet?

Regards
Mark
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 02/05/2018 04:05 pm
The Navy Research Lab's presentation has been posted:


This looks like the kind of experiment needed to close the debate of the existence of the Emdrive.

If this one and Dr. Tajmar's experiments find nothing, the debate is over for me. If there's still something... I don't dare speculate.

A negative result may be disappointing for most people following this, but let's remember that knowing the truth is way better than not.

Also and regardless of the outcome, it leaves a legacy of public awareness of what it takes to prove similar proposals and ideas.

I believe there are no definitive negative experiments that can "close the debate" on a potential phenomenon. Of course one can decide it's not worth the effort to keep trying. In the EmDrive case, many experiments seem to show a weak effect so it's wrong to say there is no evidence. It's possible that those weak effects are artifacts or other effects but that becomes a scientific judgment call. It's when people decide the debate is over and use that as a evidence every future experiment must be wrong that things can become dogmatic which I hope doesn't happen but think it likely will.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: JonathanD on 02/05/2018 08:26 pm
I appreciate the fact they are not starting with a new design, and instead trying to replicate NASA Eagleworks results in vacuum, and also, impressively, in steady state.  Even if a null result it may provide helpful insight into the source of experimental error.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Jim Davis on 02/05/2018 09:27 pm
I believe there are no definitive negative experiments that can "close the debate" on a potential phenomenon.

That's true, of course. But combined with the theoretical difficulties (violations of conservation laws) the lack of definitive evidence over such a long period of searching does strongly suggest that what one is looking for may not in fact exist. The parallels with paranormal or out of the mainstream phenomena like bigfoot, UFOs, cold fusion,and the like become uncomfortably close. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: oyzw on 02/06/2018 12:18 am
I believe there are no definitive negative experiments that can "close the debate" on a potential phenomenon.

That's true, of course. But combined with the theoretical difficulties (violations of conservation laws) the lack of definitive evidence over such a long period of searching does strongly suggest that what one is looking for may not in fact exist. The parallels with paranormal or out of the mainstream phenomena like bigfoot, UFOs, cold fusion,and the like become uncomfortably close.
   Of course, this is a real thrust, and I talked to professor Yang recently, and she still believes in the results.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 02/06/2018 06:11 pm
I believe there are no definitive negative experiments that can "close the debate" on a potential phenomenon.

That's true, of course. But combined with the theoretical difficulties (violations of conservation laws) the lack of definitive evidence over such a long period of searching does strongly suggest that what one is looking for may not in fact exist. The parallels with paranormal or out of the mainstream phenomena like bigfoot, UFOs, cold fusion,and the like become uncomfortably close.

There has been enough theoretical work to suggest that the violations may be only apparent. Why should we be surprised if new effects are small and not easily made robust?  That may just be the way nature is. Parallels to completely unrelated phenomenon are meaningless. In my view, it's way too early to give up.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 02/06/2018 08:01 pm
Kudos to SpaceX and Elon on a magnificent launch and recovery!  :) :) :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Polonius on 02/06/2018 10:21 pm
Hey guys, sorry for the slight derail, but I'm looking for a blog that I believe one of the more active EM Drive experimenters here runs where he discusses the possibility of using fiber-optic cables placed against a metal plate with light pumped through them to potentially produce thrust, rather than a metal frustrum. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

Thanks!

edit:
found it!
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.ca/2016/07/lemdrive.html
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 02/07/2018 02:25 am
I believe there are no definitive negative experiments that can "close the debate" on a potential phenomenon.

That's true, of course. But combined with the theoretical difficulties (violations of conservation laws) the lack of definitive evidence over such a long period of searching does strongly suggest that what one is looking for may not in fact exist. The parallels with paranormal or out of the mainstream phenomena like bigfoot, UFOs, cold fusion,and the like become uncomfortably close.

There has been enough theoretical work to suggest that the violations may be only apparent. Why should we be surprised if new effects are small and not easily made robust?  That may just be the way nature is. Parallels to completely unrelated phenomenon are meaningless. In my view, it's way too early to give up.

Thanks Bob,
if there is a chance in a billion, this is worth pursuing.
The potential reward is incalculable, maybe even survival,
and in the pursuit, there could be a clue as to how  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: rfmwguy on 02/08/2018 12:00 am
looks like nrl has perfected my torsion beam/lds test stand ;). great solution using storyline coupler. 4 micrnewton noise floor is excellent. 150 watts is a good start. btw, my garage shop building days are over. i took it as far as I could. i now will project manage my own design IF funding is received by those organizing. this is my stip...along with the overall project must be based on a non-leo flight article. iow...worlds first interstellar based mission. no reason to set the goal any lower from my perspective.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 02/09/2018 12:17 am
looks like nrl has perfected my torsion beam/lds test stand ;). great solution using storyline coupler. 4 micrnewton noise floor is excellent. 150 watts is a good start. btw, my garage shop building days are over. i took it as far as I could. i now will project manage my own design IF funding is received by those organizing. this is my stip...along with the overall project must be based on a non-leo flight article. iow...worlds first interstellar based mission. no reason to set the goal any lower from my perspective.

You bring the nuclear power source and I'll provide the emdrive build funding.

If anyone's interested in a collaboration, I need to form a team * over on the East Coast in the vicinity of SE Virginia (and this is pro bono, and not for the benefit of the members, not for profit, but for others, it's volunteer work) to help integrate a system on a tabletop optical setup. This is an engineering problem now, and those with optical engineering (hands on) experience are needed. Major funding isn't required because this should cost no more than 3k for materials which is minimal, the major investment is time and dedication.

*American citizens only.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 02/12/2018 02:43 am
(...)

Probably the most important is eliminating unwanted measurements such as thermal effects and magnetic interference.  That was my primary reason for suggesting double enclosing a pendulum in a free to rotate ferrous box, which is enclosed in a non-rotating ferrous box.   The non rotating ferrous box shunts external magnetic fields around the device.  The internal ferrous box shunts internal magnetic fields from the pendulum back to the pendulum.  Ideally the pendulum is then free to osculate with out regards to interference.

(...)

dustinthewind, there is a risk of eliminating the mechanism of action by which thrust is achieved, if it is a consequence of a coulomb or magnetic interaction with the distant universe... maybe experiments could be run with and without such shields  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 02/14/2018 01:18 pm
The Navy Research Lab's presentation has been posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnJ0_9MRcDU

Looking at the image of the cavity

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/assets/42978.0/1474131.jpg

is the connector near the large end the antenna feed or what ? It seems to be placed in the wrong spot...

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 02/14/2018 02:19 pm
The Navy Research Lab's presentation has been posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnJ0_9MRcDU

Looking at the image of the cavity

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/assets/42978.0/1474131.jpg

is the connector near the large end the antenna feed or what ? It seems to be placed in the wrong spot...
Sorry guys but I've been busy, missed you all.

No, the magnetic loop antenna is right where it should be to mimic EagleWorks drive testing when they reported thrust in their paper.

A couple things I observed on these tests by Martin Tajmar's group and the NRL (worked with these guys a long time ago and they are some of the finest).

Things I have questions about in the videos from the workshop last year.
http://ssi.org/2017-advanced-propulsion-workshop-videos-day-two/

Tajmar's group.

1. Reported Qs in the 500,000 range. That should be a red flag for them such a high abnormally in their testing and or build. Dr. Rodal called it out correctly when he questioned Tajmar directly in the presentation.

2. No thrusts reported, said it was a compass needle. It takes a DC component to make a north and south pole, where was their DC component in their rig??

3. Almost of their testing was done at a tiny 2 watts of RF. We have not seen any reported thrusts at 2 watts from anyone.

4. Paul March has stated that no thrusts reported were when he drove the frustum less than 25 watts and that it took shifting the drive frequency about 20 to 45 degrees above or below the resonant frequency. (Note: This agrees with what I've seen)

5. They were uncertain of the mode they were driving. It's critical to know.

6. Shouldn't they have rotated the entire test stand to map what they were calling the compass needle to make sure that it wasn't a error from something else?
 
NRL Group.

From what I've seen on the video it looks like they are doing a nice setup and at power levels needed. I'd recommend that they look at running tests off resonance per Paul March's observations and mine.

On both test rigs I like the fact that the RF and power generating devices were off the beam. I've been saying this for years. The thermals will become a large part of your error bars if you don't and power everything on the beam. Of course there is the issue on coupling. Waveguide coupling or liquid metal. Monomorphic has done a great job at driving his beam with batteries although he is seeing what the NRL is trying to avoid.

It's been 5 months since the Navel Research Labs reported what they were doing. I'd be interested on hearing anything or a update.

ME? Slow. I hope warmer weather and a little more cash flow is going to help. I'm redoing the lab in the house (maybe can get some work done late at night), tore down the old lab table and putting up the new design. Will have enough this SS check to pick up some more copper and another Ceramic plate for the small endplate I need to redo.

My Very Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Rodal on 02/14/2018 02:55 pm
...

It's been 5 months since the Navel Research Labs reported what they were doing. I'd be interested on hearing anything or a update.

...
Thank you SeeShells for your excellent post.  Regarding the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) presentation, I count 3 months and 12 days since the presentation on Thursday, November 2nd, 2017.   I have not seen an update yet from NRL or from TUDresden.  Both said that they were going to proceed very methodically and systematically, so it may take a while.   I expect Tajmar's TUDresden group to perhaps present at the Aerospace and Defense conference in Sevilla http://sevilla.bciaerospace.com/en/ May 15 to 18, 2018.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 02/14/2018 03:36 pm
...
Tajmar's group.
...
2. No thrusts reported, said it was a compass needle. It takes a DC component to make a north and south pole, where was their DC component in their rig??
DC in grounding loops may be a direction to investigate. Also there are DC inside of amplifiers and other components.

Quote
3. Almost of their testing was done at a tiny 2 watts of RF. We have not seen any reported thrusts at 2 watts from anyone.

EW reported 2.6W and 55.4uN, http://www.libertariannews.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AnomalousThrustProductionFromanRFTestDevice-BradyEtAl.pdf, page 17

Quote
...



Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 02/14/2018 04:45 pm
Thank you for your presentation as well Jose'. I enjoyed it... lots. Great points to ponder and great questions to answer.

3, 4 or 5 months meh,  it's just inquiring minds want to know. Thanks for correcting that early morning before coffee boo boo.

My Very Best,
Shell

...

It's been 5 months since the Navel Research Labs reported what they were doing. I'd be interested on hearing anything or a update.

...
Thank you SeeShells for your excellent post.  Regarding the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) presentation, I count 3 months and 12 days since the presentation on Thursday, November 2nd, 2017.   I have not seen an update yet from NRL or from TUDresden.  Both said that they were going to proceed very methodically and systematically, so it may take a while.   I expect Tajmar's TUDresden group to perhaps present at the Aerospace and Defense conference in Sevilla http://sevilla.bciaerospace.com/en/ May 15 to 18, 2018.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 02/14/2018 04:57 pm
...
Tajmar's group.
...
2. No thrusts reported, said it was a compass needle. It takes a DC component to make a north and south pole, where was their DC component in their rig??
DC in grounding loops may be a direction to investigate. Also there are DC inside of amplifiers and other components.

Quote
3. Almost of their testing was done at a tiny 2 watts of RF. We have not seen any reported thrusts at 2 watts from anyone.

EW reported 2.6W and 55.4uN, http://www.libertariannews.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/AnomalousThrustProductionFromanRFTestDevice-BradyEtAl.pdf, page 17

Quote
...
Thanks PN.
Paul said that he was manually tuning in these runs and it was very tough to keep in the TE012 mode and get repeatable data.

Yes, I'd be looking at any DC in ground loops but that wasn't covered and it should have been.

My Very Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 02/14/2018 06:46 pm
I'm starting to notice the use of the pseudo word 'meh' here more often. Please, stop! Thanks.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 02/14/2018 06:52 pm
I starting to notice the use of the pseudo word 'meh' here more often. Please, stop! Thanks.
Not a problem Bob, sorry it bothered you.
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 02/14/2018 07:29 pm
I starting to notice the use of the pseudo word 'meh' here more often. Please, stop! Thanks.
Not a problem Bob, sorry it bothered you.
Shell

Now I feel guilty :( as it wasn't meant to target any one specifically. But thanks!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 02/14/2018 07:39 pm
DC in grounding loops may be a direction to investigate. Also there are DC inside of amplifiers and other components.

Tajmar says at 33:40 of his Aerospace presentation that they provide the thrust balance with 28VDC. Components such as main amplifier, power detectors, stepper motors, ADC, etc. are all powered via a voltage converter that can supply 5VDC, 12VDC, or whatever else required from the 28VDC mains. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36Hpgxb9MdU?t=2018

I use a 12VDC lipo for the mains so I don't have to worry with liquid contacts. I do have a 5VDC converter for the solid state relay. Everything else is 12VDC.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 02/16/2018 01:21 pm
DC in grounding loops may be a direction to investigate. Also there are DC inside of amplifiers and other components.

Tajmar says at 33:40 of his Aerospace presentation that they provide the thrust balance with 28VDC. Components such as main amplifier, power detectors, stepper motors, ADC, etc. are all powered via a voltage converter that can supply 5VDC, 12VDC, or whatever else required from the 28VDC mains. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36Hpgxb9MdU?t=2018

I use a 12VDC lipo for the mains so I don't have to worry with liquid contacts. I do have a 5VDC converter for the solid state relay. Everything else is 12VDC.

Jamie, 

I really  like your approach very much; in fact I am copying a lot LOL. 

Everyone,

 Lipo gives a lot of options due to excellent energy density to weight or volume ratio.  I am going a very similar approach on my buildup  except I am going for a "24 Vdc" system and using converters as needed for 12Vdc and 5 vdc.  I am using a 6S1P configuration to produce 25.2 Vdc when fully changed and 22.2 at "nominal" or half charged state.

 I can go to 2P or 3P as needed for max current needed.  I have been  using these types (LIPO) for several years now and I strongly recommend studying reviews of vendors - don't try to go overly cheap.  A discharge fire or a popping a cell by incorrectly charging are no fun. 

LiPo's are great batteries but I would caution anyone considering them for an EMdrive build  to brush up on their individual characteriestics.   They have "interesting' requirements which MUST be met.   They must be charged and discharged properly.  In addition be careful to understand and follow the max discharge rate limitations.   Reading some posts here is NOT sufficient knowledge.  Google or your favorite search engine is your friend here.    Here is a starting point - and Instructables article with a lot of good info -
http://www.instructables.com/id/Lithium-Polymer-Etiquette/ (http://www.instructables.com/id/Lithium-Polymer-Etiquette/)

Herman
graybeardsyseng
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: aero on 02/19/2018 12:28 am
I wouldn't think of straying off-topic ... meh

I starting to notice the use of the pseudo word 'meh' here more often. Please, stop! Thanks.
Not a problem Bob, sorry it bothered you.
Shell

Now I feel guilty :( as it wasn't meant to target any one specifically. But thanks!

But "meh" is defined here: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/meh (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/meh)
While it may not be a perfectly good word, it is a good word. Basically a verbal shrug.

It has other uses, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meh (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meh)

I personally don't like the word "no" when people respond to me, but I am required to put up with it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 02/25/2018 01:56 am
At 14:05, there's an almost perfect representation of what a mechanical version of an EMdrive can be represented as, the big difference is, to be truly an accurate mechanical analogue, I think the length of the rods should become shorter along the length.

https://youtu.be/DovunOxlY1k
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: oyzw on 02/25/2018 02:02 am
Hello, can you take a screenshot? I can't see video. Thank you very much
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: JonathanD on 02/25/2018 02:21 pm
Hello, can you take a screenshot? I can't see video. Thank you very much

I don't think the screenshot will be that helpful but I've attached it.  The presenter was demonstrating a standing wave pattern as a result of wave reflection caused my lack of impedance matching of the load and transmission.  At least, that's what I got out of it #notaphysicist

Title of the video is "AT&T Archives: Similiarities of Wave Behavior (Bonus Edition)" if you can maybe find it elsewhere.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 02/25/2018 03:24 pm
Hello, can you take a screenshot? I can't see video. Thank you very much
oyzw, is there an online video service similar to YouTube available in China? If so we could post the video there.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 02/25/2018 03:36 pm
Hello, can you take a screenshot? I can't see video. Thank you very much
oyzw, is there an online video service similar to YouTube available in China? If so we could post the video there.

Nowadays almost every forum in China requires bundling a cell phone to obtain the privilege to post. I lost the right to post on at least 3 forums I frequent. No, your US cell phone does not work.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 02/25/2018 06:00 pm
Thought I remembered this page and how it looked like this video.

Observe the wave actions through the neck of the bottle, it acts like impedance matching tapered section in the video you linked.

Vibrational Behavior of an Empty Beer Bottle
http://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/Demos/BeerBottle/beerbottle.html

Shell
At 14:05, there's an almost perfect representation of what a mechanical version of an EMdrive can be represented as, the big difference is, to be truly an accurate mechanical analogue, I think the length of the rods should become shorter along the length.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DovunOxlY1k
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 02/25/2018 07:21 pm
Hello, can you take a screenshot? I can't see video. Thank you very much
oyzw, is there an online video service similar to YouTube available in China? If so we could post the video there.

Nowadays almost every forum in China requires bundling a cell phone to obtain the privilege to post. I lost the right to post on at least 3 forums I frequent. No, your US cell phone does not work.
It seems pretty insane, but I was saying another thing: the possibility to post the video on some YouTube-like website that would be uncensored in China, therefore accessible to oyzw (not to post ourselves on a Chinese forum).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: oyzw on 02/25/2018 11:33 pm
Hello, can you take a screenshot? I can't see video. Thank you very much
oyzw, is there an online video service similar to YouTube available in China? If so we could post the video there.
Yes! For example:http://www.youku.com/, https://www.bilibili.com/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: oyzw on 02/25/2018 11:35 pm
Hello, can you take a screenshot? I can't see video. Thank you very much
oyzw, is there an online video service similar to YouTube available in China? If so we could post the video there.

Nowadays almost every forum in China requires bundling a cell phone to obtain the privilege to post. I lost the right to post on at least 3 forums I frequent. No, your US cell phone does not work.
We are also frustrated and helpless.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 02/26/2018 06:27 pm
Hello, can you take a screenshot? I can't see video. Thank you very much
oyzw, is there an online video service similar to YouTube available in China? If so we could post the video there.
Yes! For example:http://www.youku.com/, https://www.bilibili.com/
oyzw, I tried to republish the video on Youku. It was quite difficult to register and send the complete file due language-specific warnings and multiple upload failures, and although I have never seen so many ads on any other video-sharing website, you should be able to watch it there:
http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMzQyNTgyNTk3Ng==.html?spm=a2h3j.8428770.3416059.1
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: oyzw on 02/26/2018 11:33 pm
Hello, can you take a screenshot? I can't see video. Thank you very much
oyzw, is there an online video service similar to YouTube available in China? If so we could post the video there.
Yes! For example:http://www.youku.com/, https://www.bilibili.com/
oyzw, I tried to republish the video on Youku. It was quite difficult to register and send the complete file due language-specific warnings and multiple upload failures, and although I have never seen so many ads on any other video-sharing website, you should be able to watch it there:
http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMzQyNTgyNTk3Ng==.html?spm=a2h3j.8428770.3416059.1
Thank you very much for your help. I can see this video.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 02/27/2018 04:31 am
Magnetic monopoles

I thought I already posted this, but probably I didn't

http://www.sciencealert.com/our-quest-to-find-the-truest-north-in-the-universe-just-took-an-unexpected-turn

given the latest discussions about monopoles, I suppose the above (and the original paper (https://journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevX.7.021023) linked at bottom) may be of interest
I think what happened is a lot of people were posting stuff in the old thread after Mr Bergin posted the closing and requesting all further posts to be in the new thread. thus a few monopole related posts got banished into the aether -a shame because they were good though they were tangential to the topic.
Is there any chance of reviving the discussion of explanations for emdrive thrust, should it prove true?

This monopole discussion was right on topic, there is a huge difference between remote interaction in a universe where magnetic monopoles exist and one where the distribution of charges explains all electromagnetic action. Explanations for emdrive thrust in these two universes would be completely different.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 02/27/2018 10:40 pm
https://physicsworld.com/a/physicists-beat-lorentz-reciprocity-microwave-transmission/

"Physicists beat Lorentz reciprocity for microwave transmission"

Quote
...Andrea Alù and colleagues at the University of Texas at Austin and City University of New York have shown that two nonmagnetic isolators can be combined to produce a device that transmits a signal almost perfectly in one direction, but has near-zero transmission in the opposite direction.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 03/01/2018 12:13 am
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25791

"Possible interaction between baryons and dark-matter particles revealed by the first stars"

Quote from: Abstract
The cosmic radio-frequency spectrum is expected to show a strong absorption signal corresponding to the 21-centimetre-wavelength transition of atomic hydrogen around redshift 20, which arises from Lyman-α radiation from some of the earliest stars. By observing this 21-centimetre signal—either its sky-averaged spectrum or maps of its fluctuations, obtained using radio interferometers—we can obtain information about cosmic dawn, the era when the first astrophysical sources of light were formed. The recent detection of the global 21-centimetre spectrum reveals a stronger absorption than the maximum predicted by existing models, at a confidence level of 3.8 standard deviations. Here we report that this absorption can be explained by the combination of radiation from the first stars and excess cooling of the cosmic gas induced by its interaction with dark matter. Our analysis indicates that the spatial fluctuations of the 21-centimetre signal at cosmic dawn could be an order of magnitude larger than previously expected and that the dark-matter particle is no heavier than several proton masses, well below the commonly predicted mass of weakly interacting massive particles. Our analysis also confirms that dark matter is highly non-relativistic and at least moderately cold, and primordial velocities predicted by models of warm dark matter are potentially detectable. These results indicate that 21-centimetre cosmology can be used as a dark-matter probe.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 03/02/2018 05:40 pm
Travis "Doc" Taylor (short biography attached) has published a paper in the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society where he proposes to test out McCulloch's quantised inertia / MiHsC / horizon mechanics with a setup based on a high Q asymmetric Fabry-Pérot laser resonator (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabry–Pérot_interferometer) (also called an etalon). According to Taylor and if the theory is correct, such a device "would produce very large propulsive forces". So I presume, much higher forces than what has been obtained with EmDrives up to now!

• T. S. Taylor (2017). "Propulsive Forces using High-Q Aysmmetric High Energy Laser Resonators". JBIS. 70 (7): 238–243.
http://www.jbis.org.uk/paper.php?p=2017.70.238 (http://www.jbis.org.uk/paper.php?p=2017.70.238)
(paywall, only first page available for free below)


I must say to Monomorphic: Wow, good catch man.
Indeed Monomorphic concluded two years ago, back in January 2016 on Reddit:
Quote from: Monomorphic
Basically the emdrive is a microwave fabry-perot interferometer.
That was quoted on NSF by Chrochne in thread #6 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1484292#msg1484292). To be complete such etalons have been cited in theses threads two times in 2015, first about the Eagleworks "pillbox" experiment on spacetime distortions (Notsosureofit in thread #2 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36313.msg1374297#msg1374297)) and about evanescent waves (SteveD in thread #4 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.msg1424475#msg1424475)).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 03/02/2018 05:48 pm
I wonder if Travis Taylor and Mike McCulloch are aware that Jim Woodward and Heidi Fearn at CSUF are preparing with Gary Hudson (SSI) a new workshop on advanced propulsion, holding at Estes Park, CO, 10–14 September 2018.

It is a bit far for McCulloch but I think that everyone there would be interested to hear about that proposal, including Martin Tajmar who precisely sets up such experiments, and Heidi Fearn whose specialty is Quantum Optics. I will ask them.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Notsosureofit on 03/02/2018 06:25 pm
I would like to see Taylor's complete expression as there is no mention of mode in the Nomenclature.  Perhaps someone has access to the complete paper?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 03/03/2018 09:05 pm
Pertinent image from the paper. The gain medium is Neodymium-doped yttrium orthovanadate crystal. The cavity is 5cm in length, with two highly reflecting mirrors at each end.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 03/04/2018 12:40 pm
This seems a bit too good to be true. I can't believe such a small simple device with so limited power could generate so much force (look at the predicted propulsive force given for a 1 cm diameter small end, and a 100 W input power, according to MiHsC).

Multijoule-terawatt-class Nd:glass lasers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neodymium#Neodymium_doped_lasers) have been extensively tested back in the mid '70s notably at the LLNL (with Cyclops (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclops_laser) and Janus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus_laser), then Argus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argus_laser), Shiva (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva_laser), Nova (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_(laser))…). Those setups involved high-precision manufacturing and positioning of every elements. One little dust at such high power and glasses would explode (it happened). If an asymmetry in diameter between two semi-reflecting mirrors produced so much anomalous forces, wouldn't it have been noticed in the various experiments ran accross many decades?

OR as the predicted anomalous force intensity is logarithmic according to Taylor's diagrams, and the Nd:glass so precisely symmetrically manufactured for the high power experiments, any anomalous force never really showed up?

Is someone on these boards aware of any laser experiment involving asymmetric AND convex/concave mirrors done in the past, like Taylor's proposal?

Whatever, I hope this experiment will be done, it seems very accessible for any serious lab like TU Dresden. Martin Tajmar already expressed interest.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Laser_glass_slabs.jpg)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: fvlad on 03/05/2018 07:18 am
Jamie,
I recommend that you pay attention to the words DusanC

 DusanC Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
« Reply #2189 on: 10/16/2017 06:43 PM »
«Can you try doing the measurement at 3-4AM. Once we tried to measure displacement of large machining center and we measured surrounding noise from the traffic more than 100m away (not audio, but oscillations traveling through the ground) even as machine + foundation weighted more than 20t. At 3-4AM we managed to make good measurements».

My studies using on a torsion balance showed that there is a periodicity of noise intensity, a minimum of noise is observed from 3 to 9 hours, and a maximum of noise from 15 to 21 hours in local solar time.

Another option for increasing signal-to-noise ratio is signal filtering.
dustinthewind Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
« Reply #2205 on: 10/17/2017 01:35 AM »
«The first I will suggest is a low frequency filter». «Proper choice of your capacitor inductor components will allow you to filter out the low frequency signal of about 60 seconds».

I propose to significantly increase the signal-to-noise ratio by using an adaptive filter based on the Fourier transform. Very convincingly looks the placement on one graph of two signals, which changing from time: one from the work of EM Drive and the second, cut by a filter.
For example, let's take the published signal powered_test03.jpg. I show two results of using the adaptive filter.
First result:
02_03_2017__14_25_26PM_The subtracted signal 36 Hz end 72 Hz.jpg
powered_test03_2 The subtracted signal 36 s end 72 s.xlsx
Setting 1 (cut out of the harmonic signal) or 0 on the second line, against each harmonic frequency, we can observe the changes in the resulting signal on the graph. Below the upper graph are given the original graphs and the spectrum of the signal with the location of its excised part of the spectrum.

The subtracted signal with a period less than 81 s and with a period from 43 to 58 s. In fact, only a useful signal is subtracted, but only one noise remains.
powered_test03_2_Average 16 period less than 81 s.jpg
powered_test03_2_Average 16 period less than 81 s.xlsx

The signal-to-noise ratio using an adaptive filter can be significantly increased if the duration of the EM Drive operation and the duration of digitized noise are increased by tens of times.

Vladimir
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: bem50 on 03/05/2018 08:14 pm
THEORY OF ELECTROMAGNETIC DRIVE
WITH ELEMENTARY PARTICLES CURRENT
AND VACUUM POLARIZATION

http://ej.kubagro.ru/2016/01/pdf/80.pdf


not sure if this is old or new
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: demofsky on 03/06/2018 12:33 am
Pertinent image from the paper. The gain medium is Neodymium-doped yttrium orthovanadate crystal. The cavity is 5cm in length, with two highly reflecting mirrors at each end.
Just an amazing development!  Can’t speak to the theory or the fabrication difficulty of the medium + mirrors but I have to say it would be so good to get out of the micro newton/small vacuum chamber era to something that produces a nice solid thrust signal!

Needless to say that if this works at anywhere near the thrust levels projected here then the theoretical cat is definitely out of the bag with respect to overunity energy production, etc. with the attendant implications for theoretical physics.

Very early days here but it’s great that folks are reaching out for funding so we may not have to wait too long for confirmation or falsification of this approach.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: fvlad on 03/06/2018 07:34 am
OnlyMe,
You are one of the few who looks in the "root" and regularly writes about the main problems of EM drive related, not with abstract, but with physical mechanisms of gravity and inertia.
Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 9  (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1656158#msg1656158)
OnlyMe « Reply #3272 on: 03/19/2017 02:00 PM »
«NO ONE has yet presented data that even seems designed to demonstrate how any force is produced. At least not that has been publicly shared or published».

You have raised one of the most important topics, this is a key question for all physics. How "any force is produced," a lot of works have been published. It is more difficult to "see" this mechanism and realize it.
For example, flux_capacitor gave an example of the mechanism of the action of force in the "natural particle accelerator"
Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 9  (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1662793#msg1662793)
flux_capacitor « Reply #3402 on: 04/03/2017 01:09 PM »
«the magnetic field is maximum near sunspots (where magnetic field lines are denser and concentrated in a smaller area) and minimum at the highest extension point of the arch (where magnetic field lines are more scattered over a wider area). Thus a strong magnetic pressure gradient takes place in the solar prominence, and the arch acts as a natural particle accelerator».

A few more examples of the power action of toroidal gravitational waves are given in my essay (https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2806). With the help of the well-known photos from the NASA gallery, the mechanism of the formation of force formation with the help of toroidal gravitational waves, the effect of which is observed on the rings of Saturn and on comets, is visually shown.

Vladimir
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 03/06/2018 01:16 pm
A few more examples of the power action of toroidal gravitational waves are given in my essay (https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2806). With the help of the well-known photos from the NASA gallery, the mechanism of the formation of force formation with the help of toroidal gravitational waves, the effect of which is observed on the rings of Saturn and on comets, is visually shown.
Gravitational waves have nothing to do with the rings of Saturn.

In your abstract you say
Quote
give rise to unfounded generalizations
This is a good summary of your paper. Contrary to experiments you are asserting the existence of an aether, dismissing the real results from actual experiments of gravitational wave detectors.

Here (https://www.sciencealert.com/speed-of-gravitational-waves-and-light-same) is an article describing how well that gravitational waves have been measured relative to the speed of light. Links to the original research are in the article.
Quote
... another team made up of a small army of physicists used the burst of gamma rays captured from last month's neutron star collision to come up with their own estimate.

Their method was a little more precise.

Ok, a whole lot more precise.

They found the difference between the lightning flash of the gamma ray burst and the thunderclap of the gravitational wave was extremely close - within -3 x 10^-15 and 7 x 10^-16 of c. Close enough to call it a tie, really.
This completely invalidates your claim of a gravitational aether and your claim that gravitational waves aren't correlated with actual events of large objects merging (you demonstrate your ignorance in your paper by referring to "binary pulsars" rather than binary mergers)

Your paper is just a continuous list of unsupported assertions denying experimentally measured facts. You insist that rather than use physical laws that have been thoroughly tested by experiment and are consistent to within our ability to measure, we should use your explanations of observed phenomena despite your explanations often being contrary to existing experiments, and you providing no evidence that any of your interpretations can match a single measured result. Your vague, qualitative relationships are worthless.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: goran d on 03/06/2018 04:41 pm
Wouldn't the emdrive allow for much greater field strength if the inner walls are coated with dielectric with high dielectric strength? It might even allow for order of magnitude improvement as the main limitation is arcing due to field emmission (provided there is vacuum inside).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 03/06/2018 04:51 pm
Pertinent image from the paper. The gain medium is Neodymium-doped yttrium orthovanadate crystal. The cavity is 5cm in length, with two highly reflecting mirrors at each end.
Just an amazing development!  Can’t speak to the theory or the fabrication difficulty of the medium + mirrors but I have to say it would be so good to get out of the micro newton/small vacuum chamber era to something that produces a nice solid thrust signal!

Needless to say that if this works at anywhere near the thrust levels projected here then the theoretical cat is definitely out of the bag with respect to overunity energy production, etc. with the attendant implications for theoretical physics.

Very early days here but it’s great that folks are reaching out for funding so we may not have to wait too long for confirmation or falsification of this approach.

From what I've read so far, there is nothing to balance conservation of momentum.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: fvlad on 03/07/2018 12:57 pm
Dear meberbs,
In vain did you wrote your comment « Reply #3051 on: 03/06/2018 01:16 PM ».
In this style, they write only when there are no arguments left. You know perfectly well that we will never understand each other. It's like having a useless dialogue between a believer and an atheist.

Any attempt to explain one or another position, in the end, will always be reduced to one question, you believe in the ideal properties of matter and fields or do not believe. You believe in ideal properties and abstractions of mathematics and so you believe in general relativity and causeless quantum mechanics. I do not believe in the ideal properties, and so I got what it turned out (probably not without errors). If man does not do anything, he has not a mistakes. I believe in quantum parametric resonance (wich have causein) in all processes of the universe. And we will not change our opinion.

I do not believe in the ideal properties after watching Stephen Hawking movies, oddly enough. I loved watching his movies. One day, at the very beginning of the film, he says (this is not a quote) that all scientists know that in nature there are no ideal properties of matter and fields. "A genius man said brilliant words," I thought, and was delighted. However, in less than a minute,  he began to talk about the fact that galaxies scatter, because there is a red shift of photons from the galaxies, giving an example with the sound of the departing train.

Then I remembered that redshifts are experienced by photons that propagate from the Sun. Those. photons are attracted to the Sun and experience resistance. Why does Stephen Hawking not mention this redshift mechanism? Did he forget what he said a minute ago about the lack of ideal properties and explain how photons spread in space for many billions of years, carrying the realy big energy of photons, without losing energy? In the head comes the only answer is "to fish in muddy water." I experienced the greatest shock.

Thus, a very real alternative explanation of the redshift is possible. We know that photons do not exhibit ballistic properties, but their propagation velocity in space is constant. Therefore, synchronization of the speed requires interaction with the luminiferous medium of the physical vacuum, which leads to energy losses and a red shift of photons with the Hubble parameter. Consequently, the dissipation of the energy of photons - this is the same "dark energy" that is sought in "muddy water".

You are trying to start a fruitless discussion.
Only experiments will judge us. We need to focus on the experiments and understand the work of EM Drive, until they are closed, due to the negative results of EM Drive work in outer space.

Therefore, I will gradually answer on your claims to my work only in the context of explanations and suggestions for experiments on EM Drive.

Yours faithfully,
Vladimir
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 03/07/2018 01:30 pm
In this style, they write only when there are no arguments left.
Yes, your style of post where you don't address a single point I made is one that people with no arguments used.

You know perfectly well that we will never understand each other.
I don't know that because I know nothing about you other than that you currently have some problems with your understanding of physics.

It's like having a useless dialogue between a believer and an atheist.

Any attempt to explain one or another position, in the end, will always be reduced to one question, you believe in the ideal properties of matter and fields or do not believe.
The topic is science, not religion. "Belief" is irrelevant, only what actually is physically measurable through experiment matters. If you reject the results of experiments, you are not talking about science anymore.

You believe in ideal properties and abstractions of mathematics and so you believe in general relativity and causeless quantum mechanics.
No, have of those phrases don't even mean anything to me, so I certainly don't believe in them. I don't "believe" in general relativity either. I know that general relativity explains multiple experimentally observed effects and works to within our capability to measure, but must break down at certain energy scales where quantum mechanics becomes involved.

Then I remembered that redshifts are experienced by photons that propagate from the Sun. Those. photons are attracted to the Sun and experience resistance. Why does Stephen Hawking not mention this redshift mechanism?
Simple, the magnitude of gravitational redshift from typical stars is too small to produce the observed results, and mentioning it will be more likely to confuse the typical person watching his video.

Did he forget what he said a minute ago about the lack of ideal properties and explain how photons spread in space for many billions of years, carrying the realy big energy of photons, without losing energy?
The energy of photons is not "really big" Most of space is very empty, so there is nothing for them to lose energy to. when they do run into something, like dust, entire photons get absorbed at once, so the frequency of photons that didn't hit the dust doesn't change. You You seem to have a strange concept of what "ideal" means in this context. The laws of physics are complicated and include many strange effects, so they inherently aren't "ideal," but as far as we can tell, the laws of physics are very consistent, so things don't just happen for no reason.

We know that photons do not exhibit ballistic properties, but their propagation velocity in space is constant. Therefore, synchronization of the speed requires interaction with the luminiferous medium of the physical vacuum, which leads to energy losses and a red shift of photons with the Hubble parameter.
That is the opposite of the correct conclusion. If the second sentence was true, then we would measure the speed of light as constant relative to that medium, but that it is instead constant regardless of what you measure it relative too.

Only experiments will judge us.
And experiments contradict you.

We need to focus on the experiments and understand the work of EM Drive, until they are closed, due to the negative results of EM Drive work in outer space.
You don't need to put it in space to conclusively measure 0 force (to within photon rocket levels). In fact current experiments have already thoroughly invalidated Shawyer's original claims as they have demonstrated that any signal that exists is much smaller than the forces claimed by Shawyer. Since there is still some small signal that hasn't been conclusively proven to be experimental error, some people are still hoping that there might be a real effect if they perform a more accurate experiment.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 03/07/2018 03:02 pm
Hi guys,

I spotted today this article. I wonder if ESA nailed it! (it is not EmDrive or at least I think..)

ESA test-fires radical ‘air-breathing’ ion thruster that could keep satellites in low orbit for YEARS without propellant


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5470021/ESA-test-fires-radical-air-breathing-electric-ion-thruster.html

It was posted yesterday.

Also very interesting posts here lately. You guys serioulsy know where to dig for good information :D.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 03/07/2018 03:10 pm
This seems a bit too good to be true. I can't believe such a small simple device with so limited power could generate so much force (look at the predicted propulsive force given for a 1 cm diameter small end, and a 100 W input power, according to MiHsC).

Multijoule-terawatt-class Nd:glass lasers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neodymium#Neodymium_doped_lasers) have been extensively tested back in the mid '70s notably at the LLNL (with Cyclops (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclops_laser) and Janus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janus_laser), then Argus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argus_laser), Shiva (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva_laser), Nova (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_(laser))…). Those setups involved high-precision manufacturing and positioning of every elements. One little dust at such high power and glasses would explode (it happened). If an asymmetry in diameter between two semi-reflecting mirrors produced so much anomalous forces, wouldn't it have been noticed in the various experiments ran accross many decades?

OR as the predicted anomalous force intensity is logarithmic according to Taylor's diagrams, and the Nd:glass so precisely symmetrically manufactured for the high power experiments, any anomalous force never really showed up?

Is someone on these boards aware of any laser experiment involving asymmetric AND convex/concave mirrors done in the past, like Taylor's proposal?

Whatever, I hope this experiment will be done, it seems very accessible for any serious lab like TU Dresden. Martin Tajmar already expressed interest.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Laser_glass_slabs.jpg)

Still thank you for finding that out! I really like the community here :) So much inspirational topics and discussions.

Recommendation: If you feel down come to NSF EmDrive forum :D You will feel you can reach the stars again (literary) ;D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 03/07/2018 03:36 pm
Hi guys,

I spotted today this article. I wonder if ESA nailed it! (it is not EmDrive or at least I think..)

ESA test-fires radical ‘air-breathing’ ion thruster that could keep satellites in low orbit for YEARS without propellant


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5470021/ESA-test-fires-radical-air-breathing-electric-ion-thruster.html

It was posted yesterday.

Also very interesting posts here lately. You guys serioulsy know where to dig for good information :D.

Nothing to do with propellantless propulsion, as the ambient air is the propellant here, but definitely a step in the right direction. The article fails however to correctly explain the process in a popular way and has instead an even misleading passage:
Quote
Collect and compress the air molecules to a level where thruster ignition could take place.

This wording uses a jargon from common air-breathing turbojets, which indeed compress ambient air then burn its oxygen with kerosene stored in a tank onboard.

Instead, an electric ion thruster does not "ignite" a propellant, it accelerates ions with a powerful electric field. Therefore, the thruster uses nitrogen from the ambient air instead of some xenon stored in a tank onboard. As air has naturally no charges and is poorly conductive, they first have to ionize it, to produce an electrically conductive plasma.

This is rather dubious that the author never uses the terms "ionization" nor "plasma". However he quotes a vague but correct sentence "the thruster is able to charge and accelerate the incoming air".

"Charge"… Okay. So the air is ionized. If they indeed "compress it" they can't do it too much because it is energetically very costly to ionize a gas at a high pressure. However, ionization of air is much easier at an altitude of 200 km, as its electrical conductivity is increasing while its pressure drops. See Paschen's law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paschen%27s_law).

One day they will find that using the Lorentz force E×B with an applied multi-tesla magnetic field in air-breathing electromagnetic plasma thrusters can produce not only a high specific impulse like those ion thrusters that rely mainly on the E-field, but also tremendous thrust levels. However a 10T superconductor is quite heavy and a very compact and powerful energy source would be mandatory to give so much current. Ion thrusters have a long life ahead of them before being eventually replaced by more powerful elecromagnetic plasma thrusters.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 03/07/2018 07:23 pm
This seems a bit too good to be true. I can't believe such a small simple device with so limited power could generate so much force (look at the predicted propulsive force given for a 1 cm diameter small end, and a 100 W input power, according to MiHsC).


The magnitude of the force itself is not hard to believe since comparable forces were predicted for MEMS based conventional engines over twenty years ago. The proposed exotic physics that enables it is what needs to be tested.

http://www-mtl.mit.edu/researchgroups/mems/people/schmidt/conferences/48.EpsteinAIAAJuneJuly97.pdf
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 03/08/2018 06:52 am
Found some interesting information regarding the High-Q Asymmetric High Energy
Laser Resonators by Dr. Travis Taylor. Paper is from april 2017

AIR COMMAND AND STAFF COLLEGE
AIR UNIVERSITY

MOVEMENT AND MANEUVER IN DEEP SPACE:
A Framework to Leverage Advanced Propulsion


The link for the paper is here http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1042207.pdf
It seems that Dr. Travis Taylor concept is in sights for a while already.

Here is the text from page 28. Please also check pages 29 and 30 for interesting table.

"As a recommended next step for the DoD, Travis Taylor of U.S. Army Space and Missile
Defense Command offers an experimental verification methodology based on increased levels of
EM input energy, up to and including coherent laser energy, which could theoretically produce thrust in the 30 N/kW range (see Table 1, below).

Combined with a rigorous but affordable experimental design on the order of $100-200,000 over 9-
12 months (before analysis and review), Marc Millis and fellow researchers at the Tau Zero Foundation have the requisitebackground and expertiseto move the research forward by creating reliable data

  The Aerospace Corporation, a Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) also
has the facilities, expertise, and credibility to accomplish such testing.  DARPA expressed
interest but remains in a holding pattern.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: fvlad on 03/09/2018 12:40 pm

You know perfectly well that we will never understand each other.
I don't know that because I know nothing about you other than that you currently have some problems with your understanding of physics.

Meberbs,
Thank you for supporting our conversation.
You are right, I had problems with understanding physics, right after I heard to Stephen Hawking, who tried to explain to me and everyone that photons have ideal properties to carry real energy without losses.
I'm not a physicist, I'm not a physicist, I'm the mechanical engineer, the radio engineer, Graduate School Research Institute of Intrascopy in Moscow, devices of non-destructive testing and structural analysis.
My profession was not in demand in Russia.
 
Because I'm primarily an experimenter and author of more than 10 inventions, immediately after the excitement and shock from Stephen Hawking, I had the idea of verifying that gravity waves and the physical vacuum medium have a material basis.

I will tell only the history of the experiment that in 2006 I read a lot about the gravitational waves of LIGO and I had an idea that gravitational waves from stars can be recorded with the help of the Casimir effect on the surfaces of bodies. Then I hung on a torsion balance a package of many sheets of writing paper between framed by pairs of frames of the same paper. I assumed that such a package should be a similarity to a gravitational telescope with a flat radiation pattern, and signals from stars should be repeated every day, but I did not see it. But what I saw turned all my ideas about physics.

When I processed the data and plotted the graph for 2 weeks of measurement, I realized that some neutrino matter is registered from the eastern quadrature of the Earth's orbit, obviously those detected by Michelson and Morley.

I assembled the second installation, where I placed just a packet of writing paper without frames. There were practically no variations. But when I replaced it with a package with frames, I got the same variations of large amplitude as in the first setup. Those. The package of paper with frames was approximately 100 times more efficient when receiving gravitational waves than a packet without frames.
August 2006.jpg
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2806 

These experiments were not intended for publication, they were for me.
So, I realized that:
1. Gravitons exist. Flows of gravitons can be focused and manage them.
2. Gravitational waves can be easily registered with the help of packets of parallel planar bodies. X-ray telescopes can easily be converted into gravitational telescopes.
3. The space is filled with neutrino rigid and superfluid matter.
4. The Earth does not fall from the orbit, not because space is empty, but because there is a soliton toroidal gravitational wave in orbit that pushes the Earth along orbit from the eastern quadrature of the orbit, compensating for the resistance.
I understood many other interesting points.

The most vivid impression of observations on the monitor (using LabView) in real time was stable periodic signals of large amplitude with a period of 72 seconds for several hours. For me it was a enigma. I thought I was on the verge of a great discovery. It is now known to us that such the periodic signals of 72 seconds are recorded in the LISA project in million kilometers from the Earth.

This is now I brought in the essay 2018 https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080 the simple relationships for the calculation, in practice, of all possible resonance frequencies of gravitational waves.
In addition, In this paper we give the frequencies of the observed emission maxima of 14 known and not yet known, but observed, backgrounds of the medium of the physical vacuum, including the spectrum of radiation of Sun, are given. The maximum of the last calculated low-frequency background coincides with the maximum of the noise spectrum adopted by Monomorphic.
I give for comparison, the graphs of spectra of registered the gravitational-waves in the LISA Pathfinder project and of spectrum of the signal Monomorphic

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1480777;sess=53555).
Powered_test03_2 The subtracted signal 36 s end 72 s__comparison with_LISA PhysRevLett_116_231101_pdf_01.jpg
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080
Thus, the noise, wich registers Monomorphic is due not to the internal factors of its installation, with which Jamie tries to fight, but is caused by the action of the outer orbital gravitational wave of the Earth. The earth rotates, so it periodically screens the orbital gravitational wave, and the minimum of effect of noise on EM Drive installations should be observed, approximately, from 3 to 9 hours in local solar time.
If it turns out that in this quiet time EM Drive significantly reduces the traction force, then the presence of an external disturbance by a gravitational wave is an indispensable condition for its operation. Then it is necessary to artificially create similar gravitational waves by modulating the EM Drive signal with useful frequencies.
The maximum of the action of the orbital gravitational wave coincides in time with the passage of the infrared spot through the zenith in the sky, which lags behind the sun for 6 hours, or for 90 degrees in the sky.
Dipolnaya_sostavlayushaya_infrarad.jpg
https://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~wyatt/dgdj01.pdf

I.e. during the maximum of the action of the orbital gravitational wave of the Earth, the Sun is gone beyond the horizon. Infrared spot in the firmament is formed due to the dipolar component of the background zodiacal infrared radiation of the medium of the physical vacuum. The medium moves to Earth from the eastern quadrature of the Earth's orbit with an average speed of 8 km/s, as determined by Michelson and Morley. It is assumed that this constant movement of the physical vacuum medium to Earth forms such a dynamic mass of the Earth that on the Earth's surface is formed a gravitational potential equal to the square of the first cosmic velocity of the Earth of 8 km/s.

Vladimir
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: fvlad on 03/09/2018 12:56 pm
Dear Jamie,
The noise with that you are trying to fight is due not to the internal causes of EM Drive installation, but to external causes of the integral action of the Earth's orbital gravitational wave on the surface of your installation. All the surfaces of the installation are weak reflectors of gravitational waves, that is due of the Casimir effect, and they are the formers of the periodic force. Therefore, the most radical means to combat noise is the balanced (mirror) scheme of installing two identical EM drives on opposite sides of the center of rotation of the torsion balance. Then the signal of one EM Drive will be protected from noise.

In order to make sure of my words, you can repeat my experiment with placing on your installation a package of many sheets of writing paper with frames between them and without them. Such a package with frames can be called a "Casimir lattice". I do not think it will take you more than one or two days. But you will make a great discovery of the simple registration of gravitational waves and open the mechanism to control the force of gravity and inertia.

You have already taken the first step to controlling the force of gravity and inertia when you experimented with a vibrator on your installation. After that, I think many were disappointed in EM Drive, judging by the sharp decline in activity on the forum. Do not pay attention to it.

I'm guessing that with the help of a vibrator you formed toroidal gravitational waves of matter inertia that interacted with the de Broglie toroidal gravitational waves of the Earth's gravisphere. The generated toroidal gravitational waves of de Broglie created the thrust force, seeking to uniform motion of matter in the potential well of stability. Thus, you deceived the vibrator's inertia force and controlled it, changing the frequency.
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1462680;sess=0)
It should be noted that electrical engineering and radio engineering are based on deceiving the force of inertia of electrons, which always tend to be in the potential stability pit of their de Broglie toroidal gravitational waves, with their uniform motion. Let's try to learn how to ménage the forces of gravity and inertia!
It would be useful to continue experiments with the vibrator, but it is necessary to change the frequencies with a small step in frequency in order to detect the maxima, minima and reversal of the force in the dispersion curves of the traction force around the useful resonance frequencies of the medium of the physical vacuum in the Earth's gravisphere.
For example, an analogous phenomenon of dispersion interaction between toroidal gravitational waves of the medium of the physical vacuum of the Earth's gravisphere and toroidal gravitational waves of the acoustic vibrations of the drum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djembe , lead to an auto-tuning of its sound spectrum to the spectrum of the resonance frequencies of toroidal gravitational waves , registered in the project Virgo http://www.virgo-gw.eu/resources/pub/sensitivity.png .
Virgo_02_10_2017___Steelpan_02.jpg

Then you need to turn on the EM Drive. Only the sharing of high-frequency and low-frequency oscillations of modulation or the action of a vibrator, will allow for the implementation of the highly effective one-sided traction force EM Drive. About useful frequencies you can read in my essay 2018
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080 .

Vladimir
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 03/09/2018 02:33 pm
I will tell only the history of the experiment that in 2006 I read a lot about the gravitational waves of LIGO and I had an idea that gravitational waves from stars can be recorded with the help of the Casimir effect on the surfaces of bodies. Then I hung on a torsion balance a package of many sheets of writing paper between framed by pairs of frames of the same paper. I assumed that such a package should be a similarity to a gravitational telescope with a flat radiation pattern, and signals from stars should be repeated every day, but I did not see it.
Several points:
-Casmir effect is only between conducting surfaces, it doesn't happen between pieces of paper
-your assumption that your device is a gravitational waves antenna with a specific pattern is baseless and also very wrong.
-Even if you used thin foil sheets to have a casmir effect, your device is too small compared to the wavelength of gravitational waves (plus their tiny magnitude by the time they get to Earth) that it simply could not ever detect gravitational waves, even if there was a principle under which it could do so in theory.

When I processed the data and plotted the graph for 2 weeks of measurement, I realized that some neutrino matter is registered from the eastern quadrature of the Earth's orbit, obviously those detected by Michelson and Morley.
You apparently don't have a clue what neutrinos are. They have no relation to the Michelson-Morley experiment, in fact the existence of neutrinos was not theorized or detected by any experiment until after Michelson and Morley were both dead for decades. They also would not have anything to do with your experiment. they barely interact with most matter at all, because they are uncharged and do not interact via electromagnetic force.

So, I realized that:
Your conclusions are based on completely incorrect assumptions, and for most of them it is unclear how you could get to them even if there was any basis to your assumptions.

The most vivid impression of observations on the monitor (using LabView) in real time was stable periodic signals of large amplitude with a period of 72 seconds for several hours. For me it was a enigma. I thought I was on the verge of a great discovery. It is now known to us that such the periodic signals of 72 seconds are recorded in the LISA project in million kilometers from the Earth.
LISA has made no such observations, in fact LISA has not flown yet, only a tech demo to prove that instruments could be built and calibrated to sufficient precision and stability for the LISA mission to work.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 03/09/2018 10:14 pm
https://m.wikihow.com/Criticize-Tactfully

Very Respectfully,
Mulletron (Jeremiah)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 03/10/2018 02:35 am
Is it a coincidence that when I divide 2/c I get 6.67x10-9, and I get 6.67x10-11 for big G? I left off the units because they're different.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 03/10/2018 05:35 am
I've learned something from studying the life and work of Carver Mead, it's much more difficult to understand a brand new concept than it is to learn (or said another way, to be taught) one.

http://worrydream.com/refs/Mead%20-%20American%20Spectator%20Interview.html

"It always worked out that when I understood something, it turned out to be simple. Take the connection between the quantum stuff and the electrodynamics in my book. It took me thirty years to figure out, and in the end, it was almost trivial. It's so simple that any freshman could read it and understand it. But it was hard for me to get there because all of this historical junk was in the way."

Edit: filled in the quote
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Amit on 03/10/2018 08:25 am
http://www.njsas.org/projects/tidal_forces/magnetic_gravimeter/
http://www.njsas.org/projects/tidal_forces/magnetic_gravimeter/baker/

off topic but thought might be helpful to some of the builders here hence posting
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: fvlad on 03/10/2018 12:13 pm
Dear Meberbs,
You asked me many very interesting questions. I think that the respected members of the forum will be interested to hear my answers.

I will tell only the history of the experiment that in 2006 I read a lot about the gravitational waves of LIGO and I had an idea that gravitational waves from stars can be recorded with the help of the Casimir effect on the surfaces of bodies. Then I hung on a torsion balance a package of many sheets of writing paper between framed by pairs of frames of the same paper. I assumed that such a package should be a similarity to a gravitational telescope with a flat radiation pattern, and signals from stars should be repeated every day, but I did not see it.
Several points:
-Casmir effect is only between conducting surfaces, it doesn't happen between pieces of paper

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
«Casimir alone formulated the theory predicting a force between neutral conducting plates in 1948 which is called the Casimir effect in the narrow sense. Predictions of the force were later extended to finite-conductivity metals and dielectrics, and recent calculations have considered more general geometries».

Indeed, due to the Casimir effect, any nano powders are strongly attracted, both from conductive and from dielectric materials.

Other questions have answers in my essays.
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2806
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080
Perhaps text is not quite clear, I'll think about how to answer more clearly.

Yours faithfully,
Vladimir




Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 03/11/2018 02:24 am
Indeed, due to the Casimir effect, any nano powders are strongly attracted, both from conductive and from dielectric materials.
"Nano powders" are irrelevant to the discussion, and paper is not a strong dielectric, so the already small Casimir effect would be even harder to detect for it.  Generally the surface roughness and non-rigidity of paper would negate its usefulness in any Casimir effect related experiment.

Other questions have answers in my essays.
No, actually they aren't answered there. It doesn't have anything to do with the text not being clear, but does have to do with the fact that you are using terms like "neutrino" in contexts that have nothing to do with neutrinos. This makes it appear that you do not actually know what any of the words you are using mean. Before you try to rewrite all of physics, you have to actually learn enough physics to know what you are talking about and what experiments have already been done.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SteveD on 03/12/2018 01:25 am
Any progress on monomorphics build?  Been quite here for a while.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 03/12/2018 01:47 am
Any progress on monomorphics build?  Been quite here for a while.
One of the things Jamie was very concerned about was thermal atmospheric fluctuation due to to his very cold work space in the winter. He was waiting for the ground/walls to get warmer so that heating his space would not introduce too many air currents.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 03/12/2018 06:06 am
Pertinent image from the paper. The gain medium is Neodymium-doped yttrium orthovanadate crystal. The cavity is 5cm in length, with two highly reflecting mirrors at each end.

Is anyone able to make a graphic simulation of this optical EmDrive? It would be interesting to know how it may work internaly..

I also pressume like in the Eagleworks case Dr. Travis S. Taylor will not be able to post anything on currect progress of his optical EmDrive? Anyone knows please? Also...if you can, invite him here!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 03/12/2018 12:57 pm
Any progress on monomorphics build?  Been quite here for a while.
One of the things Jamie was very concerned about was thermal atmospheric fluctuation due to to his very cold work space in the winter. He was waiting for the ground/walls to get warmer so that heating his space would not introduce too many air currents.

In addition to waiting for more temperate weather, I am beginning the process of automating the experiment using LabView. I have experience with visual scripting through Autodesk applications and UE4, but it is still another application to learn - and a number of components that need to communicate over a wireless network. I can run the experiment manually now, but I need a programmable controller so I can run a number of identical experiments and average the results.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 03/12/2018 03:35 pm
Is it a coincidence that when I divide 2/c I get 6.67x10-9, and I get 6.67x10-11 for big G? I left off the units because they're different.

Yes, a completely meaningless coincidence. Each number has been measured to high precision and after the first three digits in scientific notation they are very different. The odds that the first three digits of any two numbers are the same should be 1 in 900 (since the first digit won't be zero but the other two could be).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 03/12/2018 04:14 pm
Is it a coincidence that when I divide 2/c I get 6.67x10-9, and I get 6.67x10-11 for big G? I left off the units because they're different.

A total yet meaningless coincidence. Each number has been measured to high precision and after the first three digits in scientific notation they are very different. The odds that the first three digits of any two numbers are the same should be 1 in 900 (since the first digit won't be zero but the other two could be).
G isn't known to much better precision than that, uncertainty is wide enough to change the next digit, still good enough to break this matching though. (We know gravitational parameters of planets and the sun much better, but uncertainty in their masses prevents this from really helping with G itself)

The main reason this is certainly a coincidence is the difference in units. Our unit system is very arbitrary, so any matching numbers in fundamental parameters with different units is a coincidence.

As a note, odds of finding a match like this are better than the 1 in 900. There is the extra free parameter in the 2 that c is divided into, it could have been any small number 1-9, so this moves it up to 1 in 100. when considering the number of constants you can choose from cross correlated with each other, and with options like multiply versus divide, this type of coincidence should be more common than intuition would make you think.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob012345 on 03/12/2018 04:46 pm
Is it a coincidence that when I divide 2/c I get 6.67x10-9, and I get 6.67x10-11 for big G? I left off the units because they're different.

A total yet meaningless coincidence. Each number has been measured to high precision and after the first three digits in scientific notation they are very different. The odds that the first three digits of any two numbers are the same should be 1 in 900 (since the first digit won't be zero but the other two could be).
G isn't known to much better precision than that, uncertainty is wide enough to change the next digit, still good enough to break this matching though. (We know gravitational parameters of planets and the sun much better, but uncertainty in their masses prevents this from really helping with G itself)

The main reason this is certainly a coincidence is the difference in units. Our unit system is very arbitrary, so any matching numbers in fundamental parameters with different units is a coincidence.

As a note, odds of finding a match like this are better than the 1 in 900. There is the extra free parameter in the 2 that c is divided into, it could have been any small number 1-9, so this moves it up to 1 in 100. when considering the number of constants you can choose from cross correlated with each other, and with options like multiply versus divide, this type of coincidence should be more common than intuition would make you think.

Yes, I was going to mention units being arbitrary but edited that out. My odds were only for two arbitrary three digit numbers, not this specific case which assumed a division by 2. I actually measured G in an undergraduate physics lab and got a value only about 10% different from the accepted value. Not bad but also not surprising since Cavendish himself got within 1% of the now accepted value nearly two centuries earlier.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 03/13/2018 05:04 am
In reference to past superconductor EmDrive materials (and debate) - MIT made breaktrough discovery on the superconductivity of the grafen. It was made almost by chance as quite a lot of great finds happen. It is now possible for superconductivity to happen in room temperature. The article was published on 5th March 2018.

It may be relevant for future tests of the EmDrive. Such discovery will open our way for many interesting new technologies and inventions and may decrease cost of the superconductivity tests.

http://news.mit.edu/2018/graphene-insulator-superconductor-0305

I am sure many laboratories around the world will jump on this and if there is some problem with that, they will discover it very fast. I think we should all try to follow it and see the progress - in relevance to the 3rd generation of the EmDrive as mentioned by Shawyer.

From the text:

"is not just the thinnest material known in the world, but also incredibly light and flexible, hundreds of times stronger than steel, and more electrically conductive than copper.

"the team reports it can tune graphene to behave at two electrical extremes: as an insulator, in which electrons are completely blocked from flowing; and as a superconductor, in which electrical current can stream through without resistance"

End of the text citation.

As we know original EmDrive is made from a copper. Now that would be interesting to make a layer of this superconductive type of layer there to enhance it capabilities. Or perhaps in some future make one out of it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: fvlad on 03/13/2018 05:35 am
I am beginning the process of automating the experiment using LabView.

Your license for LabView is a license for using SignalExpress, this soft is even higher level, which is more than LabView adapted to the user and researchers. Missing specialized elements can be written in LabView and inserted.
For example, on SignalExpress I wrote in just one day soft, which interrogated 32 different sensors, with individual calibration data, with real-time spectral processing of signals, and instantaneous output of the protocol with the final result.
I recommend that you pay attention to SignalExpress.

Vladimir
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 03/13/2018 09:23 am
In reference to past superconductor EmDrive materials (and debate) - MIT made breaktrough discovery on the superconductivity of the grafen. It was made almost by chance as quite a lot of great finds happen. It is now possible for superconductivity to happen in room temperature. The article was published on 5th March 2018.

It may be relevant for future tests of the EmDrive. Such discovery will open our way for many interesting new technologies and inventions and may decrease cost of the superconductivity tests.

http://news.mit.edu/2018/graphene-insulator-superconductor-0305

I am sure many laboratories around the world will jump on this and if there is some problem with that, they will discover it very fast. I think we should all try to follow it and see the progress - in relevance to the 3rd generation of the EmDrive as mentioned by Shawyer.

From the text:

"is not just the thinnest material known in the world, but also incredibly light and flexible, hundreds of times stronger than steel, and more electrically conductive than copper.

"the team reports it can tune graphene to behave at two electrical extremes: as an insulator, in which electrons are completely blocked from flowing; and as a superconductor, in which electrical current can stream through without resistance"

End of the text citation.

As we know original EmDrive is made from a copper. Now that would be interesting to make a layer of this superconductive type of layer there to enhance it capabilities. Or perhaps in some future make one out of it.

I think there's some confusion about what was discovered regarding Graphene. What was discovered is that graphene sheets rotated at an angle become superconducting in a manner that seems similar to cuprate superconductors, but at temperatures closer to traditional superconductors. It's hoped that the more easily understood nature of graphene will help unlock the mystery about why cuprate superconductors work at all, which could hopefully lead to room temperature superconductors.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Unentitled on 03/18/2018 08:53 am
Always a pleasure to endure these discoveries (and research) :)

Looking forward to more from March, Monomorphic, Seeshells, and our other joining expirimenters.

Thanks to all the theorists, physicists, engineers, and other contributors.

May the force be with us ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 03/20/2018 12:48 am
I'm working on a liquid metal contact system. See pictures below.  Not only will this allow me to remove the onboard computer (a huge source of heat), but also remove the need to regularly charge an on-board battery.  Planned now are 4 liquid metal connections for USB and 2 for main power.

The design still maintains the option of going back to battery powered “flight” if test results turn out positive.

Work was also done on designing a support for the main amplifier and phase change heat sink. These three parts will be 3D printed in the coming days.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: fvlad on 03/20/2018 06:44 am

Other questions have answers in my essays.

No, actually they aren't answered there.

Dear meberbs,
In my essay
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2806
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080
there are answers to many questions. For example, you wrote about a very interesting for all question: the speed of propagation of gravitational waves.

Contrary to experiments you are asserting the existence of an aether, dismissing the real results from actual experiments of gravitational wave detectors.
Here (https://www.sciencealert.com/speed-of-gravitational-waves-and-light-same) is an article describing how well that gravitational waves have been measured relative to the speed of light. Links to the original research are in the article.
Quote
... another team made up of a small army of physicists used the burst of gamma rays captured from last month's neutron star collision to come up with their own estimate.
Their method was a little more precise.
Ok, a whole lot more precise.
They found the difference between the lightning flash of the gamma ray burst and the thunderclap of the gravitational wave was extremely close - within -3 x 10^-15 and 7 x 10^-16 of c. Close enough to call it a tie, really.

This completely invalidates your claim of a gravitational aether and your claim that gravitational waves aren't correlated with actual events of large objects merging
 


Concerning gravitational waves then in my essay it is said:

«Gravitational waves are stationary, as particles and they are vortex gravitational toroidal fields, which can be transforming into photons and vice versa. Their action is observing in shape of plurality annular orbital resonances». https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/5836/?category=images (the image of the Earth in the orbital gravitational wave "orbital resonance").

I.e., during the binary mergers there was a transformation of gravitational waves in the gravispheres of neutron stars into photons. It is clear that the powerful electromagnetic radiation from the binary mergers has come to the gravisphere of the Earth at the speed of light. A powerful electromagnetic action on the Earth's gravisphere led to the formation of toroidal gravitational waves, which were recorded by sensors of gravitational waves. Therefore, it is not surprising that the measured velocity of "gravitation" exactly coincides with the speed of light.

Conclusion - the measured velocity of propagation of gravitational waves has nothing to do with the true speed of gravity propagation. The speed of propagation of electromagnetic waves was simply measured again.
 
In the above works (https://www.sciencealert.com/speed-of-gravitational-waves-and-light-same)  , the researchers themselves are surprised to the exact coincidence of the speed of light with the "velocity of gravitational waves."
«Now two teams of physicists used figures from the variety of gravitational waves to narrow estimates on just how fast we think gravity moves, and while their results aren't shocking, they are strangely comforting».

We see the transformation of gravitational waves into electromagnetic waves by the example of how electron-positron pairs (pairs of toroidal gravitational waves with the Compton wavelength) are transformed into photons, and the photons are transformed into electron-positron pairs.
 
Electrons and positrons interact with each other with the help of toroidal gravitational waves of de Broglie possessing mass.
The de Broglie waves of electrons and positrons can also annihilate and transform into photons, and the photons can again turn into de Broglie waves.

«Annihilation» of the electron-positron pair is analogous to the binary mergers of neutron stars.
Another analogue of the process of neutron stars is process of approaching of satellites of Saturn, Prometheus and Pandora. This process of approaching of the satellites was recorded by Cassini.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3APIA07712_-_F_ring_animation_videoquality_6_framerate_5.ogv (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3APIA07712_-_F_ring_animation_videoquality_6_framerate_5.ogv)

We see the force action of the set of toroidal gravitational waves of de Broglie of each satellite with the matter of the rings of Saturn. The fans of de Broglie's gravitational waves are immobile relative to their satellites. The direction of the action of the force of the gravitational waves of de Broglie on the rings of Saturn coincides with the direction of the action of force on the satellites, i.e. the matter of the rings of Saturn is an indicator of the direction of the action of force. In this case, (see video), toroidal gravitational waves push satellites toward each other. This is how the mechanism of attraction of satellites is realized among themselves by means of toroidal gravitational waves.
In confirmation of the mutual transformation of gravitational and electromagnetic waves, it is possible to compare the spectra of electromagnetic and gravitational radiation in the Earth's gravisphere.
Virgo_02_10_2017__ELF spectrogram from the S-N Perugia_01.jpg

This comparison of the spectra is added to the comparison of the spectra of gravitational waves with the spectra of acoustic waves of drums that I previously quoted.
The coincidence of resonance frequencies in the spectra of electromagnetic, acoustic and gravitational waves speaks about the fundamental properties of the elements of the physical vacuum medium (toroidal gravitational waves)  forming various fields that are transformed into each other due to a dynamic cause.
I can not imagine that a lot of identical complex atoms and chemical bonds in molecules are formed due to probabilistic events. But I easily imagine all this stable diversity of the elements of the world, as a result of the self-organization of matter. The self-organization of matter is due to the synchronizing dispersion process of the interaction of parametric resonances and the formation of soliton waves in the superfluid medium of the physical vacuum. This medium is very similar to liquid crystals in our gadgets.

One should always keep in mind that any experimental fact can be explained from several positions, and not only from the point of view of doctrinal physics. Unwillingness to discuss and ignore other explanations of the facts is the main problem of doctrinal physics.

I propose to be tolerant of all explanations of the facts.

Vladimir
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 03/20/2018 03:52 pm

Other questions have answers in my essays.

No, actually they aren't answered there.

Dear meberbs,
In my essay
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2806
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080
there are answers to many questions. For example, you wrote about a very interesting for all question: the speed of propagation of gravitational waves.
You truncated my post improperly. My post continued by pointing out that your papers are full of misuse of the words such as "neutrino" which is why your papers don't answer anything all of the statements in them are simply nonsensical. You do not actually address your misunderstanding  of neutrinos at all in this post.

Concerning gravitational waves then in my essay it is said:

«Gravitational waves are stationary, as particles and they are vortex gravitational toroidal fields, which can be transforming into photons and vice versa. Their action is observing in shape of plurality annular orbital resonances». https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/5836/?category=images (the image of the Earth in the orbital gravitational wave "orbital resonance").
You never define what "gravitational toroidal fields" are, and act like they magically explain everything. This makes your statement meaningless. You equally could have said "invisible pink elephants, and the statement would have been equally meaningless.

I.e., during the binary mergers there was a transformation of gravitational waves in the gravispheres of neutron stars into photons. It is clear that the powerful electromagnetic radiation from the binary mergers has come to the gravisphere of the Earth at the speed of light. A powerful electromagnetic action on the Earth's gravisphere led to the formation of toroidal gravitational waves, which were recorded by sensors of gravitational waves. Therefore, it is not surprising that the measured velocity of "gravitation" exactly coincides with the speed of light.
"i.e." means "in other words," which means that what follows should be a simple restatement of the previous paragraph. What follows instead are completely different statements that have exactly 0 supporting evidence. For example, if the phenomena occurred in Earth's atmosphere as you claim, then gravitational wave detectors at different locations on earth would point to that, which would be a different direction for each detector, and not overlap the binary merger in most cases. Experiments have shown that you are wrong on this.

The rest of your post is tangential nonsense, claiming analogs between phenomena that are not at all analogous and behave completely differently. Your statements are all either baseless assertions, completely incorrect, or simply lacking in any meaning to begin with.

One should always keep in mind that any experimental fact can be explained from several positions, and not only from the point of view of doctrinal physics. Unwillingness to discuss and ignore other explanations of the facts is the main problem of doctrinal physics.

I propose to be tolerant of all explanations of the facts.
In addition to multiple explanations of some facts, there are also an infinite number of explanations that contradict facts. Your explanations fall into the latter category of contradicting facts.

Of all of the problems in your posts and your papers that I have pointed out, the only one you seem to have even implicitly acknowledged is where you mention "binary mergers" in this post rather than "binary pulsars" that you mention in your paper.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: oyzw on 03/20/2018 11:52 pm
I'm working on a liquid metal contact system. See pictures below.  Not only will this allow me to remove the onboard computer (a huge source of heat), but also remove the need to regularly charge an on-board battery.  Planned now are 4 liquid metal connections for USB and 2 for main power.

The design still maintains the option of going back to battery powered “flight” if test results turn out positive.

Work was also done on designing a support for the main amplifier and phase change heat sink. These three parts will be 3D printed in the coming days.
    Hello, your experiment progress is encouraging. Now, what is the microwave power of this device? What is the Q value of this resonator?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 03/21/2018 01:30 am
Hello, your experiment progress is encouraging. Now, what is the microwave power of this device? What is the Q value of this resonator?

Thank you. The main amplifier is capable of 25-30W, depending on frequency. The cavity resonator has a Q value of 8,000 - 16,000 at mode TE013, depending on how well it is tuned.  The small spherical end-plate is manually aligned with the large spherical end-plate via the three adjusters seen in the image below - all while antenna impedance is manually controlled using the central knob tuner.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: oyzw on 03/21/2018 01:56 am
Hello, your experiment progress is encouraging. Now, what is the microwave power of this device? What is the Q value of this resonator?

Thank you. The main amplifier is capable of 25-30W, depending on frequency. The cavity resonator has a Q value of 8,000 - 16,000 at mode TE013, depending on how well it is tuned.  The small spherical end-plate is manually aligned with the large spherical end-plate via the three adjusters seen in the image below - all while antenna impedance is manually controlled using the central knob tuner.
Excuse me, where do you live? I would like to give you the cavity and microwave amplifiers I made, and you can use him to carry out the high power and high Q cavity test.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 03/21/2018 02:01 am
Hello, your experiment progress is encouraging. Now, what is the microwave power of this device? What is the Q value of this resonator?
Thank you. The main amplifier is capable of 25-30W, depending on frequency. The cavity resonator has a Q value of 8,000 - 16,000 at mode TE013, depending on how well it is tuned.  The small spherical end-plate is manually aligned with the large spherical end-plate via the three adjusters seen in the image below - all while antenna impedance is manually controlled using the central knob tuner.
Excuse me, where do you live? I would like to give you the cavity and microwave amplifiers I made, and you can use him to carry out the high power and high Q cavity test.
I'm in Atlanta, USA. I would be happy to work with you. Please private message me for more info.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: rq3 on 03/24/2018 12:42 pm
Interesting:
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/3/eaao4453.full
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: fvlad on 03/28/2018 12:22 pm
When I processed the data and plotted the graph for 2 weeks of measurement, I realized that some neutrino matter is registered from the eastern quadrature of the Earth's orbit, obviously those detected by Michelson and Morley.
You apparently don't have a clue what neutrinos are. They have no relation to the Michelson-Morley experiment, in fact the existence of neutrinos was not theorized or detected by any experiment until after Michelson and Morley were both dead for decades. They also would not have anything to do with your experiment. they barely interact with most matter at all, because they are uncharged and do not interact via electromagnetic force.

 



Other questions have answers in my essays.

No, actually they aren't answered there.

Dear meberbs,
In my essay
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2806
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080
there are answers to many questions. For example, you wrote about a very interesting for all question: the speed of propagation of gravitational waves.

You truncated my post improperly. My post continued by pointing out that your papers are full of misuse of the words such as "neutrino" which is why your papers don't answer anything all of the statements in them are simply nonsensical. You do not actually address your misunderstanding  of neutrinos at all in this post.


Dear meberbs,
Yes indeed, during the experiments of Michelson and Morley there was no concept of neutrinos, and I did not say otherwise. But they found motion at a speed of 8 km/s of the luminiferous medium from the eastern quadrature of the Earth's orbit.
In another COBE experiment, motion of a medium propagating infrared radiation from the eastern quadrature of the orbit was also detected.

In both cases, motion of the medium was detected, in which electromagnetic waves propagate, which I called the neutrino medium.

Let us read what a neutrino is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_(disambiguation)
«A neutrino is an elementary particle».
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino
«The neutrino is so named because it is electrically neutral».
«neutrinos typically pass through normal matter unimpeded and undetected».

These generally accepted neutrino concepts are consistent with my assumptions about the medium of the physical vacuum, so I use them.

In my opinion, doctrinal physicists apparently do not have a clue what a neutrino is, if they write the following.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_neutrino
«One open question of particle physics is whether or not neutrinos and anti-neutrinos are the same particle in which case it would be a Majorana fermion or whether they are different particles in which case they would be Dirac fermions. They are produced in beta decay and other types weak interactions».
 
The fact of the motion of the medium of propagation of light at a speed of 8 km/s does not fit into doctrinal physics, so the negative result of the experiments of Michelson and Morley was announced. So the doctrinal physicists «confirmed that the ether does not exist». And of course, the doctrinal physicists "splashed the baby out with the bathwater". Weird though, they do not care about the causality of the processes. They, of course, did not understand that this movement of the medium of light propagation is a dynamic cause of the formation of force, mass and gravity on Earth.

I want to say that in science one must be objective, there should not be a blind faith in totalitarian and belligerent doctrine.

I believe that we need to learn from nature examples of the formation of force for the development of EM Drive, including considering "negative" experiments.

I understand neutrinos, like the toroidal gravitational waves of de Broglie of particles and bodies, this is obvious and simple for me.

In doctrinal physics, de Broglie waves are probability waves. Therefore, to explain the violation of the balance of energies and particle masses, in the processes of their transformation, the problem was solved with the help of neutrinos.

Even now, the structure and properties are not defined for neutrinos. At the same time, for de Broglie waves, the law of variation of their wavelength is known, i.e. their dynamic properties are known.
Therefore, it is perfectly logical to represent neutrinos as the de Broglie toroidal gravitational waves with certain topological, energy and mass parameters.

For example, chemists have long begun to lay the foundations of their chemical physics on a topological basis. And chemists and biologists need the mechanisms of self-organization of matter, and not mathematical abstractions.
I answered the question of the self-organization of matter already in the title essay "The reason for self-organization systems of matter is quantum parametric resonance and the formation of solitons" https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2806 . Perhaps this question is not sufficiently disclosed in the essay. So I'll try to supplement.

If the electron accelerates to the speed of light, then the mass and length of the de Broglie toroidal gravitational wave approach the parameters of the electron. But the de Broglie wave of the electron forms its own, already secondary, de Broglie wave with parameters close to the electron, the secondary wave forms the third wave, etc. Thus, the energy and mass of the set of de Broglie and Compton waves moving with the speed of light tends to infinity, which agrees with the experiment. Conclusion - the relativistic mass of an electron is formed by a set of neutrino toroidal gravitational waves de Broglie of electron.
 
Such assumptions make it possible to uniquely determine the function toroidal gravitational waves of the de Broglie's of the electron to stabilize the electron parameters and to extract excess perturbation energy into de Broglie waves (into the energy of the turbulence waves of the medium of the physical vacuum).
A set of de Broglie waves with close parameters  exists also around the electron-positron pair in a neutron. Therefore, at the moment when the neutron is converted into a proton, the electron always flies away, accompanied by always different complexes of de Broglie's neutrino toroidal gravitational waves, which determine the different energy of the emitted electrons.

The toroidal gravitational waves of de Broglie are an entity that can change its wavelength only by a quantum mechanism, through a phase of transformation into spiral photons, which most often immediately turn into toroidal gravitational waves. As in toroidal gravitational waves, in spiral photons the elements of matter move with the speed of light.

The pair of spirals of a photon is screwed into the medium of a physical vacuum with a much smaller cross section of interaction and therefore the photons move rectilinearly in the equilibrium state of superfluidity, with the speed of light and do not form de Broglie waves, therefore photons have a very small mass. For the equilibrium motion of the elements of matter with the speed of light in toroidal gravitational waves of de Broglie and Compton, a set of additional toroidal gravitational waves is required, which form a gravisphere and mass.

There are no other essence in the universe. I try to pay attention to the manifestations of this essence, and that this essence is the reason for the formation of mass and strength, including the forces in EM Drive.

In my work is written about neutrinos the following.
«the neutrino toroidal vortexes of turbulence in physical vacuum medium are stable».
«leads to an acceleration of neutrino gravitons in gravitational waves»
«Elements of different levels are neutrinos for each»

I'm not talking about specific neutrinos nowhere.
As for neutrinos as specific particles, their explanation varies with the development of science.

For example, I already wrote to you about changes in the concept of the Casimir effect, which now extends not only to conductive materials, but also to dielectrics.
Previously it was believed that neutrinos do not have mass, but now it is believed that neutrinos have a mass and our positions are converging on this basis.

I have a different concept of concrete neutrinos than in doctrinal physics. I know (because I see in the experiments) that all interactions of the elements of matter occur at the frequencies of parametric resonances in the medium of the physical vacuum, through the de Broglie neutrino toroidal gravitational waves of particles and bodies.

The mass of electron neutrinos is easy to calculate through the electron mass, it is inversely proportional to the neutrino wavelength (of electron de Broglie wavelength). And resonant frequencies can be easily calculated when there is a specific topological structure of de Broglie neutrino waves. Registering electronic neutrinos is also easy, at a time when they turn into photons. Each detected photon corresponds to the presence of a corresponding electronic neutrino.

Neutrinos do not interact with the familiar to us, the atomic matter, because it does not have resonant frequencies close to the resonant frequencies of the de Broglie gravitational waves of atomic matter. Gravitational waves of de Broglie form the spectral lines of atoms. The high density of the spectral lines of atoms and molecules causes a greater viscosity of the substance.

Toroidal gravitational waves are simple in structure and have a very low density of spectral lines, in comparison with atomic matter, and therefore they interact weakly with atomic matter. Therefore, toroidal gravitational waves are neutrino, so they form a superfluid medium of a physical vacuum with a viscosity determined by the Hubble parameter.

The finite magnitude of the viscosity and the dynamism of the de Broglie toroidal gravitational waves (elements of the physical vacuum environment) do not "magically explain everything", but are the causes of classical parametric resonances, solitons and self-organization mechanisms of matter that realize the extreme principle of least action.

It was necessary for me to point out more clearly that all background phenomena are associated with "continuous" energy spectra of the set of toroidal gravitational waves of de Broglie of electrons, which are, in fact, generally accepted neutrinos.

The concept of neutrinos appeared for solving the problem of the continuous beta decay spectrum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_neutrino
Energy Spectra for Beta Decay electrons_01.jpg

When I described the 14 fundamental backgrounds of the physical vacuum medium, I did not bring this experimental graph https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jSOsNljYwujH2O4kwQy3-c0SfspT3P5e/view    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase /Nuclear/beta2.html in my essay 2018 https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080 , as an experimental rationale for the first background.
«The maximum intensity of the background 179.6 keV  is related to the electron 511.07 keV».
The above parameters of the first background characterize the energy distribution of the set of generally accepted electronic neutrinos.
«They are produced in beta decay and other types weak interactions».

Dear meberbs, I am very grateful to you, for your perseverance in the issue of neutrinos, which allowed me to formulate yet another argument confirming the great importance of studying regular background phenomena in the fractal structure of the universe.

Vladimir
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 03/28/2018 01:01 pm
Here are the finished prints for the liquid metal contact system. Version 2.0 on the right improves upon version 1.0 on the left by adding more liquid metal contacts and cleaning up the geometry. With a slight increase in diameter, I was able to increase the number of contacts from 6 to 10. This will allow for a number of configurations such as 1 USB, 1 Power Mains, and 2 data channels, or 2 USB and 1 Power Mains and so on. Version 2.0 can rotate 9.5° in either direction, which is FAR more than is necessary. Most tests take place far below 1 radian. In fact, the pendulum arm would bump up against the laser displacement sensor long before the liquid metal contact electrodes came into contact with the vessel walls. Each set took about 5 hours to print at the fastest setting. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 03/28/2018 01:01 pm
The fact of the motion of the medium of propagation of light at a speed of 8 km/s does not fit into doctrinal physics, so the negative result of the experiments of Michelson and Morley was announced.

Actually at that time, the "luminiferous aether" theory en vogue, i.e. supported by the majority of scientists of the 19th century, involved a complete dragging effect of the ether and a high speed induced "wind" of about 30 km/s due to the speed at which the Earth orbits around the Sun.

It is true that this theory was then completely falsified by the famous Michelson-Morley experiment.

However, that velocity discrepancy of about 8 km/s remaining, as measured by Michelson and Morley in 1887, Michelson and Miller in 1902, 1904 and 1905, and by Miller in 1925, 1926 and 1930, is in accordance with a "slow wind" of the aether drag hypothesis later involved in the controversial Allais effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allais_effect) (slow velocity measured and calculated by Maurice Allais at 7.95 km/s according to his hypothesis).

Allais summarized his long study in a memoir on behalf of NASA in 1999 (PDF here (http://www.allais.info/alltrans/nasareport.pdf)).

Moreover, Mike McCulloch wrote a few months ago with a grain of salt about a possible explanation of the Allais effect by his theory of quantised inertia (which also according to him could explain the EmDrive), due to the partial shielding of Unruh waves by the Moon as measured on Earth, although this is still a crude idea:
http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.fr/2017/10/the-allais-effect.html
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: kenny008 on 03/28/2018 02:15 pm
 

The fact of the motion of the medium of propagation of light at a speed of 8 km/s does not fit into doctrinal physics, so the negative result of the experiments of Michelson and Morley was announced.


Of course, this is one interpretation of Miller's results.

Another interpretation is that the 8 km/s has been shown to be experimental error and improper statistical analysis, by numerous experiments and data analyses since Miller's last observations in 1930.  While Miller pioneered many experimental techniques, his data analysis has been shown to be incorrect, and without any further experimental evidence to the contrary, the null result is the accepted interpretation.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 03/28/2018 03:16 pm

The fact of the motion of the medium of propagation of light at a speed of 8 km/s does not fit into doctrinal physics, so the negative result of the experiments of Michelson and Morley was announced.


Of course, this is one interpretation of Miller's results.

Another interpretation is that the 8 km/s has been shown to be experimental error and improper statistical analysis, by numerous experiments and data analyses since Miller's last observations in 1930.  While Miller pioneered many experimental techniques, his data analysis has been shown to be incorrect, and without any further experimental evidence to the contrary, the null result is the accepted interpretation.

References please? Miller's measured discrepancy of 8 km/s in his experiments (and previous ones by Michelson and Morley) explained as an experimental error due to temperature gradients in the room where the interferometer was located, has been proposed by:

• Robert S. Shankland et al. (April 1955) "New analysis of the Interferometer Observations of Dayton C. Miller", Review of Modern Physics, Vol.27, No.2 (PDF (http://ayuba.fr/pdf/shankland1955.pdf))

Anyone was satisfied with that. Miller could not give an answer to it as he died in 1941. For that matter Shankland reused George Joos' 1934 critique about such thermal hypothesis (citing it) but without addressing nor citing Miller's rebuttal yet present at that time in the same exchange:

• G. Joos / D. C. Miller (January 1934) "Letters to the Editor", Physical Review 45, 114 (PDF (http://ayuba.fr/pdf/miller1934.pdf))

Afterward though, Maurice Allais published several papers showing Shankland was wrong about the sensitivity of Miller's interferometer to temperature gradients, and especially highlighted statistically significant periodicities ("extraordinary and irrefragable regularities") in Miller's data unexplainable by spurious causes, especially thermal ones. Shankland himself saw such anomalous periodicities in Miller's data, although he said he didn't feel the need to investigate that issue further! Alas, Maurice Allais published these papers in French language in the proceedings of the French Academy of Sciences, so under the radar of the English-spoken scientific world.

Nevertheless, an article in English by James Demeo summarizing Allais' views, entitled "Dayton C. Miller revisited" is available as a contribution chapter in the book (pp. 285–315):

"Should the Laws of Gravitation Be Reconsidered? The Scientific Legacy of Maurice Allais" by Héctor A. Múnera (Apeiron 2011), ISBN 978-0986492655 (https://www.amazon.com/Should-Laws-Gravitation-Reconsidered-Scientific/dp/0986492655).

DeMeo's contribution is available on ResearchGate, so I attach his article here. This is clearly a critique on Shankland's analysis, which would have been superficial in some ways and biased according to the author.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 03/28/2018 03:51 pm
Dear meberbs,
Yes indeed, during the experiments of Michelson and Morley there was no concept of neutrinos, and I did not say otherwise. But they found motion at a speed of 8 km/s of the luminiferous medium from the eastern quadrature of the Earth's orbit.
I don't know where you are getting this from, but by 1930 multiple experiments, including by Michelson had measured that it was at most 3 km/s, but no evidence it was actually greater than 0. Modern experiments have measured the speed of light in different directions and found it to be constant to many orders of magnitude. See partial list of such experiments at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment

In another COBE experiment, motion of a medium propagating infrared radiation from the eastern quadrature of the orbit was also detected.
Doppler shift and difference in the speed of light are 2 very different things. You are misinterpreting these results in a way that is inconsistent with what the results actually say.

In both cases, motion of the medium was detected, in which electromagnetic waves propagate, which I called the neutrino medium.

Let us read what a neutrino is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_(disambiguation)
«A neutrino is an elementary particle».
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino
«The neutrino is so named because it is electrically neutral».
«neutrinos typically pass through normal matter unimpeded and undetected».

These generally accepted neutrino concepts are consistent with my assumptions about the medium of the physical vacuum, so I use them.
No, they aren't consistent. "electrically neutral" means they do not interact with electromagnetic waves at all. You are claiming that they not only interact, but are the very medium of propagation. Even in the completely nonsensical case of them interacting, we know they can't be the medium of propagation, because the local neutrino environment near Earth is in a near speed of light motion away from the sun. The motion of this medium would be trivial to detect, such as by any GPS receiver. (Even an 8 km/s offset in the speed of light would produce errors of around 500 m. GPS is much better than that.)

In my opinion, doctrinal physicists apparently do not have a clue what a neutrino is, if they write the following.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_neutrino
«One open question of particle physics is whether or not neutrinos and anti-neutrinos are the same particle in which case it would be a Majorana fermion or whether they are different particles in which case they would be Dirac fermions. They are produced in beta decay and other types weak interactions».
No, this does not represent "no clue what a neutrino is" it means there is a single aspect of neutrinos that current technology does not have a way to measure. (There is one other aspect we can't measure yet, their mass, though we do have lower and upper bounds.)

The fact of the motion of the medium of propagation of light at a speed of 8 km/s does not fit into doctrinal physics, so the negative result of the experiments of Michelson and Morley was announced.
This is called a conspiracy theory. It is not welcome here, as it is basically an insult to all scientists on the planet. Try using actual facts instead of whatever things you made up because you can't accept that your claims are wrong.

I want to say that in science one must be objective, there should not be a blind faith in totalitarian and belligerent doctrine.
Then stop making evidence free assertions and ignoring the results of whatever experiments you find convenient. You resorting to insults here reveals who the belligerent one is.

The rest of your post from this point on is a set of non-sequiters, false statements, and misuse of terms. None of your claims follow from your propositions, and you make exactly 0 testable predictions, even where you claim it is "easy" such as the neutrino mass. If you did the calculation, then it could be compared to the experimentally known range. Your claim about electron neutrinos turning into photons could be considered testable, but in that case it is already falsified by experiments that measure neutrino fluxes and would detect such a thing. You claim to know all of your statements are true because of "experiment" without a single explanation of how any experiment you have done could have shown any of this. (And the experiment you have described before simply showed a torsional pendulum insufficiently damped and isolated from the countless vibrations on the Earth, which experimenters in this thread have shown the difficulty of building one well.)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 03/29/2018 09:02 am
Cosmology | Dark Matter | Breakthrough

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180328130724.htm

"We thought that every galaxy had dark matter and that dark matter is how a galaxy begins," said Pieter van Dokkum of Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, lead researcher of the Hubble observations. "This invisible, mysterious substance is the most dominant aspect of any galaxy. So finding a galaxy without it is unexpected. It challenges the standard ideas of how we think galaxies work, and it shows that dark matter is real: it has its own separate existence apart from other components of galaxies. This result also suggests that there may be more than one way to form a galaxy."

Let's discuss. To me this discovery does not prove dark matter exists. Ever since the finding of stable quantum vortices and locked magnetic dipoles in metals (statistical motion without input) I always viewed the quantum foam as having a certain drag beyond mere frame lag or spacetime stiffness which also partially explains anomalous behaviors of spinning discs where the outer field does not begin to relax until motion halts*. Within the system being observed a sort of quantum equilibrium and collective entanglement is held between the particles until they are reorganized by currents.

The current behaves anomalously because certain paths are preferential based on prior particles (decreased resistance) as relationships are established within the shape of the foam itself which then reduce resistance for massive real particles. Think of it like a horse ploughing a furrow. Rain may smooth the furrow but it still remains there for a long time. These paths collapse the probability function of each particle based on the number of branching paths and random walk range based on initial trajectory. The furrow is not a kink or singularity in spacetime but rather the asymmetrical decrease in vacuum pressure. Such furrows may create average resistance when travelling perpendicular to long term emitted rays or alternatively decreased resistance when travelling well worn routes, beyond contemporary measurement tool resolution since measurement also alters the quantum states and density of surrounding particles.

*https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/89a3/4c8fbbb7cda8043930cada6de2565e66b915.pdf

On a cosmological scale this motion would explain the absence of dark matter in a sparse galaxy as the density of fresh furrows is low. Dark matter, dark photons are all errors based on misunderstanding gravity as being a force, not an expression of probability a la mach effect and binary bifurcating paths at the planck resolution. Spacetime doesn't depend on quantum channels for any massive movement, but it preferentially enables electromagnetic attraction along the ray paths. This hypothesis of mutable and soft quantum channels can be disproven if equally massive galaxies contain less dark matter if they are the more luminous.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 03/29/2018 03:26 pm
Mike McCullough's TEDx talk is finally on YT: https://youtu.be/fnNKC82wUmY
He specifically mentions the EMDrive.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: john smith 19 on 03/29/2018 04:24 pm
Mike McCullough's TEDx talk is finally on YT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnNKC82wUmY
He specifically mentions the EMDrive.
So.
1) Takes visible, measurable phenomena and creates new theory.
2) Theory explains visible (even sometimes exotic) phenomena in simple way.
3) Theory generates predictions for behavior that can be proved either true or false.

And it's got a (small) side order of unification between GR and the quantum world.
Which looks to me the way physics should be done.

I think he's right. I could never quite shake the felling that  "Hunting Dark Matter" had a lot in common with that other mythic beast, the Snark.

Now how you produce an acceleration of 1 x 10^20 m/s^2 is going to be tough. That's roughly 10 billion, billion g.

That said I dimly recall RL Forwards ideas about countering gravity by accelerating very  dense fluids at very high speeds. Maybe very dense particles (Tungsten? SG about 19) in some low viscosity liquid?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 03/29/2018 05:16 pm
Mike McCullough's TEDx talk is finally on YT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnNKC82wUmY
He specifically mentions the EMDrive.
So.
1) Takes visible, measurable phenomena and creates new theory.
2) Theory explains visible (even sometimes exotic) phenomena in simple way.
3) Theory generates predictions for behavior that can be proved either true or false.

And it's got a (small) side order of unification between GR and the quantum world.
Which looks to me the way physics should be done.

I think he's right. I could never quite shake the felling that  "Hunting Dark Matter" had a lot in common with that other mythic beast, the Snark.

Now how you produce an acceleration of 1 x 10^20 m/s^2 is going to be tough. That's roughly 10 billion, billion g.

That said I dimly recall RL Forwards ideas about countering gravity by accelerating very  dense fluids at very high speeds. Maybe very dense particles (Tungsten? SG about 19) in some low viscosity liquid?



I understand how McCulloch's theory of quantised inertia (aka MiHsC aka horizon mechanics) could modify the inertia of objects with respect to their acceleration, but I don't see how his theory explains inertia itself. His explanation even seems contradictory to me.

In layman terms, McCulloch says that inertia is a property that emerges from any accelerating object due to anisotropic Unruh radiation pressure on it (radiation pressure imbalance). Such an anisotropy would come from some information loss due to a relativistic Rindler (event) horizon appearing behind an accelerating object, shielding some of the distant Unruh waves it sees in that direction. As the object feels less Unruh radiation behind it, the radiation pushes back more in front of it, creating some resistance to acceleration, interpreted as inertia.

I see two main problems with such an explanation. Let's assume that "Unruh radiation" is something real. Yet it is a phenomenon predicted by quantum mechanics, but it has never been proved to exist.

Unruh radiation is an increase of the ambient temperature as seen by an accelerating object, and not from a static observer located in the same inertial reference frame. To be very simple in such explanations, you can take the image of a thermometer that you shake in the air. The shaken thermometer would record a higher temperature due to the Unruh radiation it feels, than if it was not accelerating (then it would see no Unruh radiation). In both cases, Unruh radiation is never seen by the static observer in the room. It appears only for the point of view of the accelerating thermometer.



1) The first problem I see is that McCulloch's Unruh radiation pressure directly depends on the Unruh temperature, which is so tiny, so infinitesimally small, that it cannot be detected even with modern means, unless for unphysical, gigantic accelerations.

e.g. an acceleration of 1012 gee (a trillion times more than Earth gravity) triggers an increasing in Unruh radiation temperature of 40 billionths of a degree Kelvin.

In this regard, how could the inertia of, say, a car pushed on a road by hands, arise from such a ridiculous radiation pressure imbalance?



2) Second problem I see: information in relativity is conveyed at the speed of light, which is top speed. McCulloch interprets the word "radiation" in "Unruh radiation" as having an existence as a wave, that propagates. Such "Unruh waves" would have wavelengths ordinary in the order of light-years up to the size of the universe, except for anomalous cases like the EmDrive where Unruh wavelength would reach about the size of the cavity.

I don't see how Unruh waves in such Unruh radiation, coming from the Unruh temperature, could propagate faster than c, so you'd have to wait a loooong time before the loss of information beyond the distant relativistic event horizon created behind the object reaches that object.

Yet inertial reaction forces are instantaneous. As relativistic Rindler horizons are light-years away and McCulloch says that quantised inertia has its roots both in quantum mechanics and relativity with Mach's principle, is some action-at-a-distance field involving retarded/advanced waves a la Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory (like in the Woodward effect) mandatory?

I asked Mike McCulloch (only in a shorter way) on Twitter but he didn't answered yet. Admittedly Twitter is not the best place to argue so I hope Mike will come here to address what I may have misunderstood in the foundations of his theory.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 03/29/2018 05:52 pm
On a cosmological scale this motion would explain the absence of dark matter in a sparse galaxy as the density of fresh furrows is low. Dark matter, dark photons are all errors based on misunderstanding gravity as being a force, not an expression of probability a la mach effect and binary bifurcating paths at the planck resolution. Spacetime doesn't depend on quantum channels for any massive movement, but it preferentially enables electromagnetic attraction along the ray paths. This hypothesis of mutable and soft quantum channels can be disproven if equally massive galaxies contain less dark matter if they are the more luminous.

From the article you linked:
Quote
Given the object's large size and faint appearance, astronomers classify NGC 1052-DF2 as an ultra-diffuse galaxy. A 2015 survey of the Coma galaxy cluster showed these large, faint objects to be surprisingly common.

But none of the ultra-diffuse galaxies discovered so far have been found to be lacking in dark matter.
Other similarly sparse galaxies do not show this lack of dark matter, so explanations relying on it being a sparse galaxy are wrong.

Also, I have no idea why you linked to some random clearly not peer reviewed paper discussing something that is clearly pseudoscience, since it doesn't seem to have any relevance to your claims (which don't really make sense to begin with.)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 03/29/2018 06:51 pm
Could somebody explain to me why wondering planets / failed stars can not account for the dark matter? I suppose there are many many times more failed stars than shining stars.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ppnl on 03/29/2018 08:29 pm
Could somebody explain to me why wondering planets / failed stars can not account for the dark matter? I suppose there are many many times more failed stars than shining stars.

Not enough of them by orders of magnitude. They have done gravitational microlensing surveys to nail down how many planets and small stars are wandering about. Theory makes it hard to believe there could be enough. Observations shows that there are not.

There was a recent idea that a large population of black holes in a specific narrow size could account for missing mass. I think it was soundly rejected bur future gravity wave detection should give us an idea of the size and distribution of black holes.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 03/29/2018 08:40 pm
Could somebody explain to me why wondering planets / failed stars can not account for the dark matter? I suppose there are many many times more failed stars than shining stars.

Not enough of them by orders of magnitude. They have done gravitational microlensing surveys to nail down how many planets and small stars are wandering about. Theory makes it hard to believe there could be enough. Observations shows that there are not.

There was a recent idea that a large population of black holes in a specific narrow size could account for missing mass. I think it was soundly rejected bur future gravity wave detection should give us an idea of the size and distribution of black holes.
To add to this, here (https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/five-reasons-we-think-dark-matter-exists-a122bd606ba8) is an article discussing some of the evidence for dark matter. Some of the observed properties such as passing through a galaxy collision unimpeded are simply not consistent with regular matter.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 03/29/2018 11:12 pm
Could somebody explain to me why wondering planets / failed stars can not account for the dark matter? I suppose there are many many times more failed stars than shining stars.

Not enough of them by orders of magnitude. They have done gravitational microlensing surveys to nail down how many planets and small stars are wandering about. Theory makes it hard to believe there could be enough. Observations shows that there are not.

There was a recent idea that a large population of black holes in a specific narrow size could account for missing mass. I think it was soundly rejected bur future gravity wave detection should give us an idea of the size and distribution of black holes.

I've thought about this a lot, and my thinking is that dark matter isn't matter at all, and it seems most likely to me that what we describe as dark matter can be attributed to the electromagnetic field actually being massive. Sounds crazy, right? I don't think it is anymore. I understand that one quanta of the electromagnetic field is massless, but not the ensemble. There's mass in all those counterpropagating photons, where only one (or more than one traveling in parallel) has none. Maybe my thinking about this has been polluted (or maybe it was helpful) by studying the EMdrive, but I never would have thought about dark matter in this way if I hadn't been thinking about it and the EMdrive at the same time.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 03/29/2018 11:52 pm
Could somebody explain to me why wondering planets / failed stars can not account for the dark matter? I suppose there are many many times more failed stars than shining stars.

Not enough of them by orders of magnitude. They have done gravitational microlensing surveys to nail down how many planets and small stars are wandering about. Theory makes it hard to believe there could be enough. Observations shows that there are not.

There was a recent idea that a large population of black holes in a specific narrow size could account for missing mass. I think it was soundly rejected bur future gravity wave detection should give us an idea of the size and distribution of black holes.

I've thought about this a lot, and my thinking is that dark matter isn't matter at all, and it seems most likely to me that what we describe as dark matter can be attributed to the electromagnetic field actually being massive. Sounds crazy, right? I don't think it is anymore. I understand that one quanta of the electromagnetic field is massless, but not the ensemble. There's mass in all those counterpropagating photons, where only one (or more than one traveling in parallel) has none. Maybe my thinking about this has been polluted (or maybe it was helpful) by studying the EMdrive, but I never would have thought about dark matter in this way if I hadn't been thinking about it and the EMdrive at the same time.
2 main problems with that concept, first is that dark matter being in anyway related to electromagnetism, contradicts the known properties of dark matter not interacting with regular matter. Second is that it would end up classified as "hot dark matter" which we know doesn't fit the data, at least not on its own. (Neutrinos for example are a known instance of hot dark matter)

I feel like I should mention that dark matter is one of the known gaps in our knowledge about the universe. While we don't know what it is, there is still a lot of data to look at which does tell us something. Criticisms of ideas of what dark matter could be like what I am doing here is what scientists who study this stuff do to each other all the time, to try and narrow down the answer. Unfortunately it seems like what we know about dark matter is just enough to shoot down every useful theory anyone can come up with, and not enough to tell us if it is even possible to directly detect, let alone how to do so. I am sure this frustrates the scientists who work on this on a regular basis to no end.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ppnl on 03/30/2018 01:03 am
Could somebody explain to me why wondering planets / failed stars can not account for the dark matter? I suppose there are many many times more failed stars than shining stars.

Not enough of them by orders of magnitude. They have done gravitational microlensing surveys to nail down how many planets and small stars are wandering about. Theory makes it hard to believe there could be enough. Observations shows that there are not.

There was a recent idea that a large population of black holes in a specific narrow size could account for missing mass. I think it was soundly rejected bur future gravity wave detection should give us an idea of the size and distribution of black holes.

I've thought about this a lot, and my thinking is that dark matter isn't matter at all, and it seems most likely to me that what we describe as dark matter can be attributed to the electromagnetic field actually being massive. Sounds crazy, right? I don't think it is anymore. I understand that one quanta of the electromagnetic field is massless, but not the ensemble. There's mass in all those counterpropagating photons, where only one (or more than one traveling in parallel) has none. Maybe my thinking about this has been polluted (or maybe it was helpful) by studying the EMdrive, but I never would have thought about dark matter in this way if I hadn't been thinking about it and the EMdrive at the same time.

An electromagnetic field has mass but only in propotion to it's energy. A field strong enough to have that much mass would be very very undark.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 03/30/2018 10:01 pm
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2018_Phase_I_Phase_II/Mach_Effect_for_In_Space_Propulsion_Interstellar_Mission
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star One on 03/30/2018 10:47 pm
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2018_Phase_I_Phase_II/Mach_Effect_for_In_Space_Propulsion_Interstellar_Mission

Just waiting for the media to notice, bet it will not be for a while, and see if we actually get any decent reporting of it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: HMXHMX on 03/30/2018 11:04 pm
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2018_Phase_I_Phase_II/Mach_Effect_for_In_Space_Propulsion_Interstellar_Mission

I posted on this in the Woodward thread so as not to hijack the EM drive thread.  We should probably take any discussion of it there.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 03/30/2018 11:15 pm
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2018_Phase_I_Phase_II/Mach_Effect_for_In_Space_Propulsion_Interstellar_Mission

I posted on this in the Woodward thread so as not to hijack the EM drive thread.  We should probably take any discussion of it there.
On that I'd agree.
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 03/31/2018 01:25 am
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2018_Phase_I_Phase_II/Mach_Effect_for_In_Space_Propulsion_Interstellar_Mission

I posted on this in the Woodward thread so as not to hijack the EM drive thread.  We should probably take any discussion of it there.

They're the same thing! Asymmetric resonant systems (supposedly) producing thrust.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mezzenile on 03/31/2018 08:20 pm
Could somebody explain to me why wondering planets / failed stars can not account for the dark matter? I suppose there are many many times more failed stars than shining stars.

Not enough of them by orders of magnitude. They have done gravitational microlensing surveys to nail down how many planets and small stars are wandering about. Theory makes it hard to believe there could be enough. Observations shows that there are not.

There was a recent idea that a large population of black holes in a specific narrow size could account for missing mass. I think it was soundly rejected bur future gravity wave detection should give us an idea of the size and distribution of black holes.
This hypothesis is seriously considered after LIGO measurements :

The gravitational wave surprise

From the shape of the signal captured by Ligo, physicists calculated that each of the two black holes involved in the fusion was about thirty times more massive than the Sun. In other words, their mass was double or triple that of ordinary black holes, which are born in the heart of the supernova explosion of massive stars. These black holes were so heavy that it is difficult to explain how they formed from stars.

Moreover, even admitting that they were born independently when massive stars died, it remains to explain how they were able to meet in the vastness of the cosmos and form a binary system: a scenario that seems very unlikely.

It is therefore reasonable to assume that these massive black holes were formed by another, more exotic mechanism, not involving any stars. Beyond the detection of gravitational waves, Ligo may well have uncovered something even more extraordinary: black holes prior to the formation of the stars themselves.

Although these hypothetical "primordial" black holes have never been observed, some theoretical models suggest that they formed in large numbers in the dense, burning plasma that filled the cosmos less than a second after the Big Bang. This hidden population would then be the solution to several enigmas of modern cosmology.

In particular, these primordial black holes could constitute all or part of dark matter, which represents 85% of the matter of the Universe. Although invisible and of unknown nature, dark matter was designed to serve as a gravitational binder: it would ensure the cohesion of galaxies and galactic clusters. Because it seems that galaxies rotate too fast to be held gravitationally by the only mass of visible matter that we observe in these galaxies. Dark matter would bring the extra attraction that prevents rotating galaxies from ejecting gas and stars from their outermost regions.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: FattyLumpkin on 03/31/2018 08:34 pm
Does anyone know of a relatively low mass, high kilowatt/e power source other than the SAFE400 prototype, whether for (use for) EM drive, Woodward Mach or Photon rocket?   thnx  FL
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.E.T. on 03/31/2018 08:47 pm
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2018_Phase_I_Phase_II/Mach_Effect_for_In_Space_Propulsion_Interstellar_Mission

I posted on this in the Woodward thread so as not to hijack the EM drive thread.  We should probably take any discussion of it there.

They're the same thing! Asymmetric resonant systems (supposedly) producing thrust.

Hang on. Surely the above is just an attempt by the EMDrive proponents to avoid admitting they've backed the wrong horse all this time, by trying to claim that the EMDrive and Mach Effect are just two different names for the same thing.

Ultimately, one theory was derived from Shawyer's physically impossible truncated thruster theory, while the other was based on the solid maths and peer reviewed papers of Dr. James Woodward. One was a theory no one could really explain with established physics, and the other was based on solid science, painstakingly put together over two decades.

They really can't be conflated.

If I recall, Dr. Woodward at one point allowed that maybe the EMdrive experiments were picking up some unintended Mach Effects without realizing it, but the fact is, the Mach Effect does not rely on any type of truncated cone activated by microwaves whatsoever, and instead has a very sound theoretical basis for its operation.

The fact that they are both theories that propose propellantless propulsion is about the only thing they have in common. Unless I have missed a lot in the last 6 months or so.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 03/31/2018 09:34 pm
Could somebody explain to me why wondering planets / failed stars can not account for the dark matter? I suppose there are many many times more failed stars than shining stars.

Not enough of them by orders of magnitude. They have done gravitational microlensing surveys to nail down how many planets and small stars are wandering about. Theory makes it hard to believe there could be enough. Observations shows that there are not.

There was a recent idea that a large population of black holes in a specific narrow size could account for missing mass. I think it was soundly rejected bur future gravity wave detection should give us an idea of the size and distribution of black holes.
This hypothesis is seriously considered after LIGO measurements :

The gravitational wave surprise

From the shape of the signal captured by Ligo, physicists calculated that each of the two black holes involved in the fusion was about thirty times more massive than the Sun. In other words, their mass was double or triple that of ordinary black holes, which are born in the heart of the supernova explosion of massive stars. These black holes were so heavy that it is difficult to explain how they formed from stars.

Moreover, even admitting that they were born independently when massive stars died, it remains to explain how they were able to meet in the vastness of the cosmos and form a binary system: a scenario that seems very unlikely.

It is therefore reasonable to assume that these massive black holes were formed by another, more exotic mechanism, not involving any stars. Beyond the detection of gravitational waves, Ligo may well have uncovered something even more extraordinary: black holes prior to the formation of the stars themselves.

Although these hypothetical "primordial" black holes have never been observed, some theoretical models suggest that they formed in large numbers in the dense, burning plasma that filled the cosmos less than a second after the Big Bang. This hidden population would then be the solution to several enigmas of modern cosmology.

In particular, these primordial black holes could constitute all or part of dark matter, which represents 85% of the matter of the Universe. Although invisible and of unknown nature, dark matter was designed to serve as a gravitational binder: it would ensure the cohesion of galaxies and galactic clusters. Because it seems that galaxies rotate too fast to be held gravitationally by the only mass of visible matter that we observe in these galaxies. Dark matter would bring the extra attraction that prevents rotating galaxies from ejecting gas and stars from their outermost regions.

Interesting questions. Two facts:

Q. Do stars 30× more massive than the Sun exist?
A. Yes. And 100×, 200×, 300× M (and primordial stars were much more than that), even if the majority of massive stars are below 80 M. The Sun is not a dwarf, but it is really tiny in comparison to some other massive stars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_massive_stars

Q. How can two black holes meet in such a vast and empty cosmos?
A. In the Universe, half of the stellar systems are multiple star systems. So there should statically exist a quite large number of binaries, where one of the two stars reached the supernova state then became a subcritical neutron star after its gravitational collapse. Such a neutron star could still be described with the exterior and interior Schwarzschild metrics. But it is not alone. Its companion star is there, called the donor as it continues to emit stellar wind that is gravitationally captured by its small companion, called the accretor. The additional mass supplied by the stellar wind of the donor companion star gradually increases the mass of the neutron star, until the geometric criticality is reached (i.e. when the Schwarzschild radius reaches the stellar radius). Then, the neutron star becomes a black hole.
The same process would apply to two supernovæ that have become two neutron stars in triple, or even quaternary, quintenary, sextenary, septenary… star systems, with multiple donors.
The process donnor-accretor transforming a neutron star into a black hole after some time si a "soft" one. The hard way exists too, where the gravitational collapse of a supernova is so strong that it directly triggers a black hole.

Binary blackholes can be explained that way. They do not "meet" by luck, drifting randomly in the cosmos.
"Massive" (~ 30 M) black holes may originate from supermassive superluminous supernovæ (what a fancy name!)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 03/31/2018 09:50 pm
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2018_Phase_I_Phase_II/Mach_Effect_for_In_Space_Propulsion_Interstellar_Mission

I posted on this in the Woodward thread so as not to hijack the EM drive thread.  We should probably take any discussion of it there.

They're the same thing! Asymmetric resonant systems (supposedly) producing thrust.

Hang on. Surely the above is just an attempt by the EMDrive proponents to avoid admitting they've backed the wrong horse all this time, by trying to claim that the EMDrive and Mach Effect are just two different names for the same thing.

Ultimately, one theory was derived from Shawyer's physically impossible truncated thruster theory, while the other was based on the solid maths and peer reviewed papers of Dr. James Woodward. One was a theory no one could really explain with established physics, and the other was based on solid science, painstakingly put together over two decades.

They really can't be conflated.

If I recall, Dr. Woodward at one point allowed that maybe the EMdrive experiments were picking up some unintended Mach Effects without realizing it, but the fact is, the Mach Effect does not rely on any type of truncated cone activated by microwaves whatsoever, and instead has a very sound theoretical basis for its operation.

The fact that they are both theories that propose propellantless propulsion is about the only thing they have in common. Unless I have missed a lot in the last 6 months or so.
All,
Over the last 3 years I've been working on not so much operational theories but building devices to test one or all of the theories and their related devices. This work has evolved into a hybrid drive device for testing.

My Best,
Shell

PS: This is a truncated report is just to summarize a little of what I've been doing. Maybe what I'm seeing in thrusts are Mach Effects or maybe something else (many other theories) or maybe a combination. It's a forgone conclusion at my end that much more testing is needed.

PSS: All my very best to the Woodward Team. They are a phenomenal group leading the world in advancing the science and art of propellantless propulsion.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 03/31/2018 10:16 pm
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2018_Phase_I_Phase_II/Mach_Effect_for_In_Space_Propulsion_Interstellar_Mission

I posted on this in the Woodward thread so as not to hijack the EM drive thread.  We should probably take any discussion of it there.

They're the same thing! Asymmetric resonant systems (supposedly) producing thrust.

Hang on. Surely the above is just an attempt by the EMDrive proponents to avoid admitting they've backed the wrong horse all this time, by trying to claim that the EMDrive and Mach Effect are just two different names for the same thing.

Ultimately, one theory was derived from Shawyer's physically impossible truncated thruster theory, while the other was based on the solid maths and peer reviewed papers of Dr. James Woodward. One was a theory no one could really explain with established physics, and the other was based on solid science, painstakingly put together over two decades.

They really can't be conflated.

If I recall, Dr. Woodward at one point allowed that maybe the EMdrive experiments were picking up some unintended Mach Effects without realizing it, but the fact is, the Mach Effect does not rely on any type of truncated cone activated by microwaves whatsoever, and instead has a very sound theoretical basis for its operation.

The fact that they are both theories that propose propellantless propulsion is about the only thing they have in common. Unless I have missed a lot in the last 6 months or so.
All,
Over the last 3 years I've been working on not so much operational theories but building devices to test one or all of the theories and their related devices. This work has evolved into a hybrid drive device for testing.

My Best,
Shell

PS: This is a truncated report is just to summarize a little of what I've been doing. Maybe what I'm seeing in thrusts are Mach Effects or maybe something else (many other theories) or maybe a combination. It's a forgone conclusion at my end that much more testing is needed.

PSS: All my very best to the Woodward Team. They are a phenomenal group leading the world in advancing the science and art of propellantless propulsion.

At last! Thank you so much Shell for a long overdue update :-*

So, a "HyperMach Parametric Drive"? No less!
I hope you will soon give us more explanation about that applied-field coil on top of the small end and its "parametric amplification"… I see your drawing is already two years old, wondering where you are today!

Do you use the coil in an inductive (eddies) mode the same way as in an electrodeless plasma thruster (like a space Pulsed Inductive Thruster (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsed_inductive_thruster) (PIT) or an air-breathing induction MHD aerodyne (http://ayuba.fr/pdf/cras_mhd_1977_en.pdf)) following the hypothesis of White's virtual plasma, to accelerate the virtual particles with Lorentz forces in a preferred direction? Or something else?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mezzenile on 03/31/2018 10:37 pm
Interesting questions. Two facts:

Q. Do stars 30× more massive than the Sun exist?
A. Yes. And 100×, 200×, 300× M (and primordial stars were much more than that), even if the majority of massive stars are below 80 M. The Sun is not a dwarf, but it is really tiny in comparison to some other massive stars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_massive_stars

Q. How can two black holes meet in such a vast and empty cosmos?
A. In the Universe, half of the stellar systems are multiple star systems. So there should statically exist a quite large number of binaries, where one of the two stars reached the supernova state then became a subcritical neutron star after its gravitational collapse. Such a neutron star could still be described with the exterior and interior Schwarzschild metrics. But it is not alone. Its companion star is there, called the donor as it continues to emit stellar wind that is gravitationally captured by its small companion, called the accretor. The additional mass supplied by the stellar wind of the donor companion star gradually increases the mass of the neutron star, until the geometric criticality is reached (i.e. when the Schwarzschild radius reaches the stellar radius). Then, the neutron star becomes a black hole.
The same process would apply to two supernovæ that have become two neutron stars in triple, or even quaternary, quintenary, sextenary, septenary… star systems, with multiple donors.
The process donnor-accretor transforming a neutron star into a black hole after some time si a "soft" one. The hard way exists too, where the gravitational collapse of a supernova is so strong that it directly triggers a black hole.

Binary blackholes can be explained that way. They do not "meet" by luck, drifting randomly in the cosmos.
"Massive" (~ 30 M) black holes may originate from supermassive superluminous supernovæ (what a fancy name!)
The detection of a black hole of mass below the so-called Chandrasekhar limit (1.45 solar mass), below which stars cannot produce a black hole, would be the undeniable manifestation of a primordial origin. And precisely, Ligo could very soon reach the sensitivity necessary to detect such a black hole if his companion is more massive (more than 10 solar masses). Finally, on a cosmological scale, binary systems of abundant black holes should produce a scattered background of gravitational waves, which could be detected by the future Lisa space observatory (Laser interferometer space antenna) and by other experiments based on pulsar observation.

There are so many questions to answer in our vast Universe that we definitely need an EMDrive to go where the answers are! (Smile)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star One on 03/31/2018 10:56 pm
Was reading an article very recently talking about how some theorists now believe that space time is like a fluid, it certainly appears to be possible to simulate aspects of the universe in fluids. With the example of Jeff Steinhauer being mentioned with his work simulating an event horizon and the production of something that mirrors Hawking radiation around black holes in a fluid as a result. I wondered if this overall idea has any place here when considering the theory of such devices?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 04/01/2018 12:46 am
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2018_Phase_I_Phase_II/Mach_Effect_for_In_Space_Propulsion_Interstellar_Mission

I posted on this in the Woodward thread so as not to hijack the EM drive thread.  We should probably take any discussion of it there.

They're the same thing! Asymmetric resonant systems (supposedly) producing thrust.

Hang on. Surely the above is just an attempt by the EMDrive proponents to avoid admitting they've backed the wrong horse all this time, by trying to claim that the EMDrive and Mach Effect are just two different names for the same thing.

Ultimately, one theory was derived from Shawyer's physically impossible truncated thruster theory, while the other was based on the solid maths and peer reviewed papers of Dr. James Woodward. One was a theory no one could really explain with established physics, and the other was based on solid science, painstakingly put together over two decades.

They really can't be conflated.

If I recall, Dr. Woodward at one point allowed that maybe the EMdrive experiments were picking up some unintended Mach Effects without realizing it, but the fact is, the Mach Effect does not rely on any type of truncated cone activated by microwaves whatsoever, and instead has a very sound theoretical basis for its operation.

The fact that they are both theories that propose propellantless propulsion is about the only thing they have in common. Unless I have missed a lot in the last 6 months or so.
All,
Over the last 3 years I've been working on not so much operational theories but building devices to test one or all of the theories and their related devices. This work has evolved into a hybrid drive device for testing.

My Best,
Shell

PS: This is a truncated report is just to summarize a little of what I've been doing. Maybe what I'm seeing in thrusts are Mach Effects or maybe something else (many other theories) or maybe a combination. It's a forgone conclusion at my end that much more testing is needed.

PSS: All my very best to the Woodward Team. They are a phenomenal group leading the world in advancing the science and art of propellantless propulsion.

At last! Thank you so much Shell for a long overdue update :-*

So, a "HyperMach Parametric Drive"? No less!
I hope you will soon give us more explanation about that applied-field coil on top of the small end and its "parametric amplification"… I see your drawing is already two years old, wondering where you are today!

Do you use the coil in an inductive (eddies) mode the same way as in an electrodeless plasma thruster (like a space Pulsed Inductive Thruster (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsed_inductive_thruster) (PIT) or an air-breathing induction MHD aerodyne (http://ayuba.fr/pdf/cras_mhd_1977_en.pdf)) following the hypothesis of White's virtual plasma, to accelerate the virtual particles with Lorentz forces in a preferred direction? Or something else?
You're very welcome.

The coil(s) were started off from the idea of a modified Hall Effect within the cavity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall-effect_thruster
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/Hall.html

Currently I'm in a large rebuild of the test rig and isolation system and I'm redoing the "HyperMach Parametric Drive" to isolate the exact physics or blend of physics and until finish the building and accompany it with solid data I'd not speculate of the driving forces behind it (Of course I have some ideas). Needless to say I am very excited.

I hope to be able by this summer to provide much more data.

My Very Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SteveD on 04/01/2018 05:39 pm
Shell.  Can you expand a bit on extrenal B field for those enough not versed in this?  Are you saying that the can is bringing about some condition that is then augmented by changing an external field in some way, suggesting that the important interaction is external to the can and that this is not a closed system?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 04/01/2018 06:10 pm
Shell.  Can you expand a bit on extrenal B field for those enough not versed in this?  Are you saying that the can is bringing about some condition that is then augmented by changing an external field in some way, suggesting that the important interaction is external to the can and that this is not a closed system?

I concur. As Shell explained in her last post, she wants to increase the possibility of a Hall effect. First, there are basically two Hall effects: one occurring in solids and the other in (ionized) gases, and they do not have very much to do with one another.

As I don't think Shell talks about the Hall effect in solids (need confirmation for that though) but deals with the Hall effect in ionized gases (as in a Hall thruster) this gives rise to the question about the purpose of a Hall effect "ion drive" within a closed container.

Shell, if the EmDrive really has charged particles within the cavity (ionization of the air; or free electrons or even Cu2+ (?) stripped away from the walls by microwaves) how do you plan to create any propulsive force, if these particles are accelerating indeed but eventually cannot escape the cavity? (always the same story of two astronauts playing squash in a spacecraft: the ship won't move)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 04/01/2018 06:19 pm
Shell.  Can you expand a bit on extrenal B field for those enough not versed in this?  Are you saying that the can is bringing about some condition that is then augmented by changing an external field in some way, suggesting that the important interaction is external to the can and that this is not a closed system?
Hi Steve,

I became a believer that there isn't a truly "closed system" and it's all connected i.e. Mach Effects and even in the case of the "HyperMach Parametric Drive" where I have B-Field coils around the Drive enclosure. (On newer models I've incorporated them internally).

Look at it this way. Even if Woodward and his team wrapped his MEGA drive in an sealed airtight, fully EM shielded structure you would still observe Mach Effects. It's all connected, the EMDrive is no different. It can't be if you observe thrust.

Even the oscillating magnetic fields from a simple EMDrive will penetrate the copper or Aluminum walls to some degree due to actions of the internal fields to the walls. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vmvAZoylyQ

The actions of the B-Fields to the RF mode structures and PZT stacks embedded into the polymer insert cannot limited to an internal closed action within the cavity.

My Very Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 04/01/2018 06:31 pm
Shell.  Can you expand a bit on extrenal B field for those enough not versed in this?  Are you saying that the can is bringing about some condition that is then augmented by changing an external field in some way, suggesting that the important interaction is external to the can and that this is not a closed system?

I concur. As Shell explained in her last post, she wants to increase the possibility of a Hall effect. First, there are basically two Hall effects: one occurring in solids and the other in (ionized) gases, and they do not have very much to do with one another.

As I don't think Shell talks about the Hall effect in solids (need confirmation for that though) but deals with the Hall effect in ionized gases (as in a Hall thruster) this gives rise to the question about the purpose of a Hall effect "ion drive" within a closed container.

Shell, if the EmDrive really has charged particles within the cavity (ionization of the air; or free electrons or even Cu2+ (?) stripped away from the walls by microwaves) how do you plan to create any propulsive force, if these particles are accelerating indeed but eventually cannot escape the cavity? (always the same story of two astronauts playing squash in a spacecraft: the ship won't move)
Quote
I concur. As Shell explained in her last post, she wants to increase the possibility of a Hall effect. First, there are basically two Hall effects: one occurring in solids and the other in (ionized) gases, and they do not have very much to do with one another.
Yes! Bouncing around ions within the cavity will not lead to thrust, a little heating but no thrust. And there are two Hall effects to consider, sharp man.

This cannot be a closed system
and has to interact to the rest of the universe if thrust is expected. This is where I'm at between two thoughts, one is Dr. Whites virtual particles E/P pairs and causing them to exit the drive and also the Mach Effects. One of the devices I'm building is a cloud chamber (simple to do) to look for anything obvious in exiting the drive.

My Very Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 04/01/2018 06:56 pm
Quote
I concur. As Shell explained in her last post, she wants to increase the possibility of a Hall effect. First, there are basically two Hall effects: one occurring in solids and the other in (ionized) gases, and they do not have very much to do with one another.
Yes! Bouncing around ions within the cavity will not lead to thrust, a little heating but no thrust. And there are two Hall effects to consider, sharp man.

This cannot be a closed system
and has to interact to the rest of the universe if thrust is expected. This is where I'm at between two thoughts, one is Dr. Whites virtual particles E/P pairs and causing them to exit the drive and also the Mach Effects. One of the devices I'm building is a cloud chamber (simple to do) to look for anything obvious in exiting the drive.

My Very Best,
Shell

This makes sense for a Hall thruster acting on a "virtual" plasma according to White's QVF conjecture, even if I don't believe it is the case (I struggle to believe or not believe this or that in the field of propellantless propulsion, as only the data is important, but as a human it is very difficult to do so…).

If I follow you correctly, a "solid" Hall effect implying acceleration of free electrons within the copper lattice of the walls has also to be considered, and as you link their behavior with a Machian interaction with the rest of the universe, near or distant, this makes more sense too. The I×B force acting on the electrons could then not be (directly) responsible for the net thrust, but with some Machian transient mass fluctuation, that's a whole other thing… Actually very much reminiscent of Montillet's paper (http://ayuba.fr/mach_effect/estes_park/ssi_estes_park_proceedings_montillet.pdf) about Mach effect in the EmDrive (presented at the Estes Park 2016 workshop).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 04/01/2018 07:58 pm
Quote
I concur. As Shell explained in her last post, she wants to increase the possibility of a Hall effect. First, there are basically two Hall effects: one occurring in solids and the other in (ionized) gases, and they do not have very much to do with one another.
Yes! Bouncing around ions within the cavity will not lead to thrust, a little heating but no thrust. And there are two Hall effects to consider, sharp man.

This cannot be a closed system
and has to interact to the rest of the universe if thrust is expected. This is where I'm at between two thoughts, one is Dr. Whites virtual particles E/P pairs and causing them to exit the drive and also the Mach Effects. One of the devices I'm building is a cloud chamber (simple to do) to look for anything obvious in exiting the drive.

My Very Best,
Shell

This makes sense for a Hall thruster acting on a "virtual" plasma according to White's QVF conjecture, even if I don't believe it is the case (I struggle to believe or not believe this or that in the field of propellantless propulsion, as only the data is important, but as a human it is very difficult to do so…).

If I follow you correctly, a "solid" Hall effect implying acceleration of free electrons within the copper lattice of the walls has also to be considered, and as you link their behavior with a Machian interaction with the rest of the universe, near or distant, this makes more sense too. The I×B force acting on the electrons could then not be (directly) responsible for the net thrust, but with some Machian transient mass fluctuation, that's a whole other thing… Actually very much reminiscent of Montillet's paper (http://ayuba.fr/mach_effect/estes_park/ssi_estes_park_proceedings_montillet.pdf) about Mach effect in the EmDrive (presented at the Estes Park 2016 workshop).
Quote
Actually very much reminiscent of Montillet's paper (http://ayuba.fr/mach_effect/estes_park/ssi_estes_park_proceedings_montillet.pdf) about Mach effect in the EmDrive (presented at the Estes Park 2016 workshop).

Yes, Montillet's paper along with Dr. Rodal's input have produced what I could see happening visually and I will add it is a head spinning ride through some wonderful math. Still not sure he has it spot on although it a great start.

I date myself here...
I once argued about (60 and 70's) the validity of electron holes meaning anything in conductors but as the years have passed nothing is something isn't it?

There has been a lot of talk about virtual particles meaning anything more than necessary fodder for filling out the other sides of equations. I believe they are real and the effects can be observed, but maybe adding the name particle to the virtual confuses many as to what they really are. I like virtual ripple.

My Very Best,
Shell

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Augmentor on 04/02/2018 03:10 am
Quote
I concur. As Shell explained in her last post, she wants to increase the possibility of a Hall effect. First, there are basically two Hall effects: one occurring in solids and the other in (ionized) gases, and they do not have very much to do with one another.
Yes! Bouncing around ions within the cavity will not lead to thrust, a little heating but no thrust. And there are two Hall effects to consider, sharp man.

This cannot be a closed system
and has to interact to the rest of the universe if thrust is expected. This is where I'm at between two thoughts, one is Dr. Whites virtual particles E/P pairs and causing them to exit the drive and also the Mach Effects. One of the devices I'm building is a cloud chamber (simple to do) to look for anything obvious in exiting the drive.

My Very Best,
Shell

This makes sense for a Hall thruster acting on a "virtual" plasma according to White's QVF conjecture, even if I don't believe it is the case (I struggle to believe or not believe this or that in the field of propellantless propulsion, as only the data is important, but as a human it is very difficult to do so…).

If I follow you correctly, a "solid" Hall effect implying acceleration of free electrons within the copper lattice of the walls has also to be considered, and as you link their behavior with a Machian interaction with the rest of the universe, near or distant, this makes more sense too. The I×B force acting on the electrons could then not be (directly) responsible for the net thrust, but with some Machian transient mass fluctuation, that's a whole other thing… Actually very much reminiscent of Montillet's paper (http://ayuba.fr/mach_effect/estes_park/ssi_estes_park_proceedings_montillet.pdf) about Mach effect in the EmDrive (presented at the Estes Park 2016 workshop).
Quote
Actually very much reminiscent of Montillet's paper (http://ayuba.fr/mach_effect/estes_park/ssi_estes_park_proceedings_montillet.pdf) about Mach effect in the EmDrive (presented at the Estes Park 2016 workshop).

Yes, Montillet's paper along with Dr. Rodal's input have produced what I could see happening visually and I will add it is a head spinning ride through some wonderful math. Still not sure he has it spot on although it a great start.

I date myself here...
I once argued about (60 and 70's) the validity of electron holes meaning anything in conductors but as the years have passed nothing is something isn't it?

There has been a lot of talk about virtual particles meaning anything more than necessary fodder for filling out the other sides of equations. I believe they are real and the effects can be observed, but maybe adding the name particle to the virtual confuses many as to what they really are. I like virtual ripple.

My Very Best,
Shell

Depends on the equation since particle equations don't make good wave equations usually. Also, there are quasiparticles - Majorna and Weyl particles for example.

One has a smorgasbord of options beyond just pair creation

electron-hole (electronics)
electron-positron  destruction (antimatter)
electron-positron  creation (pair creation)
electron-proton (charge conservation)
electron-quarks (charge is conserved; ok so that is three particles)
electron-quasiparticle (see quantum field theory)
Dirac electron-Weyl electron (mass vs massless electron)

Total angular momentum plays a role - not just spin aka spintronics.

As to holes in general, just because we cannot "see it" visually or with instrumentation does not mean something isn't there. Witness Aharonov-Bohm. remove all external E and M fields, and viola, there is a residual E field. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Keep looking closer. Be sensitive to emergent properties. Some pieces are not just parts but field generators and particle sources.

D

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 04/03/2018 11:15 pm

September 25-27 | 2018 NIAC Symposium, Boston, MA (https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/key_dates) - Location Not Specified

September 22 | NIAC Inventive Genius Lecture: From Science Fiction to Science Fact, Boston Museum of Science
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: fvlad on 04/04/2018 06:49 am
The fact of the motion of the medium of propagation of light at a speed of 8 km/s does not fit into doctrinal physics, so the negative result of the experiments of Michelson and Morley was announced.
This is called a conspiracy theory. It is not welcome here, as it is basically an insult to all scientists on the planet. Try using actual facts instead of whatever things you made up because you can't accept that your claims are wrong.

Dear meberbs and All,
I apologize for hard statements.
Such hard statements are due to the inadequate actions of some leaders of experimental programs who, follow to generally accepted doctrine, sometimes openly falsify results. It is necessary  publicly to debate of the results of real experiments.
For example, everyone knows the longest (31 years) and ambitious program to confirm the provisions of GR Gravity Probe B (GP-B).
Here are the feedback on the results of this project.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/alternative-theories-being-tested-by-gravity-probe-b.104694/page-18

«Oct 2, 2010 #349 Polestar101 User Avatar
Wish I shared your faith in the GP-B results. With so much unexpected noise (all of which needed to be properly accounted for and canceled out to have any chance of getting meaningful results) GP-B became more of an engineering project than a science experiment. Fortunately an objective panel of 15 scientists at NASA recognized the difference, pulled the funding and stated the truth; GP-B “failed to reach its goals”. While subsequent attempts to engineer a solution were and are commendable they are highly suspect. Any methodology that relies on canceling out unanticipated “noise” by categorizing such unwanted effects as impossible to predict polhode motion (or anything else that is inherently unpredictable) negates the validity of the original science experiment. Good science relies on making and meeting predictions. Getting close to those predictions by “engineering” a preferred result is hardly science».

«A methodology that is so intent on proving GR, that it effectively endorses a static solar system model, and eliminates noise without specifically identifying the source of all such unwanted noise, is not very objective in my opinion. Like you I have no problem with the existence of GR. It is the integrity of the process, one that may have thrown the baby out with the bathwater (proving solar system motion), and lost the support of NASA and many objective scientists along the way, that is so troublesome».

I believe that by such actions the leadership of the GP-B clearly demonstrated how to "prove" the foundations of GR, and many honest physicists were insulted.
After such an assessment of the results of the mission, no self-respecting scientist can use the results of the gravity program GP-B as an argument. It's good that at least the results of the LAGEOS program remain.
I also waited for the initial data of GP-B and the technique of processing results in free access, but they not appeared. I assumed that there would be jumps in the trajectory of motion of sample B and in the behavior of the gyros, analogous to jumps of the Pioneers.
Pioneer_01.jpg. https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0104064.pdf

Such jumps are perfectly logical when moving through the set of toroidal gravitational waves of the Earth's gravisphere (GP-B) and the gravisphere of solar system (the Pioneers).
The jumps of the trajectory and velocity are a demonstration of the force action of toroidal gravitational waves on orbital bodies and gyroscopes (such force actions I could see happening visually http://www.spacenewsbg.com/data/Saturn_rings1.jpg ). To understand the principles of work and to design EM Drive, it is necessary to investigate precisely these power actions. In my opinion, there are no other mechanisms of force formation in the Universe. It is precisely such forceful actions, in the form of periodic noise, prevent to Monomorphic to conducte research.
The jumps in the motion of the spacecraft GP-B and in the behavior of the gyros have indeed been discovered, but there is no free access to information.
Now I do not believe in any statement of physics and I immediately find alternative explanations.
I support Signature of Peter Lauwer «Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. — Richard Feynman»
It's good that the Pioneers project did not undergo any correction. Now the anomalous movement of the Pioneers stimulates research.
It is now too late to find out who correctly made experiments to detect the movement of the luminiferous medium, who experimented incorrectly, and who falsified the data.
I found a simple and in my opinion a real explanation of the structure of the universe and the behavior of space vehicles, with the help of a single essence (I could see happening visually), which corresponds to Occam's razor. To explain the structure of the universe, there is no need for "dark matter", "dark energy", "big explosion", "virtual and pseudo particles", "particles of God", etc.
In my explanations, I always try to give an analogy with something and to give the results of experiments. Therefore, it does not follow to say unfoundedly:

I want to say that in science one must be objective, there should not be a blind faith in totalitarian and belligerent doctrine.

Then stop making evidence free assertions and ignoring the results of whatever experiments you find convenient. You resorting to insults here reveals who the belligerent one is.

The rest of your post from this point on is a set of non-sequiters, false statements, and misuse of terms. None of your claims follow from your propositions, and you make exactly 0 testable predictions, even where you claim it is "easy" such as the neutrino mass. If you did the calculation, then it could be compared to the experimentally known range.


Dear meberbs
It will be better if you give specific experiments, which in your opinion, contradict my explanations. And me, and you and to other forum participants will be interested in reading not hypothetical, fantastic and mystical explanations of phenomena, but explanations of phenomena, confirmed by experiment and observations.
Now there are other more informative experiments on the motion of the luminiferous medium, these are, first of all, the experiments of the missions Pioneer, LAGEOS, COBE, WMAP and PLANK. Probably, no one denies that the speed of 369 km/s (or 372 km/s), determined from the dipole component of the microwave background, is the speed of motion of the medium of propagation of electromagnetic waves relative to the solar system.

The anomalous "acceleration" (inhibition) of the Pioneers confirms the presence of a viscous material medium of a physical vacuum, in which, naturally, toroidal vortices of turbulence should be formed. The interaction of such turbulence vortices of the Pioneers with orbital gravitational waves of planets caused the jumps in the speed and acceleration of the Pioneers (Pioneer_01.jpg).

To ensure that the spacecraft is not braked anomalously, but accelerated, it is necessary to install an EM Drive that will increase the energy of toroidal gravitational waves of turbulence (which almost completely compensated the inertia and deceleration of the spacecraft in the environment of the physical vacuum). To do this, you need to accurately set the geometric parameters of EM Drive and provide a certain ratio between the resonance frequencies of excitation of electromagnetic waves and the resonance frequencies of toroidal gravitational waves of turbulence formed due to the movement of the spacecraft.
In the orbital vortex of turbulence, the Earth moves along orbit. This vortex motion of the medium of the physical vacuum moves the Earth along orbit, compensating the resistance force of the medium of the physical vacuum. Michelson and Morley determined the parameters of this vortex motion of the medium of the physical vacuum.

In the future, if necessary, we can artificially increase the energy of the Earth's orbital gravitational wave at its resonance frequency, thus increasing the energy and increasing the Earth's entrainment force in the orbit and, consequently, increase the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit. Then, reducing the energy of the orbital wave, we will get a higher circular orbit for the Earth.
Approximately this is done by WarpTech, choosing the resonant frequencies 21.5 кГц of its setup close to the resonant frequencies of the elements of the medium of the physical vacuum 21.9 кГц, for the force action.

And it is no coincidence that the magnitude of the anomalous acceleration of the Pioneers is related to the Hubble parameter. Those. and bodies surrounded by vortex toroidal gravitational waves of turbulence, and the photons move with inhibition (redshift) determined by the Hubble parameter. Consequently, statements about the "big bang", the cosmological parameters of the universe, etc., should be questioned.
Therefore, the results of measurements of Michelson and Morley on the motion of the luminiferous medium can be quite plausible. To some extent, their results are compatible to the results of measurements of the parameters of the dipole components in the missions COBE, WMAP and PLANK. Measurements of the motion of the luminiferous medium on the Earth must have a very large variance due to the complexity of the Earth's vortex gravisphere. Therefore, such measurements must be carried out in the Earth's orbit around the Sun far beyond the points of Lagrange.

I I was amazed by the results of Michelson and Morley measurements, because their understanding of the moving medium of light propagation along the Earth's orbit from the eastern quadrature of its orbit at a speed of 8 km/s coincided with my understanding. But they understood this already 90 years ago.
[Conference on the Michelson-Morley experiment held at the Mount Wilson observatory Pasadena, California February 4 and 5,//The Astrophysical Journal, vol. LXVIII (68), december 1928, No 5, p.341. (1927)]
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1483353;sess=53555 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1483353;sess=53555) DeMeo 2011 - Dayton C. Miller Revisited.pdf
http://www.sciteclibrary.ru/yabbfiles/Attachments/Figura_M_M_01.jpg
http://www.sciteclibrary.ru/yabbfiles/Attachments/Figura_M_M_02.jpg

I regret that no one believed in experiments of Michelson and Morley, and science went along the path of denying the materiality of the medium of the physical vacuum.
Therefore, we came, not to causal parametric resonances in all processes, but to idealization of science, to probabilities and mysticism in causeless quantum mechanics. As a result, now we have to look for a hypothetical "dark matter", we are forced to use the concepts: "black holes", "virtual" particles, "quasiparticles", neutrinos, etc. and, hence, we cannot explain the elementary things as anomaly of the Pioneers.
Thus, one insufficiently substantiated generalization led in the future to the almost complete absence of causality in science and to the multitude of other unreasonable generalizations in physics.

Vladimir
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 04/04/2018 03:52 pm
I believe that by such actions the leadership of the GP-B clearly demonstrated how to "prove" the foundations of GR, and many honest physicists were insulted.
After such an assessment of the results of the mission, no self-respecting scientist can use the results of the gravity program GP-B as an argument.
Gravity Probe B did not meet its goals in terms of the accuracy of its measurements. That is a completely different statement than "its measurements are worthless." There are 2 main effects that Gravity Probe B measured, and one was clearly measured even without any corrections. The person you quoted was wrong about the errors, they were not just completely random and could be modeled to some extent. If you are going to disagree with that, you will have to point out actual flaws in the modelling used, and show that the errors in modelling are greater than claimed.

I also waited for the initial data of GP-B and the technique of processing results in free access, but they not appeared. I assumed that there would be jumps in the trajectory of motion of sample B and in the behavior of the gyros, analogous to jumps of the Pioneers.
The data for Gravity Probe B is available as described here. (http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/faqs/faqs.html#nssdc_data) The final paper which includes descriptions of the analysis methods is here. (https://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3456)

The Pioneer effect has been determined to be asymmetric emission of black body radiation, once someone made a sufficiently detailed thermal model.

Now I do not believe in any statement of physics and I immediately find alternative explanations.
I support Signature of Peter Lauwer «Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. — Richard Feynman»
You seem to have misunderstood that statement entirely. You are trying to make up excuses to pick and choose your data to confirm your own biases, which is the exact type of thing that statement is warning against.
 

It is now too late to find out who correctly made experiments to detect the movement of the luminiferous medium, who experimented incorrectly, and who falsified the data.
No it is not, and as I mentioned before every person with a smartphone in their pocket is constantly running an experiment that depends on the constancy of the speed of light through GPS. I personally have worked with the raw data for GPS, and anyone who bothers can do so themselves.

I found a simple and in my opinion a real explanation of the structure of the universe and the behavior of space vehicles, with the help of a single essence (I could see happening visually), which corresponds to Occam's razor.
Occam's razor isn't "the simplest explanation," but "the simplest explanation that fits the data," and it turns out the data we have that described the universe is complicated. You have not actually shown that your model matches any data, and I have shown multiple ways that some of your claims directly contradict measured data. You still have yet to explain what the nonsense terms you use even mean, so I don't see how you can call your explanation "simple."

In my explanations, I always try to give an analogy with something and to give the results of experiments.
As I said already, you have not explained how any of your conclusions can come out of the one experiment you did/ You have sometimes included random graphs in your posts, such as a spectrum from beta decay, but that does not support any of your nonsensical claims about neutrinos. What it does do is support the standard descriptions of neutrinos.

Therefore, it does not follow to say unfoundedly:

I want to say that in science one must be objective, there should not be a blind faith in totalitarian and belligerent doctrine.

Then stop making evidence free assertions and ignoring the results of whatever experiments you find convenient. You resorting to insults here reveals who the belligerent one is.

The rest of your post from this point on is a set of non-sequiters, false statements, and misuse of terms. None of your claims follow from your propositions, and you make exactly 0 testable predictions, even where you claim it is "easy" such as the neutrino mass. If you did the calculation, then it could be compared to the experimentally known range.


Dear meberbs
It will be better if you give specific experiments, which in your opinion, contradict my explanations.
I gave multiple examples. I gave you an entire list of measurements of the speed of light in different directions compiled on a Wikipedia page. I pointed out that every GPS receiver is constantly running such an experiment. That really is the only thing that you have provided a numerical prediction for, but I pointed out that I can provide experimental constraints on neutrino mass if you actually bother to make a numerical prediction of it.
(Note that when you challenged me that I should provide specific experiments, I am pointing back to specific examples, whereas what you just quoted was me challenging you to provide the same, and your response did not include any examples of experiments that you had provided.)

And me, and you and to other forum participants will be interested in reading not hypothetical, fantastic and mystical explanations of phenomena, but explanations of phenomena, confirmed by experiment and observations.
"hypothetical, fantastic and mystical explanations " is a good description of what you have provided. You have done a lot of handwaving, but have not correlated your results to actual data, or demonstrated how your claims could predict that data.
 
Now there are other more informative experiments on the motion of the luminiferous medium, these are, first of all, the experiments of the missions Pioneer, LAGEOS, COBE, WMAP and PLANK. Probably, no one denies that the speed of 369 km/s (or 372 km/s), determined from the dipole component of the microwave background, is the speed of motion of the medium of propagation of electromagnetic waves relative to the solar system.
Except it is not "probably, no one." Literally everyone who knows what they are talking about would deny that claim. Even the largest error bars on the early Michelson Morley experiments clearly disallow that value. Differences in time delays when communicating with interplanetary probes is yet another example where such a difference in the speed of light would be trivial to measure.

As I said before:
Doppler shift and difference in the speed of light are 2 very different things. You are misinterpreting these results in a way that is inconsistent with what the results actually say.

To some extent, their results are compatible to the results of measurements of the parameters of the dipole components in the missions COBE, WMAP and PLANK. Measurements of the motion of the luminiferous medium on the Earth must have a very large variance due to the complexity of the Earth's vortex gravisphere. Therefore, such measurements must be carried out in the Earth's orbit around the Sun far beyond the points of Lagrange.
You claim that "must have a very large variance" yet the actual measurement results are extremely stable. As I pointed out above, measurements of round trip delays to interplanetary probes are yet another piece of evidence that you are wrong.

I regret that no one believed in experiments of Michelson and Morley, and science went along the path of denying the materiality of the medium of the physical vacuum.
Every time you mention "belief" it demonstrates that your are not talking about science. Scientists aren't "denying" anything. You are denying the results of all but one instance of the Michelson-Morley experiment, and of every measurement of the speed of light  that has happened since then.

Just about every claim you made in your post is something that either I already provided evidence to the contrary for, or is based on false statements about the Pioneer anomaly given that it has been explained, with a bit of false statements about gravity probe B.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 04/04/2018 04:07 pm
@ fvlad

First to be honest I did not make it through your entire “post”.

Next I don’t see how your argument apply to the EmDrive, the subject of this thread. With that in mind....

The Michaelson & Morley experiment  resulted in “NULL RESULTS” not “NEGATIVE RESULTS”. In Other Words.., the experiment(s) were not conclusive. They proved only that the experimental design failed to measure, which could mean that there was nothing to measure or that the design was just unable to measure...

Beyond that your reference links re: the G-Probe B discussion on Physics Forum predated the final published results by about a year (the thread was locked a few posts after a link to the final paper was posted), and the link re The Pioneer Anomaly again predates the final results and analysis of the available data.

While I am uncertain that the final paper/analysis re the Pioneer Anomaly represents a conclusive explanation of the anomalous acceleration (my reasoning being outside the context of this thread), the conclusions fit the available data/evidence far better than the many counter speculations, including my own.

The point here is that your argument and supporting links seem cherry picked to fit predetermined ideas... and stand in conflict with the accepted final analysis of the available data, in both cases.

Question, is this a general theoretical discussion or does it have some real association with an EmDrive?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 04/05/2018 04:29 am
I have had all chaos come down on me, so I have been out of the picture for a while.  I have still been mulling over ideas reguardless

One of them is the Transverse Magnetic mode (electrons are excited up and down) operation of the EM drive and the Mach Effect.  I am not sure it even requires a conical cavity and could possibly be done with a cylinder?  I am proposing moving the electrons up and down along the cavity walls in the same fashion as you would a MEGA drive but at the microwave frequency.  It would take injecting a frequency into the cylinder or frustum that resonates and then introduce a harmonic 2nd 2f frequency multiple of the first.  There would be some issues of modulating the phase of the 2nd signal to see if it has any effect on thrust.  Antenna placement of the 1st and 2nd signal may also be important.  I don't have a very solid opinion yet on exact antenna placement.  Whether it could be a single antenna or would have to be 2 antennas. 

Further enhancement of the electron displacement to maximize acceleration in one direction while minimizing acceleration of the electrons in the other direction can be enhanced by introducing 3f, 4f, and 5f ... signals but might be tricky.  May be easier to keep it simple with just two.

I have included an image of a mach effect displacement wave form enhanced with the extra frequencies.  The top is a dual frequency displacement.  The 2nd uses 5 frequencies.  Notice the difference in acceleration at one end as opposed to the other.  Phase control can reverse the direction of maximum acceleration so it is kind of like a phased array I think. 

While electrons weigh a lot less than a brass mass maybe it is possible to enhance the effect with the increase in frequency and Q of the cavity.  The exact behavior (modes) of the currents would be very important as you need non-symmetric acceleration of currents in the cavity to constructively work together. 

I am not sure what effect this might have on photon conversion.  Accelerating charges produce light.  Might be interesting to look into asymmetric acceleration of such charges. 

On a side note:
Something interesting is even in combustion engines the quality factor is important.  Each atom slamming into the cylinder is only capable to transferring a small amount of energy via the difference in mass of it and the cylinder.  However, increasing the temperature and pressure increases the number of times the atoms slam against the cylinder.  The stroke length of the cylinder with number of atomic impacts enhances the energy drained from the gas.  Similar to how an accelerating mirror can absorb more energy from photons 2nd order Doppler effects after many reflections.  One of the reasons why the Diesel engine is inherently more efficient than gasoline.  Unfortunately our modern day engines still fall short...  So, I am hopeful the Q factor may help the mach effect just as much as it does the combustion engine and the recycled laser thrusters. 

Another side note is
Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space
In 1905–06 Henri Poincaré showed[4] that by taking time to be an imaginary fourth spacetime coordinate ict, where c is the speed of light and i is the imaginary unit, a Lorentz transformation can formally be regarded as a rotation of coordinates in a four-dimensional space with three real coordinates representing space, and one imaginary coordinate representing time, as the fourth dimension.

Thought you all might find interesting some thoughts I have illustrated in an image of Minkowski space.   Trying to iron out some thoughts on the vacuum, flat/curved space, and how it might be related to time gradients and gravity.  Trying to understand the vacuum better in my own way.  Image attached below. 

By_dismissing_Minkowskis_notation_x4ict_are_we_not_losing_an_essential_aspect_of_space-time_structure (https://www.researchgate.net/post/By_dismissing_Minkowskis_notation_x4ict_are_we_not_losing_an_essential_aspect_of_space-time_structure)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 04/06/2018 04:07 am
Exciting news all around lately.

First of all Mike McCuloch ideas are getting some very nice funding :). We are in for some very interesting tests and testing! We hope to hear from you Mr. McCulloch soon :)

In his words on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/981857778493992960?s=20

"My proposal for funding to test for thrust from #quantisedinertia has been accepted (subject to negotiatn). £1.3 million. The first major funding 4 #QI! :) It'll provide support 4 me & a new postdoc at @PlymUni & for Profs Tajmar & Perez-Diaz to try different experimental routes."

"Expt 1 based on: http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/lemdrive.html … Expt 2 based on:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323278529_Propulsive_forces_using_high-Q_asymmetric_high_energy_laser_resonators

http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.cz/2016/07/lemdrive.html

End of text


Now there is not only Mike McCulloch news...I heard much much more lately, but I guess we leave it until they reveal it on their own... It can be much more later this year.


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 04/06/2018 04:38 am
Now there is not only Mike McCulloch news...I heard much much more lately, but I guess we leave it until they reveal it on their own... It can be much more later this year.


That's not fair! You have beans? Spill them!  ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 04/06/2018 05:06 am
Now there is not only Mike McCulloch news...I heard much much more lately, but I guess we leave it until they reveal it on their own... It can be much more later this year.


That's not fair! You have beans? Spill them!  ;)

Lets keep the beans in the pocket for the moment :D I think they have the reasons to do that, and I do not want to feed the rumours. We know that was really not good to do that in the case of the EmDrive.

Now I am really interested in recent progress of the LemDrive. It was interesting to see how Travis S. Taylor and Mike McCulloch ideas work together :) More so that Mr. Travis S. Taylor have really interesting research position (and is part of military, space command ect.) and that such guy got interested in this. I think that we also noticed how Prof. Tajmar jumped on this. We know he was bit reluctant in the EmDrive, but tested it. Now he really jumped at this LemDrive.

Lets see how it will progress. We all are sitting in front seat of this spectacle :D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 04/06/2018 06:03 am
Now there is not only Mike McCulloch news...I heard much much more lately, but I guess we leave it until they reveal it on their own... It can be much more later this year.


That's not fair! You have beans? Spill them!  ;)

Lets keep the beans in the pocket for the moment :D I think they have the reasons to do that, and I do not want to feed the rumours. We know that was really not good to do that in the case of the EmDrive.

Now I am really interested in recent progress of the LemDrive. It was interesting to see how Travis S. Taylor and Mike McCulloch ideas work together :) More so that Mr. Travis S. Taylor have really interesting research position (and is part of military, space command ect.) and that such guy got interested in this. I think that we also noticed how Prof. Tajmar jumped on this. We know he was bit reluctant in the EmDrive, but tested it. Now he really jumped at this LemDrive.

Lets see how it will progress. We all are sitting in front seat of this spectacle :D

By the way I really wonder, if the recent news on the "Galaxy without Dark matter" supports Mr. McCulloch theory. http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2018/03/a-galaxy-without-dark-matter.html
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star One on 04/06/2018 06:25 am
Exciting news all around lately.

First of all Mike McCuloch ideas are getting some very nice funding :). We are in for some very interesting tests and testing! We hope to hear from you Mr. McCulloch soon :)

In his words on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/981857778493992960?s=20

"My proposal for funding to test for thrust from #quantisedinertia has been accepted (subject to negotiatn). £1.3 million. The first major funding 4 #QI! :) It'll provide support 4 me & a new postdoc at @PlymUni & for Profs Tajmar & Perez-Diaz to try different experimental routes."

"Expt 1 based on: http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/lemdrive.html … Expt 2 based on:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323278529_Propulsive_forces_using_high-Q_asymmetric_high_energy_laser_resonators

http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.cz/2016/07/lemdrive.html

End of text


Now there is not only Mike McCulloch news...I heard much much more lately, but I guess we leave it until they reveal it on their own... It can be much more later this year.

Blimey that’s almost three times the maximum level of the Phase II funding Dr Woodward could receive.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 04/06/2018 07:56 am
Exciting news all around lately.

First of all Mike McCuloch ideas are getting some very nice funding :). We are in for some very interesting tests and testing! We hope to hear from you Mr. McCulloch soon :)

In his words on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/981857778493992960?s=20

"My proposal for funding to test for thrust from #quantisedinertia has been accepted (subject to negotiatn). £1.3 million. The first major funding 4 #QI! :) It'll provide support 4 me & a new postdoc at @PlymUni & for Profs Tajmar & Perez-Diaz to try different experimental routes."

"Expt 1 based on: http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/lemdrive.html … Expt 2 based on:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323278529_Propulsive_forces_using_high-Q_asymmetric_high_energy_laser_resonators

http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.cz/2016/07/lemdrive.html

End of text


Now there is not only Mike McCulloch news...I heard much much more lately, but I guess we leave it until they reveal it on their own... It can be much more later this year.

Blimey that’s almost three times the maximum level of the Phase II funding Dr Woodward could receive.

That much? I was thinking that it was far less actually. That is very interesting indeed! Any idea what may have convinced them?

By the way. To all - I wrote to Mr. McCulloch, if he can write us some comments here on the NSF. He used to do that in the past. Feel free folks to contact him and ask him too :-).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 04/06/2018 10:48 am
By the way. To all - I wrote to Mr. McCulloch, if he can write us some comments here on the NSF. He used to do that in the past. Feel free folks to contact him and ask him too :-).

Well, I am a supporter of all clever disruptive theories, including McCulloch's quantised inertia. But although I kindly asked him two simple questions about MiHsC that I cannot solve myself, both on twitter and here on these boards a few pages back, pointing him from twitter to this post (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1804148#msg1804148), he (and no one else BTW) didn't answer at all. Are my considerations silly or what? Even if this is the case I would be glad if one could point out my basic errors.


EDIT — April 10, 2018
Mike McCulloch didn't answer because he was on a trip in Spain with limited access to the Internet. Here is what he (and Franck McBecker) replied on Twitter, addressing my questions.

About the weak radiation pressure due Unruh temperature:
- "The subject you stipulate as radiation pressure affects “each particle” individually and the resulting force on a bunch of mass is the accumulated value"
- "it impacts at the particle level, see my paper here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.2775"

About the instantaneity of inertial reaction forces:
- "The short answer to that is that relativity does not preclude monochromatic waves traveling faster than c, since no information is carried."
- "This is not a compete answer tho, because the horizon is actually a horizon in the future so there is something more going on here that looks like the EPR paradox."
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star One on 04/06/2018 11:08 am
This seems a rather bold claim?

https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/981910517806780417?s=20

Quote
Mike McCulloch
@memcculloch

#QI will radically alter the world. It will unify physics, get rid of the red herrings of #darkmatter or strings, replace chemical rockets & show how to get energy out of horizons. Not bad for a mere £1.3million.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: cvbn on 04/06/2018 12:35 pm
Now I am really interested in recent progress of the LemDrive. It was interesting to see how Travis S. Taylor and Mike McCulloch ideas work together :) More so that Mr. Travis S. Taylor have really interesting research position (and is part of military, space command ect.) and that such guy got interested in this. I think that we also noticed how Prof. Tajmar jumped on this. We know he was bit reluctant in the EmDrive, but tested it. Now he really jumped at this LemDrive.

Prof. Tajmar will do Taylor's EmDrive ( http://www.jbis.org.uk/paper.php?p=2017.70.238 or https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323278529_Propulsive_forces_using_high-Q_asymmetric_high_energy_laser_resonators  ) , LEMDrive is being done by prof. Perez-Diaz.
Unless you call Taylor's EmDrive LEMdrive? But according to McCulloch this is LEMDrive: http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.co.uk/2016/07/lemdrive.html
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 04/06/2018 12:41 pm
This seems a rather bold claim?

https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/981910517806780417?s=20

Quote
Mike McCulloch
@memcculloch

#QI will radically alter the world. It will unify physics, get rid of the red herrings of #darkmatter or strings, replace chemical rockets & show how to get energy out of horizons. Not bad for a mere £1.3million.

His association of QI with EmDrive had negative impact on my impression of QI.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Augmentor on 04/06/2018 02:10 pm
This seems a rather bold claim?

https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/981910517806780417?s=20

Quote
Mike McCulloch
@memcculloch

#QI will radically alter the world. It will unify physics, get rid of the red herrings of #darkmatter or strings, replace chemical rockets & show how to get energy out of horizons. Not bad for a mere £1.3million.

His association of QI with EmDrive had negative impact on my impression of QI.

Ah, where do I begin...

MM: #QI will radically alter the world.

ANS: Yes, it will in part, just like any working space drive will whether one calls it a breakthrough, game changer or  disruptive technology

It will unify physics,

ANS: Good luck with that.

MM: get rid of the red herrings of #darkmatter or strings

ANS a bit arrogant since proving a negative can be quite challenging if at all.

MM: replace chemical rockets &

ANS: Eventually, but not entirely. Technology accumulates.

MM: show how to get energy out of horizons.

ANS: Some energy perhaps...The key here is efficiently obtaining energy anywhere at anytime. However, theory is all out.


Not bad for a mere £1.3million
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 04/06/2018 03:36 pm
By the way I really wonder, if the recent news on the "Galaxy without Dark matter" supports Mr. McCulloch theory. http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2018/03/a-galaxy-without-dark-matter.html
That discovery is a significant blow to any theory that tries to get rid of dark matter, particularly ones like his that try to modify inertia or gravity. It is nearly impossible to explain why that galaxy does not have dark matter effects when other similarly sparse galaxies do. The basic laws the matter follows should be the same there, so the presence or absence of an invisible thing (dark matter) is almost certainly the explanation.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 04/06/2018 04:36 pm
By the way I really wonder, if the recent news on the "Galaxy without Dark matter" supports Mr. McCulloch theory. http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2018/03/a-galaxy-without-dark-matter.html
That discovery is a significant blow to any theory that tries to get rid of dark matter, particularly ones like his that try to modify inertia or gravity. It is nearly impossible to explain why that galaxy does not have dark matter effects when other similarly sparse galaxies do. The basic laws the matter follows should be the same there, so the presence or absence of an invisible thing (dark matter) is almost certainly the explanation.

I have to agree. With hindsight any theory based solely on visible matter seems doomed if variable quantities of dark matter are required to explain observations.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 04/06/2018 07:52 pm
By the way I really wonder, if the recent news on the "Galaxy without Dark matter" supports Mr. McCulloch theory. http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2018/03/a-galaxy-without-dark-matter.html
That discovery is a significant blow to any theory that tries to get rid of dark matter, particularly ones like his that try to modify inertia or gravity. It is nearly impossible to explain why that galaxy does not have dark matter effects when other similarly sparse galaxies do. The basic laws the matter follows should be the same there, so the presence or absence of an invisible thing (dark matter) is almost certainly the explanation.

I have to agree. With hindsight any theory based solely on visible matter seems doomed if variable quantities of dark matter are required to explain observations.

I would severely temper these conclusions from the media about NGC 1052-DF2 according to that paper alone for two reasons:
• This is a result not yet confirmed by other teams.
• The way the authors skim through their reasoning down to the conclusions should apparently be taken with caution.

You'd have to read some advices of professional astronomers and astrophysicists (not the news media) about the method used in the paper (PDF freely available (http://www.astro.yale.edu/dokkum/papers/mass.pdf)), including this particular comment on Reddit which triggered more than 8000 (!) upvotes in a week:

https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/880bgl/astronomers_find_the_first_and_only_known_galaxy/dwh3c44/

If such considerations do have a real basis, I would be very perplex about the journal that has published that paper being… Nature.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 04/06/2018 08:32 pm
I would severely temper these conclusions from the media about NGC 1052-DF2 according to that paper alone for two reasons:
• This is a result not yet confirmed by other teams.
• The way the authors skim through their reasoning down to the conclusions should apparently be taken with caution.

I have considered mentioning the first bullet in some of my posts about this as well. This is a single study, that needs time for others to consider the data, and methods. It also needs time for others to search for other similar cases, as it is unlikely that this galaxy is completely unique. All of the recent things I have seen about dark matter seem to be piling more evidence in that is difficult to fit with alternative explanations. Given this consistency, I consider this conclusion to have a little more weight than I usually would for papers that have yet to have had time to be verified. Unless further research finds a major error, completely contradicting this conclusion, this will likely be the final nail in the coffin of many alternative hypotheses. It is important to note that it isn't there yet though.

I haven't read the original paper myself, so I can't really comment on the second bullet, but some of the better reporting on it that I read included some of the more numeric conclusions, which clearly indicated that it is "low dark matter" not "no dark matter," which seems to be one of the main points of the reddit post you mentioned. Mass media almost always overstates results, but if the results were "no dark matter" I would actually be more skeptical, since it seems unlikely any one galaxy would not end up with any dark matter at all.
Title: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star One on 04/06/2018 08:46 pm
By the way I really wonder, if the recent news on the "Galaxy without Dark matter" supports Mr. McCulloch theory. http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2018/03/a-galaxy-without-dark-matter.html
That discovery is a significant blow to any theory that tries to get rid of dark matter, particularly ones like his that try to modify inertia or gravity. It is nearly impossible to explain why that galaxy does not have dark matter effects when other similarly sparse galaxies do. The basic laws the matter follows should be the same there, so the presence or absence of an invisible thing (dark matter) is almost certainly the explanation.

I have to agree. With hindsight any theory based solely on visible matter seems doomed if variable quantities of dark matter are required to explain observations.

I would severely temper these conclusions from the media about NGC 1052-DF2 according to that paper alone for two reasons:
• This is a result not yet confirmed by other teams.
• The way the authors skim through their reasoning down to the conclusions should apparently be taken with caution.

You'd have to read some advices of professional astronomers and astrophysicists (not the news media) about the method used in the paper (PDF freely available (http://www.astro.yale.edu/dokkum/papers/mass.pdf)), including this particular comment on Reddit which triggered more than 8000 (!) upvotes in a week:

https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/880bgl/astronomers_find_the_first_and_only_known_galaxy/dwh3c44/

If such considerations do have a real basis, I would be very perplex about the journal that has published that paper being… Nature.

That post on Reddit to my eye immediately undermines itself with its intemperate language, I don’t care if the person claims to be a professional astronomer because that’s not a good way to put their argument across and their casting aspersions at Nature is pretty poor form.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Klebiano on 04/06/2018 08:47 pm
I would severely temper these conclusions from the media about NGC 1052-DF2 according to that paper alone for two reasons:
• This is a result not yet confirmed by other teams.
• The way the authors skim through their reasoning down to the conclusions should apparently be taken with caution.

I have considered mentioning the first bullet in some of my posts about this as well. This is a single study, that needs time for others to consider the data, and methods. It also needs time for others to search for other similar cases, as it is unlikely that this galaxy is completely unique. All of the recent things I have seen about dark matter seem to be piling more evidence in that is difficult to fit with alternative explanations. Given this consistency, I consider this conclusion to have a little more weight than I usually would for papers that have yet to have had time to be verified. Unless further research finds a major error, completely contradicting this conclusion, this will likely be the final nail in the coffin of many alternative hypotheses. It is important to note that it isn't there yet though.

I haven't read the original paper myself, so I can't really comment on the second bullet, but some of the better reporting on it that I read included some of the more numeric conclusions, which clearly indicated that it is "low dark matter" not "no dark matter," which seems to be one of the main points of the reddit post you mentioned. Mass media almost always overstates results, but if the results were "no dark matter" I would actually be more skeptical, since it seems unlikely any one galaxy would not end up with any dark matter at all.


A low dark matter galaxy is still something almost impossible to explain by the alternative theories, but I agree that it needs more data and replication. In recent years dark matter has suffered a lot for the lack of results, which has increased the number of these alternative theories, but now is the time to also test if these new theories can take the heat.


Ps: Sorry for the bad english, still learning.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 04/06/2018 08:57 pm
So you think it’s ok to cast aspersions on Nature, especially when you’re using as your main justification a post on Reddit. Isn’t that touch hypercritical?

I don't have the impression to have casted aspersions on anyone or anything contrary to others here, so please keep this kind of remark for yourself. I expressed a legitimate conditional "if" which justly translates my perplexity against such critics, especially since, like everyone else, I think Nature has the highest editorial standards. In the same time I don't feel the need to act like a believer holding a Bible, so I admit everyone, including the best referees, can be mistaken sometimes. It happened in the past. I do not judge anyone except the data.
Title: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star One on 04/06/2018 09:10 pm
So you think it’s ok to cast aspersions on Nature, especially when you’re using as your main justification a post on Reddit. Isn’t that touch hypercritical?

I don't have the impression to have casted aspersions on anyone or anything contrary to others here, so please keep this kind of remark for yourself. I expressed a legitimate conditional "if" which justly translates my perplexity against such critics, especially since, like everyone else, I think Nature has the highest editorial standards. In the same time I don't feel the need to act like a believer holding a Bible, so I admit everyone, including the best referees, can be mistaken sometimes. It happened in the past. I do not judge anyone except the data.

I have already edited my OP to clarify my point and remove some unnecessary language. As my argument was more with the Reddit post you linked to you than yourself so apologies on that.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 04/06/2018 09:34 pm
So you think it’s ok to cast aspersions on Nature, especially when you’re using as your main justification a post on Reddit. Isn’t that touch hypercritical?

I don't have the impression to have casted aspersions on anyone or anything contrary to others here, so please keep this kind of remark for yourself. I expressed a legitimate conditional "if" which justly translates my perplexity against such critics, especially since, like everyone else, I think Nature has the highest editorial standards. In the same time I don't feel the need to act like a believer holding a Bible, so I admit everyone, including the best referees, can be mistaken sometimes. It happened in the past. I do not judge anyone except the data.

I have already edited my OP to clarify my point and remove some unnecessary language. As my argument was more with the Reddit post you linked to you than yourself so apologies on that.

Fair enough, I also think any proper contradiction should be published as a rebuttal in a peer-reviewed journal and at least on the arXiv, and I don't want to give an undue weight to a simpler blog post or forums. The subject is rather important for its cosmological implications.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: fvlad on 04/07/2018 12:31 pm
Question, is this a general theoretical discussion or does it have some real association with an EmDrive?

OnlyMe

This discussion is directly related to EM Drive. For example, you wrote:
OnlyMe Thread 9 « Reply #3272 on: 03/19/2017 02:00 PM »

«NO ONE has yet presented data that even seems designed to demonstrate how any force is produced. At least not that has been publicly shared or published».


I have said it before. It would be the most exciting event in my lifetime should anyone demonstrate the ability to manipulate gravity or inertia in a useful manner, but I don't believe that is what is going on in an EmDrive. I also believe that should we ultimately prove the EmDrive to be a useful propelentless drive, it will ultimately be found to function within the context of existing physics, even should that require that we re-evaluate our understanding and interpretation of what we have come to accept as basic laws of physics.

I think until we see the result of the interaction of gravitational waves «demonstrate how how any force is produced» until we learn how to make calculations, we will not learn to «manipulate gravity or inertia» and EmDrive's development will be significantly braked.
In my opinion, data on how "any force is produced" has been published quite many time. However, the abstract and ideal properties of matter and fields, which are accepted in our science, interfere with "seeing" and understanding the operation principle of these devices [ссылка].
The first set of drawings shows how most represent gravity waves, the principles of engine operation and wormholes.
Warp drive and hypothetical gravitational waves_01.jpg
But these are only hypothetical representations.

The second set of images are photographs of toroidal formations, showing the actions of toroidal gravitational waves, which form the force, i.e. can serve as a demonstration of the formation of force in reality. The principle of work of the "Warp engine" and EM Drive is based on the formation of such a force.
Real gravitational waves and the mechanism of formation of force_01.jpg

For example, flux_capacitor gave an example of the mechanism of the action of force in the "natural particle accelerator"
flux_capacitor Thread 9 « Reply #3402 on: 04/03/2017 01:09 PM »
«the magnetic field is maximum near sunspots (where magnetic field lines are denser and concentrated in a smaller area) and minimum at the highest extension point of the arch (where magnetic field lines are more scattered over a wider area). Thus a strong magnetic pressure gradient takes place in the solar prominence, and the arch acts as a natural particle accelerator».

I gave an example of "demonstrating how any force is produced"
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/PIA07712_-_F_ring_animation_videoquality_6_framerate_5.ogv



«Annihilation» of the electron-positron pair is analogous to the binary mergers of neutron stars.
Another analogue of the process of neutron stars is process of approaching of satellites of Saturn, Prometheus and Pandora. This process of approaching of the satellites was recorded by Cassini.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3APIA07712_-_F_ring_animation_videoquality_6_framerate_5.ogv (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3APIA07712_-_F_ring_animation_videoquality_6_framerate_5.ogv)
We see the force action of the set of toroidal gravitational waves of de Broglie of each satellite with the matter of the rings of Saturn. The fans of de Broglie's gravitational waves are immobile relative to their satellites. The direction of the action of the force of the gravitational waves of de Broglie on the rings of Saturn coincides with the direction of the action of force on the satellites, i.e. the matter of the rings of Saturn is an indicator of the direction of the action of force. In this case, (see video), toroidal gravitational waves push satellites toward each other. This is how the mechanism of attraction of satellites is realized among themselves by means of toroidal gravitational waves.

My discussion in this forum is connected with an attempt (hopefully not fruitless) to show that de Broglie waves are not probability waves, but real toroidal gravitational waves formed in the material medium of a physical vacuum. My opponents, of course, say that my statements contradict experiments, including the results of the experiments of Michelson and Morley. This is a normal discussion, I have no experience of discussions, so I'm grateful to meberbs for useful information.

In my opinion, the interaction of the toroidal gravitational waves of de Broglie is the only and universal mechanism for the formation of force, there are no other mechanisms in the Universe, and there are no other fundamental elements besides toroidal structures.

Toroidal gravitational waves have a strictly defined topology and are formed as a result of the classical quantum parametric resonance of high Q in the medium of a physical vacuum that has a viscosity related to the Hubble parameter. The medium of the physical vacuum also consists of de Broglie's dynamic and material waves, so this is a nonlinear medium.

All particles and bodies interact only on close resonant frequencies of the de Broglie toroidal gravitational waves. These characteristic resonance frequencies of the toroidal gravitational waves of de Broglie can be found experimentally, as the maximum of the force, how did Warptech, or to predict by calculation and then to confirm by experiment.

In my essay
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2806
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080
The similarity relations (based on the electron parameters), for calculation of the resonance frequencies of the basic elements of the physical vacuum medium are given, and in link of he second essay can be found file in Excel, where for ease of searching, there is tables of all resonant frequencies are presented and useful and useless for EM Drive. Useless in the sense that at these resonant frequencies EM Drive will not fly in space, they are characteristic only for gravisphere of the Earth' and are related to the parameters of gravitation on Earth. Some resonance frequencies are more common, fundamental and effective, others are less fundamental and effective.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19YQnJqP0iD0cPZpS8HEgF0pCFCRZie3x/view?usp=sharing

For example, it is known that Chinese scientists have reached the greatest power/kilowatt, I think it is no accident. I do not know how, the scientists of China managed to determine the optimal, in my opinion, the diameter of its EM Drive 235 mm. With this diameter, the resonance frequency of the outer surface of the cylinder is 406 MHz. However, given the radius of inertia of a real cylindrical structure, its real resonance frequency will be slightly higher. At the same time, in the near frequency range, the most fundamental elements of the physical vacuum environment have the following resonant frequencies 9.427 MHz, 411 MHz, 17.94 GHz. (I determined that all the fundamental resonant frequencies differ 43.6 times in frequency, and are related to the resonant frequency of the Compton electron wave).

Thus, due to resonant dispersion interaction between close frequencies EM Drive 235 mm and elements of the medium of physical vacuum 411 MHz, a force arises. Hence, it can be concluded that the EM Drive 235 mm cylindrical design is optimal for forming the maximum link with supporting medium of the physical vacuum and for forming the EM Drive traction force. The operating frequency of 2.435 GHz is not optimal, but its 6th subharmonic is very close to the frequency of 411 MHz. Those. EM Drive 235 mm is, in fact, a parametric generator.

Operating frequencies of 2.435 GHz and 411 MHz form toroidal gravitational waves of inertia in EM Drive 235 mm (standing electromagnetic waves, analogues of Compton electron waves). However, not Compton waves form the force of inertia and pulling force, they are formed by the de Broglie toroidal gravitational waves (formed by Compton waves), which have low frequencies and interact in a large volume of the medium of the physical vacuum.

The frequency of the de Broglie waves is equal to the frequency of the precession of the Compton waves and is formed by modulating the fundamental excitation frequencies EM Drive. In the case of using a magnetron, this modulation condition by low-frequency signals is performed automatically, but the process is uncontrolled. Those. the spectrum of the magnetron is wide and can contain the necessary modulation frequencies, and may not contain them. Then on Earth EM Drive can work, but in space there is not. Therefore, it is better to use a monochromatic generator with the necessary signal modulation frequencies. Without monochromatic signal modulation at useful low frequencies, EM Drive is not effective.
 
In Woodward's installation, the periodic force of inertia of vibrator mass generates toroidal gravitational waves of large dimensions, with a wavelength of the order of kilometers and tens of kilometers. In the frequency range of the Woodward installation and the vibrator at the Monomorphic installation, the following fundamental frequencies of the elements of the physical vacuum environment can be noted: 2.6 Hz, 113.6 Hz, 4.955 kHz and 216.1 kHz.

It should be noted that the anomalous frequency of 2.5 Hz was the most used frequency of HAARP for studying phenomena in the Earth's magnetosphere.

Here, briefly, how my work is related to the construct of EM Drive and predicting the effectiveness of its work.

“There is nothing as practical as a good theory”. Kurt Lewin and Gustav Robert Kirchhoff.

Vladimir
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 04/07/2018 04:00 pm
Question, is this a general theoretical discussion or does it have some real association with an EmDrive?

OnlyMe

This discussion is directly related to EM Drive. For example, you wrote:
OnlyMe Thread 9 « Reply #3272 on: 03/19/2017 02:00 PM »

«NO ONE has yet presented data that even seems designed to demonstrate how any force is produced. At least not that has been publicly shared or published».


I have said it before. It would be the most exciting event in my lifetime should anyone demonstrate the ability to manipulate gravity or inertia in a useful manner, but I don't believe that is what is going on in an EmDrive. I also believe that should we ultimately prove the EmDrive to be a useful propelentless drive, it will ultimately be found to function within the context of existing physics, even should that require that we re-evaluate our understanding and interpretation of what we have come to accept as basic laws of physics.

I think until we see the result of the interaction of gravitational waves «demonstrate how how any force is produced» until we learn how to make calculations, we will not learn to «manipulate gravity or inertia» and EmDrive's development will be significantly braked.
In my opinion, data on how "any force is produced" has been published quite many time. However, the abstract and ideal properties of matter and fields, which are accepted in our science, interfere with "seeing" and understanding the operation principle of these devices [ссылка].
The first set of drawings shows how most represent gravity waves, the principles of engine operation and wormholes.
Warp drive and hypothetical gravitational waves_01.jpg
But these are only hypothetical representations.

The second set of images are photographs of toroidal formations, showing the actions of toroidal gravitational waves, which form the force, i.e. can serve as a demonstration of the formation of force in reality. The principle of work of the "Warp engine" and EM Drive is based on the formation of such a force.
Real gravitational waves and the mechanism of formation of force_01.jpg

For example, flux_capacitor gave an example of the mechanism of the action of force in the "natural particle accelerator"
flux_capacitor Thread 9 « Reply #3402 on: 04/03/2017 01:09 PM »
«the magnetic field is maximum near sunspots (where magnetic field lines are denser and concentrated in a smaller area) and minimum at the highest extension point of the arch (where magnetic field lines are more scattered over a wider area). Thus a strong magnetic pressure gradient takes place in the solar prominence, and the arch acts as a natural particle accelerator».

I gave an example of "demonstrating how any force is produced"
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/PIA07712_-_F_ring_animation_videoquality_6_framerate_5.ogv



«Annihilation» of the electron-positron pair is analogous to the binary mergers of neutron stars.
Another analogue of the process of neutron stars is process of approaching of satellites of Saturn, Prometheus and Pandora. This process of approaching of the satellites was recorded by Cassini.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3APIA07712_-_F_ring_animation_videoquality_6_framerate_5.ogv (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3APIA07712_-_F_ring_animation_videoquality_6_framerate_5.ogv)
We see the force action of the set of toroidal gravitational waves of de Broglie of each satellite with the matter of the rings of Saturn. The fans of de Broglie's gravitational waves are immobile relative to their satellites. The direction of the action of the force of the gravitational waves of de Broglie on the rings of Saturn coincides with the direction of the action of force on the satellites, i.e. the matter of the rings of Saturn is an indicator of the direction of the action of force. In this case, (see video), toroidal gravitational waves push satellites toward each other. This is how the mechanism of attraction of satellites is realized among themselves by means of toroidal gravitational waves.

My discussion in this forum is connected with an attempt (hopefully not fruitless) to show that de Broglie waves are not probability waves, but real toroidal gravitational waves formed in the material medium of a physical vacuum. My opponents, of course, say that my statements contradict experiments, including the results of the experiments of Michelson and Morley. This is a normal discussion, I have no experience of discussions, so I'm grateful to meberbs for useful information.

In my opinion, the interaction of the toroidal gravitational waves of de Broglie is the only and universal mechanism for the formation of force, there are no other mechanisms in the Universe, and there are no other fundamental elements besides toroidal structures.

Toroidal gravitational waves have a strictly defined topology and are formed as a result of the classical quantum parametric resonance of high Q in the medium of a physical vacuum that has a viscosity related to the Hubble parameter. The medium of the physical vacuum also consists of de Broglie's dynamic and material waves, so this is a nonlinear medium.

All particles and bodies interact only on close resonant frequencies of the de Broglie toroidal gravitational waves. These characteristic resonance frequencies of the toroidal gravitational waves of de Broglie can be found experimentally, as the maximum of the force, how did Warptech, or to predict by calculation and then to confirm by experiment.

In my essay
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2806
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3080
The similarity relations (based on the electron parameters), for calculation of the resonance frequencies of the basic elements of the physical vacuum medium are given, and in link of he second essay can be found file in Excel, where for ease of searching, there is tables of all resonant frequencies are presented and useful and useless for EM Drive. Useless in the sense that at these resonant frequencies EM Drive will not fly in space, they are characteristic only for gravisphere of the Earth' and are related to the parameters of gravitation on Earth. Some resonance frequencies are more common, fundamental and effective, others are less fundamental and effective.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19YQnJqP0iD0cPZpS8HEgF0pCFCRZie3x/view?usp=sharing

For example, it is known that Chinese scientists have reached the greatest power/kilowatt, I think it is no accident. I do not know how, the scientists of China managed to determine the optimal, in my opinion, the diameter of its EM Drive 235 mm. With this diameter, the resonance frequency of the outer surface of the cylinder is 406 MHz. However, given the radius of inertia of a real cylindrical structure, its real resonance frequency will be slightly higher. At the same time, in the near frequency range, the most fundamental elements of the physical vacuum environment have the following resonant frequencies 9.427 MHz, 411 MHz, 17.94 GHz. (I determined that all the fundamental resonant frequencies differ 43.6 times in frequency, and are related to the resonant frequency of the Compton electron wave).

Thus, due to resonant dispersion interaction between close frequencies EM Drive 235 mm and elements of the medium of physical vacuum 411 MHz, a force arises. Hence, it can be concluded that the EM Drive 235 mm cylindrical design is optimal for forming the maximum link with supporting medium of the physical vacuum and for forming the EM Drive traction force. The operating frequency of 2.435 GHz is not optimal, but its 6th subharmonic is very close to the frequency of 411 MHz. Those. EM Drive 235 mm is, in fact, a parametric generator.

Operating frequencies of 2.435 GHz and 411 MHz form toroidal gravitational waves of inertia in EM Drive 235 mm (standing electromagnetic waves, analogues of Compton electron waves). However, not Compton waves form the force of inertia and pulling force, they are formed by the de Broglie toroidal gravitational waves (formed by Compton waves), which have low frequencies and interact in a large volume of the medium of the physical vacuum.

The frequency of the de Broglie waves is equal to the frequency of the precession of the Compton waves and is formed by modulating the fundamental excitation frequencies EM Drive. In the case of using a magnetron, this modulation condition by low-frequency signals is performed automatically, but the process is uncontrolled. Those. the spectrum of the magnetron is wide and can contain the necessary modulation frequencies, and may not contain them. Then on Earth EM Drive can work, but in space there is not. Therefore, it is better to use a monochromatic generator with the necessary signal modulation frequencies. Without monochromatic signal modulation at useful low frequencies, EM Drive is not effective.
 
In Woodward's installation, the periodic force of inertia of vibrator mass generates toroidal gravitational waves of large dimensions, with a wavelength of the order of kilometers and tens of kilometers. In the frequency range of the Woodward installation and the vibrator at the Monomorphic installation, the following fundamental frequencies of the elements of the physical vacuum environment can be noted: 2.6 Hz, 113.6 Hz, 4.955 kHz and 216.1 kHz.

It should be noted that the anomalous frequency of 2.5 Hz was the most used frequency of HAARP for studying phenomena in the Earth's magnetosphere.

Here, briefly, how my work is related to the construct of EM Drive and predicting the effectiveness of its work.

“There is nothing as practical as a good theory”. Kurt Lewin and Gustav Robert Kirchhoff.

Vladimir

To start... it would be far better should you break your argument and posts into “bite” sized segments. As it stands there are far too many questionable issues to carry on any kind of reasonable discussion.

Examples of what appear to be unclearly defined words and concepts include:

What exactly do you believe gravity/gravitational waves are? Are you attempting to suggest that gravity propagates as waves from a single body source?... While our only evidence of gravity waves originates from rapidly orbiting massive two body sources.

Then how do you get to toroidal gravitational waves?

And jump to associating de Brogalie waves with gravity and maybe even the toroidal gravitational waves questioned above?

Your  quotes of my past comments must be out of context, though I have not gone back to re-read the full posts... I am almost certain that my intent was and remains that sometimes the theoretical speculations about how an EmDrive works are speculations without supporting published experimental data... and that in my opinion, once conclusive data demonstrating that an EmDrive does produce useable thrust is published, there will be time to explore how it does what it does. To this point as far as the published documentation of the EmDrive is concerned, experimental exploration remains an engineering effort, rather than based on a theory of operation... Even while there does seem to be some attempt to design to theory, until credible reproducible proof of useable thrust has been documented, there remains no means to test any theory of operation.

Lastly, as for how an EmDrive produces useable thrust, assuming that it does, I believe it is far more likely that the underlying mechanism will be found in an adaptation of our understanding of the dynamic interaction between the resonant EM field(s) within the cavity and the induced currents and EM field(s) within the walls of the frustum... With a far far less likely potential that manipulation of the fundamental inertial properties of the frustum, or spacetime/gravitational field and/or virtual particles of the quantum vacuum, is involved...

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 04/07/2018 04:04 pm
In my opinion, data on how "any force is produced" has been published quite many time.
Sometimes opinions are factually incorrect. This is one of those times.

The second set of images are photographs of toroidal formations, showing the actions of toroidal gravitational waves,
Most of those images don't even have toroid shapes in them. Many are simply circles, or crosssections of other shapes like spheres or cylinders that you are using to feed your confirmation bias. A lot of them have absolutely nothing to do with gravity either.

For example, flux_capacitor gave an example of the mechanism of the action of force in the "natural particle accelerator"
flux_capacitor Thread 9 « Reply #3402 on: 04/03/2017 01:09 PM »
«the magnetic field is maximum near sunspots (where magnetic field lines are denser and concentrated in a smaller area) and minimum at the highest extension point of the arch (where magnetic field lines are more scattered over a wider area). Thus a strong magnetic pressure gradient takes place in the solar prominence, and the arch acts as a natural particle accelerator».
Thiswas in the context of corona heating and the solar wind and has no relation to what you are discussing.

I gave an example of "demonstrating how any force is produced"
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/PIA07712_-_F_ring_animation_videoquality_6_framerate_5.ogv

Read the description of the video here. (https://lb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:PIA07712_-_F_ring_animation.gif) This video in no way supports any of your claims, and just demonstrates the effect of the slightly elliptical orbit of the moon combined with the different orbital period of the ring material compared to the moon.

My opponents, of course, say that my statements contradict experiments, including the results of the experiments of Michelson and Morley. This is a normal discussion, I have no experience of discussions, so I'm grateful to meberbs for useful information.
...
For example, it is known that Chinese scientists have reached the greatest power/kilowatt, I think it is no accident.
One more incorrect statement about experimental results. They later retracted those results as further experiments showed no detectable force generation to within their experimental sensitivity when they used a new setup that eliminated a previously unaccounted for error source.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: craigel on 04/07/2018 06:09 pm
I'm still very curious about the work that Monomorphic is doing. It seems that there have been a lot of issues with getting the level of sensitivity required for reliable measurements, but I was wondering if there was anything about the preliminary results that indicated that something might be happening.  I.E. have there been results that might indicate thrust even if sources of error could not be satisfactorily ruled out.

It's understandable, not wanting to make any proclamations when one is dissatisfied with the accuracy of the results but I really want to know whether something is being fine tuned or simply doesn't appear to be happening in the first place.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 04/07/2018 11:22 pm
I'm still very curious about the work that Monomorphic is doing. It seems that there have been a lot of issues with getting the level of sensitivity required for reliable measurements, but I was wondering if there was anything about the preliminary results that indicated that something might be happening.  I.E. have there been results that might indicate thrust even if sources of error could

Right now I am working on a 10-contact liquid metal contact system so I can continue tests on the torsion pendulum with minimum heartache. The hardware is already printed and today I'm working on the wiring. I will order the 10 oz of liquid metal needed this week.

Then I begin work on automating the thrust balance experiment using LabView. If there is anyone here with experience with LabView, please let me know. It would be nice to have a resource like that.

Long term, I am very interested in designing and building a Sub-Micro Newton Rotary Thrust Stand that can rotate freely.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 04/08/2018 03:08 am
...
Long term, I am very interested in designing and building a Sub-Micro Newton Rotary Thrust Stand that can rotate freely.

I would agree with that. The thrust balance is a peak-detector. The slow response time will not give an average of the applied force but will favor the peaks. That's okay when we're trying to measure very small forces to verify there is a force at all. But to verify theory, we need extremely accurate values of both the peak instantaneous force and the average steady-state force over time. A rotary test stand can do that, provided you can build it in a vacuum chamber.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: fvlad on 04/08/2018 05:25 am
The motion of this medium would be trivial to detect, such as by any GPS receiver. (Even an 8 km/s offset in the speed of light would produce errors of around 500 m. GPS is much better than that.)


It is now too late to find out who correctly made experiments to detect the movement of the luminiferous medium, who experimented incorrectly, and who falsified the data.
No it is not, and as I mentioned before every person with a smartphone in their pocket is constantly running an experiment that depends on the constancy of the speed of light through GPS. I personally have worked with the raw data for GPS, and anyone who bothers can do so themselves.


Dear meberbs
It will be better if you give specific experiments, which in your opinion, contradict my explanations.
I gave multiple examples. I gave you an entire list of measurements of the speed of light in different directions compiled on a Wikipedia page. I pointed out that every GPS receiver is constantly running such an experiment.


Dear meberbs, about GPS: you consider this to be one of the main arguments, but I'm afraid that you are mistaken.
Changes in the arrival time of electromagnetic waves, when moving the light propagation medium in a GPS system, practically do not affect the result of calculating the coordinates, because:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_GPS
«Each DGPS uses a network of fixed ground-based reference stations to broadcast the difference between the positions indicated by the GPS satellite systems and known fixed positions. These stations broadcast the difference between the measured satellite pseudoranges and actual (internally computed) pseudoranges, and receiver stations may correct their pseudoranges by the same amount. The digital correction signal is typically broadcast locally over ground-based transmitters of shorter range».

The method of calculating the coordinates in GPS, I emphasize - in my opinion, is a good example, similar to processing of measurement results in GP-B. Then in 2011 I received information about signal processing, in which all signals were deleted, if they were very different from what should be in theory. On their sincere belief, they were accidental.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/alternative-theories-being-tested-by-gravity-probe-b.104694/page-18
«methodology that relies on canceling out unanticipated “noise” by categorizing such unwanted effects as impossible to predict polhode motion (or anything else that is inherently unpredictable)»

I do not impose my opinion on the results of measurements in GP-B for other people, I do not have time to pointlessly discuss this further. Maybe the GP-B results are corrected and there is everything needed data. One suspicion of falsification is enough for me for considing the results of GP-B hopelessly corrupted for my use as an argument.

As you know, randomness is an unknowable regularity. For example,
http://www.jbis.org.uk/paper.php?p=2017.70.238
«Recent analyses of spacecraft flyby, Galileo, NEAR, Cassini, and Rosetta spacecraft suggest unusual short- term changes in their inertia and, likewise, unexplained accelerations».
For me, such "unusual short-term changes in their inertia" and "unexplained accelerations" are usual and explainable.

My concept is based on a single essence and therefore it is non-alternative. For this concept, in practice, all the experimental data and facts are easily explained and there can be no anomalies or alternative explanations. Most explanations can be confirmed by simple calculations, which I have done very much, and they coincide with the experiment. Based on my concept, it can be done a lot of predictions.
In the generally accepted concept, the principle of plausibility of explanations is used, because there is no causality of the processes.

In my concept there is only a physical non-alternative explanation. I only point out that the experimental data coincide with the conclusions that were made or not. To my deep regret, in most cases, generally accepted conclusions are contrary to the conclusions of my concept. In such cases, I only pay attention to the fact that their conclusions may not be sufficiently substantiated, or my whole concept is erroneous.

Vladimir
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 04/08/2018 06:34 am
Dear meberbs, about GPS: you consider this to be one of the main arguments, but I'm afraid that you are mistaken.
No, my main argument is that nothing you have said makes sense and you don't have the slightest bit of experimental support on your side.

Changes in the arrival time of electromagnetic waves, when moving the light propagation medium in a GPS system, practically do not affect the result of calculating the coordinates, because:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_GPS
DGPS is used when very accurate position is desired, but the errors that 8km/s variation would produce are larger than standard GPS errors without DGPS corrections. Most receivers don't bother with DGPS anyway, so my statements stand.

DGPS is used primarily to counter delays in the signal due to the ionosphere, which is why a relatively local reference point is used rather than global corrections. If there was a bias relative to a fixed direction in space not dependent on location on Earth, this would be easily seen in the data. Also, ionospheric delays are frequency dependent, so can be separated out from other error sources in that manner as well, one more reason that variations in the speed of light like you claim would have been noticed many times over.

The method of calculating the coordinates in GPS, I emphasize - in my opinion, is a good example, similar to processing of measurement results in GP-B. Then in 2011 I received information about signal processing, in which all signals were deleted, if they were very different from what should be in theory. On their sincere belief, they were accidental.
...
I do not impose my opinion on the results of measurements in GP-B for other people, I do not have time to pointlessly discuss this further. Maybe the GP-B results are corrected and there is everything needed data. One suspicion of falsification is enough for me for considing the results of GP-B hopelessly corrupted for my use as an argument.
You are accusing respected scientists of extremely unethical behavior without a shred of evidence to support your case. What you are basically saying here is that you will reject any data that contradicts you making up any excuses and accusing others of lying rather than accept that you are wrong. That is simply not scientific.

As you know, randomness is an unknowable regularity.
That is not a good definition for randomness. There are actually a couple different definitions depending on context, but what the context you provide after that has nothing to do with randomness.
My concept is based on a single essence and therefore it is non-alternative.
This sentence literally has no meaning has far as I can discern. The words you used simply do not make any sense in context.

For this concept, in practice, all the experimental data and facts are easily explained and there can be no anomalies or alternative explanations. Most explanations can be confirmed by simple calculations, which I have done very much, and they coincide with the experiment. Based on my concept, it can be done a lot of predictions.
Repeating something does not make it true. You have not done any relevant calculations of physical quantities, and none of the claims you are making are consistent with experiment.

(Note, I am aware you mentioned calculations of "frequencies of the basic elements of the physical vacuum medium" in your previous post, but that is not a properly defined concept to begin with, and not actually tied to any real experiment other than you handwaving that some experiments happen to use somewhat similar frequencies.)

In my concept there is only a physical non-alternative explanation. I only point out that the experimental data coincide with the conclusions that were made or not. To my deep regret, in most cases, generally accepted conclusions are contrary to the conclusions of my concept. In such cases, I only pay attention to the fact that their conclusions may not be sufficiently substantiated, or my whole concept is erroneous.

Emphasis mine. Your concept is completely wrong, and no amount of you ignoring existing experimental data will change that.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: fvlad on 04/08/2018 10:17 am
What exactly do you believe gravity/gravitational waves are? Are you attempting to suggest that gravity propagates as waves from a single body source?... While our only evidence of gravity waves originates from rapidly orbiting massive two body sources.

Then how do you get to toroidal gravitational waves?



Concerning gravitational waves then in my essay it is said:

«Gravitational waves are stationary, as particles and they are vortex gravitational toroidal fields, which can be transforming into photons and vice versa. Their action is observing in shape of plurality annular orbital resonances». https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/5836/?category=images (the image of the Earth in the orbital gravitational wave "orbital resonance").

I.e., during the binary mergers there was a transformation of gravitational waves in the gravispheres of neutron stars into photons. It is clear that the powerful electromagnetic radiation from the binary mergers has come to the gravisphere of the Earth at the speed of light. A powerful electromagnetic action on the Earth's gravisphere led to the formation of toroidal gravitational waves, which were recorded by sensors of gravitational waves. Therefore, it is not surprising that the measured velocity of "gravitation" exactly coincides with the speed of light.

Conclusion - the measured velocity of propagation of gravitational waves has nothing to do with the true speed of gravity propagation. The speed of propagation of electromagnetic waves was simply measured again.



"i.e." means "in other words," which means that what follows should be a simple restatement of the previous paragraph. What follows instead are completely different statements that have exactly 0 supporting evidence. For example, if the phenomena occurred in Earth's atmosphere as you claim, then gravitational wave detectors at different locations on earth would point to that, which would be a different direction for each detector, and not overlap the binary mergers in most cases. Experiments have shown that you are wrong on this.


I apologize, maybe I did not explain well. I will try again.
It is known that around any antenna Fresnel zone with a size of 3 wavelengths is formed, in which standing waves exist. It is assumed that in the Fresnel zone, toroidal gravitational waves (having a mass) are first formed by vibrators and then "annihilate" into photons.
When electromagnetic waves are received by an antenna, their transformation into toroidal gravitational waves takes place. The gravitational potential in toroidal gravitational waves is equivalent to the electric potential, therefore an alternating electric voltage is formed in the antenna.
The earth is also a kind of antenna. Therefore, at the moment of appearance of electromagnetic waves from binary mergers, electromagnetic waves are transformed into toroidal gravitational waves, which are recorded by electromagnetic, gravitational and acoustic devices. In this case, the calculated radiation coordinates from the binary mergers will be the same.


In confirmation of the mutual transformation of gravitational and electromagnetic waves, it is possible to compare the spectra of electromagnetic and gravitational radiation in the Earth's gravisphere.
Virgo_02_10_2017__ELF spectrogram from the S-N Perugia_01.jpg
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/assets/42978.0/1482297.jpg)
This comparison of the spectra is added to the comparison of the spectra of gravitational waves with the spectra of acoustic waves of drums that I previously quoted.

Virgo_02_10_2017___Steelpan_02.jpg Virgo_02_10_2017___Steelpan_02.jpg (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1481266;image)

Vladimir
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 04/08/2018 03:40 pm


I apologize, maybe I did not explain well. I will try again.

Far better as far as bite size goes, still much of the response remains unclear and/or unsupported.

It is known that around any antenna Fresnel zone with a size of 3 wavelengths is formed, in which standing waves exist.

Provide a reference for the assertion presented above, where you stated that “around any antenna Fresnel zone with a size of 3 wavelengths is formed”. This does not seem consistent with my limited knowledge of Fresnel zones and the propagation of EM radiation.

It is assumed that in the Fresnel zone, toroidal gravitational waves (having a mass) are first formed by vibrators and then "annihilate" into photons.

Above you begin with, “It is assumed “ which suggested an experimentally unproven conclusion, and then introduce once more an undefined concept involving “toroidal gravitational waves (having a mass) …” again without a clear definition of intended meaning or supporting evidence... now adding an assertion that gravitational waves have an independent mass (my interpretation of your statement). It would seem that an assertion that gravitational waves have a mass of their own would lead to the same kind of energy/mass catastrophe and rapid collapse of the universe, that the ZPE debate generates.


When electromagnetic waves are received by an antenna, their transformation into toroidal gravitational waves takes place.

While there are some attempts to explain gravitation as emerging from an underlying electromagnetic origin, as far as I am aware they remain essentially fringe theory’s and very limited in scope. Of those attempts I am aware of none seem to assert that EM radiation is transformed into gravitational waves... at best there may be suggestion that gravitation emerges from a fundamental electromagnetic interaction. Even then the work I am aware of remains within the context of fundamental particles and has not been extended to a macroscopic or cosmological scale... All fall within the realm of quantum gravity in one way or another and the gulf between those early works and a comprehensive quantum theory of gravity that addresses the many known macroscopic issues remains significant.

The gravitational potential in toroidal gravitational waves is equivalent to the electric potential, therefore an alternating electric voltage is formed in the antenna.

This just makes no real sense! It almost seems you are asserting that gravitational and electromagnetic phenomena/radiation are the same thing... and that sets aside your unsupported reference to toroidal gravitational waves. This concept really needs a clear description/definition of just what you mean... and some kind of supporting reference.

The earth is also a kind of antenna. Therefore, at the moment of appearance of electromagnetic waves from binary mergers, electromagnetic waves are transformed into toroidal gravitational waves, which are recorded by electromagnetic, gravitational and acoustic devices. In this case, the calculated radiation coordinates from the binary mergers will be the same.

What can I say here? Is what you are saying, that it is the antenna that transforms electromagnetic waves/energy into gravity? While there are similarities in some of the underlying mathematics, electromagnetism and gravitation are not the same thing. Even while there remains some possibility that gravitation may be an emergent phenomena, even perhaps emergent from a narrowly defined portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.., that remains unproven.., perhaps even unprovable.

What we know of gravitational waves is that changes in gravitational field potential can be detected as a propagating wave front. That is not the same as suggesting that gravitation itself propagates as a wave. This is why I asked earlier about the single body gravitational source as opposed to a massive rapidly orbiting two body source, where the wave front is the result of a changing center of mass, associated with the two orbiting masses.

Added note: I still don’t see how this applies to an EmDrive. I see no where any of the above can be associated with how an EmDrive works. The only possibility is if you were suggesting that an EmDrive is essentially a direction receiving antenna of gravitational waves... which would result in an inertial bias as a function of the “equivalence principal”, but nothing has been presented to support that.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 04/08/2018 04:06 pm
It is known that around any antenna Fresnel zone with a size of 3 wavelengths is formed, in which standing waves exist.

Provide a reference for the assertion presented above, where you stated that “around any antenna Fresnel zone with a size of 3 wavelengths is formed”. This does not seem consistent with my limited knowledge of Fresnel zones and the propagation of EM radiation.
I'll confirm that. Fvlad's description is not at all consistent with the term Fresnel zone, and neither his definition nor the correct one lends any support to the rest of his post.
 
Also I agree with OnlyMe's general assessment of the rest of your post, you jump from unsupported assumptions to unsupported assertions without defining any terms. Your claim that the directions would line up indicates you did not understand what I had written before. If any of your claims were correct, then when the radiation hit Earth's atmosphere, there would be some central point within the atmosphere that the created gravitational waves would seem to radiate from. This is not what is observed.

It should be noted that while you claim "it is possible to compare the spectra of electromagnetic and gravitational radiation in the Earth's gravisphere." You don't actually do so, and no one would ever bother to make such a comparison because the typical frequencies involved are not even close to the same scale. You cut out the original description of your picture where you explain that the second graph is the acoustic spectrum of some random drum. There is simply no reason that these would have any relation including according to your claims, so this doesn't support you at all. Musical instruments are made at all kinds of frequencies within the range of human hearing, so it is no surprise that you found one with a similar peak to the Virgo data. A few other peaks should match up at that point due to harmonics, and the rest of the lines you drew don't mean anything because some peak widths are less than 1 pixel, while others are wide enough to make it so that you could claim a match with almost any spectrum given the density of peaks.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 04/08/2018 07:55 pm
Oyzw's copper frustum arrived while I was away on a trip so I had my neighbor store in her living room until I returned so it wouldn't get stolen off my front porch. Now it is safely in my workshop.

The construction is far better than any DIY frustum I've seen as the sidewalls are made of one solid piece of copper with no longitudinal seams. It needs some cleaning up, and the big end-plate will need to be polished to remove a few small scratches. We also have to figure out where to put the antenna, as currently there is no existing hole. I am inclined to go through one of the end-plates first as those are easily replaceable.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 04/08/2018 08:38 pm
Oyzw's copper frustum arrived while I was away on a trip so I had my neighbor store in her living room until I returned so it wouldn't get stolen off my front porch. Now it is safely in my workshop.

The construction is far better than any DIY frustum I've seen as the sidewalls are made of one solid piece of copper with no longitudinal seams. It needs some cleaning up, and the big end-plate will need to be polished to remove a few small scratches. We also have to figure out where to put the antenna, as currently there is no existing hole. I am inclined to go through one of the end-plates first as those are easily replaceable.

Monomorphic,

If I remember correctly, Oyzw also offered to send some of the electronics (amplifier(s)?). Is that also in the works and if so will that equipment add potential to eventual tests of both frustums?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 04/08/2018 09:22 pm
Oyzw's copper frustum arrived while I was away on a trip so I had my neighbor store in her living room until I returned so it wouldn't get stolen off my front porch. Now it is safely in my workshop.

The construction is far better than any DIY frustum I've seen as the sidewalls are made of one solid piece of copper with no longitudinal seams. It needs some cleaning up, and the big end-plate will need to be polished to remove a few small scratches. We also have to figure out where to put the antenna, as currently there is no existing hole. I am inclined to go through one of the end-plates first as those are easily replaceable.
Is it configured for TE013 or a different frequency? It looks from the pic slightly different than your frustum.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 04/08/2018 09:52 pm
If I remember correctly, Oyzw also offered to send some of the electronics (amplifier(s)?). Is that also in the works and if so will that equipment add potential to eventual tests of both frustums?

I've not received any electronics. Fortunately I have everything needed for full VNA to 3Ghz and operation in the 2.4Ghz band at ~25W. Plan is to clean it up, get precise measurements, and simulate the cavity in FEKO. It looks like I can use the small end from my second frustum, which already has a working adjustable antenna. The clamps work very well to seal the cavity, so I may see if there are small non-ferromagnetic clamps available or use big washers. I've cleaned it up some with acetone. Once I clean up the spacer, I can run a VNA.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 04/08/2018 10:14 pm
Big end after a wash in acetone and tarn-x.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: oyzw on 04/09/2018 12:22 am
Oyzw's copper frustum arrived while I was away on a trip so I had my neighbor store in her living room until I returned so it wouldn't get stolen off my front porch. Now it is safely in my workshop.

The construction is far better than any DIY frustum I've seen as the sidewalls are made of one solid piece of copper with no longitudinal seams. It needs some cleaning up, and the big end-plate will need to be polished to remove a few small scratches. We also have to figure out where to put the antenna, as currently there is no existing hole. I am inclined to go through one of the end-plates first as those are easily replaceable.

Monomorphic,

If I remember correctly, Oyzw also offered to send some of the electronics (amplifier(s)?). Is that also in the works and if so will that equipment add potential to eventual tests of both frustums?
I didn't send the power amplifier because it was unstable and difficult to use, and it was too heavy.33/5000 
I suggest that the primary goal is to improve the cavity Q value, and to find the difference in thrust signals at the same power.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: oyzw on 04/09/2018 03:12 am
Oyzw's copper frustum arrived while I was away on a trip so I had my neighbor store in her living room until I returned so it wouldn't get stolen off my front porch. Now it is safely in my workshop.

The construction is far better than any DIY frustum I've seen as the sidewalls are made of one solid piece of copper with no longitudinal seams. It needs some cleaning up, and the big end-plate will need to be polished to remove a few small scratches. We also have to figure out where to put the antenna, as currently there is no existing hole. I am inclined to go through one of the end-plates first as those are easily replaceable.
It is better to continue to use mirror polishing process to eliminate the wall scratches in the cavity.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 04/09/2018 05:51 am
It may not be pretty, but it seems to work!  And by works, I mean the 10-contact liquid metal system is mounted and is able to move freely as designed. All that is left is to order the 10oz of liquid metal and then use a syringe to inject the metal into the 10 reservoirs.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 04/09/2018 01:44 pm
It may not be pretty, but it seems to work!  And by works, I mean the 10-contact liquid metal system is mounted and is able to move freely as designed. All that is left is to order the 10oz of liquid metal and then use a syringe to inject the metal into the 10 reservoirs.

Looks great. Just keep in mind that there is surface tension problem of liquid contacts so certain rotary displacement of the beam may introduce certain amount of rotary force that is non-linear to the displacement.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star-Drive on 04/09/2018 02:53 pm
It may not be pretty, but it seems to work!  And by works, I mean the 10-contact liquid metal system is mounted and is able to move freely as designed. All that is left is to order the 10oz of liquid metal and then use a syringe to inject the metal into the 10 reservoirs.

Looks great. Just keep in mind that there is surface tension problem of liquid contacts so certain rotary displacement of the beam may introduce certain amount of rotary force that is non-linear to the displacement.

PotomacNeuron

And all you have to do to accommodate these non-linear surface tension effects is to perform and document calibration runs using the liquid metal contacts to pass paired +/- dc currents from say 1.0 amp up to 15 amps in say 0.5 amp increments into a beam-mounted dc dummy load where the RF amplifier is going to be mounted and then subtract any observed torques from any active test results with an RF source driving the frustum for a particular dc current.  Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star-Drive on 04/09/2018 02:59 pm
It may not be pretty, but it seems to work!  And by works, I mean the 10-contact liquid metal system is mounted and is able to move freely as designed. All that is left is to order the 10oz of liquid metal and then use a syringe to inject the metal into the 10 reservoirs.

Jamie:

You might consider twisting the black and white wire pairs going to and coming from your liquid metal contact assemblies to minimize stray magnetic fields that each wire will generate when conducting dc power.

Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 04/09/2018 04:48 pm
You might consider twisting the black and white wire pairs going to and coming from your liquid metal contact assemblies to minimize stray magnetic fields that each wire will generate when conducting dc power.

Thanks Paul, I was thinking about this as well. I will at least twist the two main power lines that will carry the ~12V at 12A. I will also twist the 5V ~500mA USB power as well. The others will be minuscule dc power or unused. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: john smith 19 on 04/09/2018 05:50 pm
You might consider twisting the black and white wire pairs going to and coming from your liquid metal contact assemblies to minimize stray magnetic fields that each wire will generate when conducting dc power.

Thanks Paul, I was thinking about this as well. I will at least twist the two main power lines that will carry the ~12V at 12A. I will also twist the 5V ~500mA USB power as well. The others will be minuscule dc power or unused.
There's a reason why telephone wires are called "Twisted wire pairs." It's SOP for any system carrying small signals looking to be interference resistant. This is not academic. The Russian N-1 rockets poor launch history was in part due to high power AC interference on some of the sensor cabling from the on board AC generator.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 04/09/2018 08:15 pm
There's a reason why telephone wires are called "Twisted wire pairs." It's SOP for any system carrying small signals looking to be interference resistant. This is not academic. The Russian N-1 rockets poor launch history was in part due to high power AC interference on some of the sensor cabling from the on board AC generator.

You are correct of course, and this is only the 4th or 5th time Paul has had to remind me to twist the leads.   ::)   There are a few other things I would like to change and since it is several days before the liquid metal arrives, I will likely redesign it, print again and make sure the wiring is twisted.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star-Drive on 04/10/2018 02:13 pm
There's a reason why telephone wires are called "Twisted wire pairs." It's SOP for any system carrying small signals looking to be interference resistant. This is not academic. The Russian N-1 rockets poor launch history was in part due to high power AC interference on some of the sensor cabling from the on board AC generator.

You are correct of course, and this is only the 4th or 5th time Paul has had to remind me to twist the leads.   ::)   There are a few other things I would like to change and since it is several days before the liquid metal arrives, I will likely redesign it, print again and make sure the wiring is twisted.

Jamie:

The previous poster has it right in regards to using twisted pair in reducing EMI artifacts in ALL your wiring whether its for dc power, ac power or low level control lines.  In fact it is standard practice in aircraft and spacecraft avionic installations to use individually twisted & shielded wire pairs with each of the twisted pair shields bonded at only one end of the cable to the vehicle's single-point ground system when possible to minimize such E&M interference.  (High frequency RF or video feed lines lines usually use 50 ohm Coax or 75 ohm Triax cables for each data run.)  This has been my engineering mantra since my days at Cessna Aircraft when I was fresh out of college back in 1973 engineering, installing and flight testing avionics in twin engine aircraft like the Cessna Citations.

BTW, there is an by-invitation-only meeting at Stanford University come next Thursday and Friday April 12 & 13, 2018 on Pacific Daylight Time (PDT) for advanced propulsion researchers to trade notes.  My old Eagleworks Lab boss, Dr. Harold (Sonny) White from NASA/JSC will be presenting his Q-Thrusters investigations using the pilot wave approach on Friday, see below the partial schedule for this private workshop.  It should be interesting to see how much progress Sonny has made since I left JSC, provided these presentations go public.

http://breakthroughinitiatives.org/events/discuss

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Vqz13QMRADR3TdbbiN3jqodrnIoAY6ii3_DNL8_gv4g/edit#gid=0

PS: This conference will be live-streamed at: www.youtube.com/breakthroughprize   

April 13, 2018 FRIDAY - Breakthrough Discuss Day Two: Stanford University

12:30 0:10 Session Three: Progress in Novel Space Propulsion Chairs: Sigrid Close, Zachary Manchester
12:40 0:20 Pilot Wave Model for Impulsive Thrust from RF Test Device Presenter 13: Sonny White
13:00 0:20 Scaled Radioisotope Positron Propulsion for Interstellar Spacecraft Presenter 14: Ryan Weed
13:20 0:20 Sails: From the Solar System to the Stars Presenter 15: Geoffrey Landis
13:40 0:10 Break
13:50 0:20 Dipole Drive for Space Propulsion Presenter 16: Robert Zubrin
14:10 0:20 Progress in Beamed Energy Propulsion Presenter 17: Kevin Parkin
14:30 0:20 Solar and Electric Sailing: Stepping Stones to the Stars Presenter 18: Les Johnson
14:50 0:10 Break
15:00 0:10 Panel Three: Progress in Novel Space Propulsion Chairs: Sigrid Close, Zachary Manchester
15:10 0:35 (Panel discussion)

All the best, Paul M.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 04/10/2018 04:04 pm
The redesign includes reducing the number of liquid metal contacts from ten to eight. This allowed me to create a little more space between each reservoir while also increasing reservoir size. I also grouped the wire holders in pairs so the wires will be closer and easier to twist.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 04/10/2018 04:36 pm

PS: This conference will be live-streamed at: www.youtube.com/breakthroughprize (http://www.youtube.com/breakthroughprize)   

April 13, 2018 FRIDAY - Breakthrough Discuss Day Two: Stanford University

I notice from the schedule that Dr. Fearn is also on a panel late Friday.


Thanks for the info, Paul.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 04/11/2018 08:50 am
Robert Zubrin (@robert_zubrin) Tweeted:

On Friday April 14, I will speak at the Breakthrough Initiatives conference at Stanford.

My talk, around 2 pm PST, will be on a new type of propellentless space propulsion system that I call the Dipole Drive.

It will be live streamed online.
https://t.co/IOKzTs6c40

https://twitter.com/robert_zubrin/status/983886343607541760?s=17

Getting crowded in P-P (Propellant Less Propulsion) land:

EmDrive,
Q Thruster,
Cannae Drive,
WDrive,
Qi Drive,
MEGA Drive,
and now Dipole Drive.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: cvbn on 04/11/2018 10:33 am

Getting crowded in P-P (Propellant Less Propulsion) land:

EmDrive,
Q Thruster,
Cannae Drive,
WDrive,
Qi Drive,
MEGA Drive,
and now Dipole Drive.

Taylor's Drive:
http://www.jbis.org.uk/paper.php?p=2017.70.238
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323278529_Propulsive_forces_using_high-Q_asymmetric_high_energy_laser_resonators
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: fvlad on 04/11/2018 12:43 pm

Added note: I still don’t see how this applies to an EmDrive. I see no where any of the above can be associated with how an EmDrive works. The only possibility is if you were suggesting that an EmDrive is essentially a direction receiving antenna of gravitational waves... which would result in an inertial bias as a function of the “equivalence principal”, but nothing has been presented to support that.

The key factor in the successful construction of Em Drive is my answer to your question "how any force is produced". The rest is naturally explained on the basis of this.



I gave an example of "demonstrating how any force is produced"
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/PIA07712_-_F_ring_animation_videoquality_6_framerate_5.ogv


Read the description of the video here. (https://lb.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:PIA07712_-_F_ring_animation.gif) This video in no way supports any of your claims, and just demonstrates the effect of the slightly elliptical orbit of the moon combined with the different orbital period of the ring material compared to the moon.

Meberbs, in my opinion, you do not pay attention to the main thing, to the "radial structure" of the "dark drapes". Let us read on the link you gave
«This movie sequence from Cassini shows dark drapes in the inner strands of the F ring caused by the gravitational influence of the shepherd moon Prometheus (102 kilometers, 63 miles across).
Prometheus appears first in the sequence, interior to the F ring, and Pandora (84 kilometers, 52 miles across) follows along outside of the ring. Radial structure in the bright core of the ring is visible throughout the movie».

Let us read through another link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepherd_moon
«Due to their gravitational effect, they pick up particles and deflect them from their original orbits through orbital resonance. This causes gaps in the ring system, such as the particularly striking Cassini Division, as well as other characteristic bands, or strange "twisted" deformation of rings».

Thus, in the modern concept, there is an understanding that the force acting on the satellites and matter of the rings of Saturn is formed through orbital resonance ("Due to their gravitational effect, they collect particles and deflect them," "dark drapes in the inner threads of the ring F are caused by the gravitational influence of the shepherd moon Prometheus» "). Attention is also drawn to the "strange" twisted "deformation of the rings." http://www.spacenewsbg.com/data/Saturn_rings1.jpg (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1485364;sess=53555)

Unlike the above texts from Wikipedia, I just explain the mechanism of formation of orbital resonances forming force, as an action by means of toroidal gravitational waves.

Concerning gravitational waves then in my essay it is said:

«Gravitational waves are stationary, as particles and they are vortex gravitational toroidal fields, which can be transforming into photons and vice versa. Their action is observing in shape of plurality annular orbital resonances». https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/5836/?category=images (the image of the Earth in the orbital gravitational wave "orbital resonance").


For example, Memberbs saw on drawings (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1486082;sess=53555 )"simply circles", these are the orbital resonances formed by toroidal gravitational waves that can be observed in one form or another.


The second set of images are photographs of toroidal formations, showing the actions of toroidal gravitational waves,

Most of those images don't even have toroid shapes in them. Many are simply circles, or crosssections of other shapes like spheres or cylinders that you are using to feed your confirmation bias. A lot of them have absolutely nothing to do with gravity either.

At the same time, in the generally accepted concept, the mechanisms of formation of orbital resonances are not generally explained or these explanations are enveloped in a "fog".
Let us look and read the following link
https://cseligman.com/text/moons/prometheus.htm
https://cseligman.com/text/moons/prometheusstreaks.jpg
«Prometheus' interaction with the F ring pulls material toward it, but most of the time, as it moves past the ring particals (its smaller orbit gives it a higher physical and angular velocity), very little of the material actually reaches it. Most of the ring particles surge toward Prometheus then gradually fall backward and behind the moon towards the ring, creating waves and ripples in the ring. As a result of this process, the pull of the moon tends to actually concentrate material in the ring, rather than spreading it out. This paradoxical result is due to the interaction of the ring particles with the small temporary pull of Prometheus and the much larger permanent pull due to Saturn's gravity (see how satellites shepherd rings)».

From these vague explanations we should single out the following experimental fact. The matter of the rings of Saturn is an indicator of the action of the force of attraction between two satellites of Saturn.
When Prometheus and Pandora here are on different sides of Saturn, the force of attraction acts on Prometheus in the direction of Saturn. When Pandora is next to Prometheus, then the force of attraction acts on Prometheus from Saturn, and on Pandora the force acts toward Saturn.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1MvF-AefpMmNWJ2MGJkRmJvR00/view
Therefore, Newton's law of gravitation is at best an approximating function of the interaction of toroidal gravitational waves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_resonance
«In celestial mechanics, an orbital resonance occurs when orbiting bodies exert a regular, periodic gravitational influence on each other, usually because their orbital periods are related by a ratio of small integers».

I believe that orbital resonances are formed on the harmonics and subharmonics of parametric resonance, therefore "their orbital periods are related to the ratio of small integers".



In my opinion, the interaction of the toroidal gravitational waves of de Broglie is the only and universal mechanism for the formation of force, there are no other mechanisms in the Universe, and there are no other fundamental elements besides toroidal structures.

Toroidal gravitational waves have a strictly defined topology and are formed as a result of the classical quantum parametric resonance of high Q in the medium of a physical vacuum that has a viscosity related to the Hubble parameter. The medium of the physical vacuum also consists of de Broglie's dynamic and material waves, so this is a nonlinear medium.


At the same time, we read the definition of orbital resonance in Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Orbital_resonance

«The resonance is important for synchronizing planetary orbits and preventing a chaos, that would result from perturbances, should there be no stabilization factor.
The true world is not chaotic!»

«Mechanism
This page needs a clear explanation of the best available theories as to how orbital resonance occurs. For an example, see the section Tidal_locking#Mechanism. Without that, this page represents astronomy at its scholastic stage, a mere record of remarkable facts, and unfortunately lends credence to numerological or astrological interpretations. The physical science of astronomy must explain observed facts in terms of more general and fundamental physical laws. 124.191.50.199 16:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Well It's not so much a matter of there being competing theories, but a matter of delving into mathematical complexity and making the relevant part of the page rather technical. Worth doing of course. The article also lacks an explanation of the difference in conditions which make a resonance destabilize or stabilize an orbit. Deuar 08:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I came to this article having just found out about Laplace resonance, and wanted to understand how something like that comes about. After reading a loong article, and realizing that there are many such resonances in the solar system, I still have no idea how any of them come about! And I'm a physicist, and have done my share of resonance related readings and calculations! --Gargletheape (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)»

The physicist does not understand how orbital resonances appear and this characterizes modern science that cannot comprehend real photos and studies. https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1486082;sess=53555

Vladimir
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 04/11/2018 01:02 pm

Getting crowded in P-P (Propellant Less Propulsion) land:

EmDrive,
Q Thruster,
Cannae Drive,
WDrive,
Qi Drive,
MEGA Drive,
and now Dipole Drive.

Zubrin's reply to Phil's tweet is quite the burn...

"But mine is based on well known laws of physics." 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 04/11/2018 02:27 pm
Based on my measurements of Oyzw's frustum, Big_D = 29cm, Height = 24cm, Small_D = 17cm, I would estimate mode TE013 to be near 2.498Ghz. This is closer than we thought it would be (2.54Ghz), but the cavity will still need to be slightly lengthened with a spacer to get to 2.45Ghz for testing.  Since the small end does not appear to be below cutoff, we could add a spacer to that end, or we could add another spacer to the big end.

I am also running a full sweep from 2.3Ghz to 2.6Ghz to see what other modes are potentially available. Will post those shortly.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 04/11/2018 02:40 pm
Meberbs, in my opinion, you do not pay attention to the main thing, to the "radial structure" of the "dark drapes". Let us read on the link you gave
«This movie sequence from Cassini shows dark drapes in the inner strands of the F ring caused by the gravitational influence of the shepherd moon Prometheus (102 kilometers, 63 miles across).
Prometheus appears first in the sequence, interior to the F ring, and Pandora (84 kilometers, 52 miles across) follows along outside of the ring. Radial structure in the bright core of the ring is visible throughout the movie».
Again, you are prefacing a factually incorrect statement with "opinion."

If you continue reading the link I provided it explicitly addresses why the drapes are slanted radially:
Quote
The material closer to Prometheus orbits the planet faster than the material closer to the bright F ring core. The gores, together with the sheared-out material due to differential orbital motion, create the dark, diagonal drapes.
I had also briefly mentioned the effect of different periods as a function of radius directly in my post as well:
combined with the different orbital period of the ring material compared to the moon.

Thus, in the modern concept, there is an understanding that the force acting on the satellites and matter of the rings of Saturn is formed through orbital resonance
Not entirely sure why you think that is relevant, unless you think it somehow supports your claims of there being special frequencies. It doesn't however, since it is talking about interactions between objects in orbit that have orbital periods that are small interger numbers of each other.

Unlike the above texts from Wikipedia, I just explain the mechanism of formation of orbital resonances forming force, as an action by means of toroidal gravitational waves.
The texts from Wikipedia describe effects that scientists precisely know the origin of and can explain in detail all based on the simple Newtonian 1/r^2 gravitational law.


Concerning gravitational waves then in my essay it is said:

«Gravitational waves are stationary, as particles and they are vortex gravitational toroidal fields, which can be transforming into photons and vice versa. Their action is observing in shape of plurality annular orbital resonances». https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/5836/?category=images (the image of the Earth in the orbital gravitational wave "orbital resonance").

That image you linked does not show anything about "orbital resonance" the rings shown on it are a camera effect as stated in the link: "Coincidentally, Earth lies right in the center of one of the scattered light rays resulting from taking the image so close to the sun."

Your text does not actually constitute an explanation. There is nothing "toroidal" about the gaps in the rings, and you do not explain how gravitational waves have to do with anything.

For example, Memberbs saw on drawings
First, spend 5 seconds and spell people's user names correctly. Second, what follows is not an "example of anything you were just discussing. My statement about your random collection of mostly unrelated images remains true.

At the same time, in the generally accepted concept, the mechanisms of formation of orbital resonances are not generally explained or these explanations are enveloped in a "fog".
The explanation that you quote after this is more detailed than any explanation you have given. It explicitly refers to the magnitude direction and effective time period of the forces. Orbital resonance is a well understood effect among scientists that study orbital motion, and the only thing in a "fog" are your claims where you make random jumps from "toroidal gravitational waves" to "observed effect that is neither toroidal in shape, or has any relation to gravitational waves"

Therefore, Newton's law of gravitation is at best an approximating function of the interaction of toroidal gravitational waves.
Your excessively long description that can be summarized as "the force of attraction between any 2 bodies is towards each other" Does not support any claim of inaccuracy of Newtonian gravitation, and certainly does not show your claims as superior in any way.

I believe that orbital resonances are formed on the harmonics and subharmonics of parametric resonance, therefore "their orbital periods are related to the ratio of small integers".
You are going to have to explain what you mean by "parametric resonance," but if you are just referring to orbital period as a parameter, you aren't saying anything that isn't already described in the Wikipedia quote, and you are just supporting standard science.


In my opinion, the interaction of the toroidal gravitational waves of de Broglie is the only and universal mechanism for the formation of force, there are no other mechanisms in the Universe, and there are no other fundamental elements besides toroidal structures.
Since orbits are ellipses, not toroids, and non-toroidal shapes (spheres, oblate spheroids, etc.) are common, this statement is clearly wrong.

Toroidal gravitational waves have a strictly defined topology and are formed as a result of the classical quantum parametric resonance of high Q in the medium of a physical vacuum that has a viscosity related to the Hubble parameter. The medium of the physical vacuum also consists of de Broglie's dynamic and material waves, so this is a nonlinear medium. [/quote]

At the same time, we read the definition of orbital resonance in Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Orbital_resonance

«The resonance is important for synchronizing planetary orbits and preventing a chaos, that would result from perturbances, should there be no stabilization factor.
The true world is not chaotic!»
That is not the definition on Wikipedia, it is a quote from someone on the discussion page that clearly does not know what they are talking about. (Particularly since chaos is a well defined phenomenon with countless real world examples.)

The physicist does not understand how orbital resonances appear and this characterizes modern science that cannot comprehend real photos and studies.
One physicist not understanding the details of a concept that he was only just introduced to through a source that doesn't contain the technical details (because Wikipedia is not a physics textbook, so it isn't going to have the detailed math for every subject) does not say anything about the state of physics in general. It just means that orbital motion is not that person's area of expertise. The actual mechanism of resonance is well understood by people who have actually studied it.

You are the one who doesn't seem to comprehend any actual scientific studies. And you certainly don't understand the random collage of pictures you have, or you wouldn't include pictures of things like aircraft wingtip vortices, which have nothing to do with gravitational waves, and are roughly cylindrical in shape.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 04/11/2018 02:46 pm
Based on my measurements of Oyzw's frustum, Big_D = 29cm, Height = 24cm, Small_D = 17cm, I would estimate mode TE013 to be near 2.498Ghz. This is closer than we thought it would be (2.54Ghz), but the cavity will still need to be slightly lengthened with a spacer to get to 2.45Ghz for testing.  Since the small end does not appear to be below cutoff, we could add a spacer to that end, or we could add another spacer to the big end.

I am also running a full sweep from 2.3Ghz to 2.6Ghz to see what other modes are potentially available. Will post those shortly.

Why not just use 2.498 GHz to test it? The frequency of 2.45 is not special, after all.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 04/11/2018 02:54 pm
Why not just use 2.498 GHz to test it? The frequency of 2.45 is not special, after all.

My 30W amplifier doesn't work as well up to that frequency. At 2.45Ghz I will only get around 25W. After that it drops off dramatically. I am not sure if running it at ~2.498Ghz will be bad for the equipment, but the power will be several dB lower.

See image below.  Now that I look at it, I can probably get 5W - 10W out at 2.498Ghz. It might be worth a test at that level.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 04/12/2018 12:08 am

Getting crowded in P-P (Propellant Less Propulsion) land:

EmDrive,
Q Thruster,
Cannae Drive,
WDrive,
Qi Drive,
MEGA Drive,
and now Dipole Drive.

Zubrin's reply to Phil's tweet is quite the burn...

"But mine is based on well known laws of physics."

My Twitter reply to Robert Zubrin:
=======
Drive validity is based on generating P-P thrust.
Theory follows later.

At the same conference will be Dr. Harold White (Q Thruster) and Dr Heidi Fearn (MEGA Drive). Might be a good idea to have a talk with them & review their experimental P-P thrust data.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 04/12/2018 01:44 am

My Twitter reply to Robert Zubrin:
=======
Drive validity is based on generating P-P thrust.
Theory follows later.

At the same conference will be Dr. Harold White (Q Thruster) and Dr Heidi Fearn (MEGA Drive). Might be a good idea to have a talk with them & review their experimental P-P thrust data.
It's been a while Phil. Hope things are going well for you these days.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: arc2 on 04/12/2018 02:17 am
Hello folks
Been a long time since I was last here.  Can anyone advise me if member SeeShells had a positive outcome to her experiments, or if anyone else had or still is performing live experiments

And there used to be a listing of csv files eg copper-exy  copper-exz  etc around here some place, I remember creating a few 3d diags from them to authenticate another poster.  can anyone advise if that line of experiments continued and if more csv files resulted

cheers
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 04/12/2018 02:19 am
Hello folks
Been a long time since I was last here.  Can anyone advise me if member SeeShells had a positive outcome to her experiments, or if anyone else had or still is performing live experiments

And there used to be a listing of csv files eg copper-exy  copper-exz  etc around here some place, I remember creating a few 3d diags from them to authenticate another poster.  can anyone advise if that line of experiments continued and if more csv files resulted

cheers

I believe we're still waiting on data from Seashells.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 04/12/2018 10:17 am
Based on my measurements of Oyzw's frustum, Big_D = 29cm, Height = 24cm, Small_D = 17cm, I would estimate mode TE013 to be near 2.498Ghz. This is closer than we thought it would be (2.54Ghz), but the cavity will still need to be slightly lengthened with a spacer to get to 2.45Ghz for testing.  Since the small end does not appear to be below cutoff, we could add a spacer to that end, or we could add another spacer to the big end.

I am also running a full sweep from 2.3Ghz to 2.6Ghz to see what other modes are potentially available. Will post those shortly.

Jamie, just a quick question; even if I went to "lurk mode", I've followed your new builds; I wonder... did you abandon that "3d printed" cavity you built, or are you postponing, for some reasons, the tests on it (just curious) ?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 04/12/2018 10:18 am

Getting crowded in P-P (Propellant Less Propulsion) land:

EmDrive,
Q Thruster,
Cannae Drive,
WDrive,
Qi Drive,
MEGA Drive,
and now Dipole Drive.

Zubrin's reply to Phil's tweet is quite the burn...

"But mine is based on well known laws of physics."

I'm really wondering which kind of critter that "dipole drive" may be; oh well, we'll see it in a short, I suppose :)

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 04/12/2018 02:33 pm
Jamie, just a quick question; even if I went to "lurk mode", I've followed your new builds; I wonder... did you abandon that "3d printed" cavity you built, or are you postponing, for some reasons, the tests on it (just curious) ?

The 3D printed cavity is still being used. But now that Oyzw has sent me another cavity, I will have a total of three cavities to test. The 3D printed cavity has spherical end-plates, while the other two have flat. Right now i'm trying to finish up on the liquid metal contacts so i can set up the experiment in LabView more easily. I ordered clear PLA, which arrives today, as that was recommended for use in a vacuum and it will allow us to see the level of the liquid metal since it is transparent. That should all be finished this weekend, with the liquid metal arriving Tuesday. Then everything gets reattached to the thrust balance and we should be good to go.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: otlski on 04/12/2018 11:49 pm
Will the liquid metal boil off at near vacuum?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 04/13/2018 01:52 am
Will the liquid metal boil off at near vacuum?

My understanding is the liquid metal will evaporate, but it will be at a very slow rate. I do not think it will boil unless taken to very high vacuum. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star-Drive on 04/13/2018 03:58 am
Will the liquid metal boil off at near vacuum?

My understanding is the liquid metal will evaporate, but it will be at a very slow rate. I do not think it will boil unless taken to very high vacuum. 

Jamie:

If you add a drop of vacuum pump oil over each liquid metal pot container, but only after you first add in the liquid metal to each contact pot, metal evaporation raters goes to near zero even in a 1x10-6 Torr vacuum, and the liquid metal now has a dielectric capping layer that can keep it from arcing under high voltage differentials.

Best,
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: cvbn on 04/13/2018 12:01 pm
Will the liquid metal boil off at near vacuum?

My understanding is the liquid metal will evaporate, but it will be at a very slow rate. I do not think it will boil unless taken to very high vacuum.

What exactly liquid metal we are talking about?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 04/13/2018 07:14 pm
Will the liquid metal boil off at near vacuum?

My understanding is the liquid metal will evaporate, but it will be at a very slow rate. I do not think it will boil unless taken to very high vacuum.

What exactly liquid metal we are talking about?
The stuff is called "Galinstan", the mixture is liquid at room temperature and less dangerous than mercury...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galinstan

As far as i know the teststand of Monomorphic is designed to operate in "normal" ambient pressure (because there is no proper vac teststand available in the garage lab, especially of the size needed ;) )
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 04/13/2018 07:46 pm
Sonny White is talking right now.

https://youtu.be/3GiN-tWAV_k
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 04/13/2018 08:59 pm
Image of White's latest Q-Thruster. Looks like everything is new.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 04/13/2018 09:02 pm
Zubrin's Dipole Drive is a type of electromagnetic solar sail that accelerates protons.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SteveD on 04/13/2018 10:36 pm
Zubrin's Dipole Drive is a type of electromagnetic solar sail that accelerates protons.

Is that useful outside of Earth orbit?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 04/13/2018 11:21 pm
Sonny White is talking right now.
...

The comments and criticism were a bit more biting this time. Probably because the topic and papers have been in the open for a while now.

Anyway, good to see some work on this still going on at Eagleworks.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 04/13/2018 11:33 pm
Sonny White is talking right now.
...

The comments and criticism were a bit more biting this time. Probably because the topic and papers have been in the open for a while now.

Anyway, good to see some work on this still going on at Eagleworks.

Yeah, Lawrence Krauss really lit up Sonny White. I think White handled himself well. I'm just happy knowing that Lawrence Krauss knows an EMdrive exists and someone of his (caliber, excellence, stature, influence...etc) is even in attendance without walking out. I think that shows great character. On another note, I wonder if Sean Carroll ever thinks about whether or not he might have been wrong about the EMdrive.

Was that other question asker Mark Millis?

I'm happy that White seems to have moved on somewhat from QVPT to a more sophisticated thinking with Pilot Wave Theory. I can see the progression in thought.

Questions begin at 24:33.

https://youtu.be/3GiN-tWAV_k
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: oyzw on 04/14/2018 01:26 am
这个是铝合金腔体,Q值要低20%,相比铜腔,有具体推力参数吗?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 04/14/2018 01:31 am
这个是铝合金腔体,Q值要低20%,相比铜腔,有具体推力参数吗?
Google:

This is an aluminum alloy cavity, Q value is lower than 20%, compared to the copper cavity, there are specific thrust parameters?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 04/14/2018 01:53 am
这个是铝合金腔体,Q值要低20%,相比铜腔,有具体推力参数吗?
Google:

This is an aluminum alloy cavity, Q value is lower than 20%, compared to the copper cavity, there are specific thrust parameters?

This kind of collaboration is amazing and helpful. I applaud you. From a humanistic point of view, it's exactly the right thing to do. From a nationalistic point of view, it's exactly the wrong thing to do. I think it's important to point this out and to stimulate discussion.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: oyzw on 04/14/2018 02:06 am
Let's applaud the humanistic spirit.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 04/14/2018 02:14 am
I saw a star in the western sky (about two hours ago), it was bright, and it may have been a planet close by, I didn't check. I want to go there, I want to see what's there, and I don't want to waste large amounts of my life trying to voyage there, I want it to be safe trying to get there, and I want to know that my children will be able to go there, routinely, and they won't be in danger trying to make the trip, I want it to be affordable, like hopping in the car for a road trip to see grandma. I want us to find new places to live, to allow us to outgrow our home, and find another. We're good enough for this.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 04/14/2018 02:19 am
The nationalistic approach is the right thing to do too. Humanity is not united yet. We're tribal, and it's not even wrong.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tchernik on 04/14/2018 02:35 am
Science and human knowledge march on and they have no sides nor nations.

The conferences and papers aren't secret. If anything of this is real, anyone could take the knowledge in the open and make their own versions.

The national interests and considerations will come in due time regardless, and this potential  technology could be applied to them as any other.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 04/14/2018 10:04 pm
More detailed info on MIT's "Maglev Cubesat Testbed." They use a big electromagnet, a dampening system, and sensors to do the levitation. The Arcsecond Angular Encoder is what they use to collect data.  I'm really interested in what kind of signal the encoder generates and will be looking into that in detail. The Lifter just seems to hold it up when the electromagnet is off, but may also position the rig. The Electromagnetic Dampers allow for variable damping. What's really interesting is how the Helmholtz Coils interact with the with the permanent magnet. I think they use these to stabilize the rotation, but am not sure. Very cool stuff.  8)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 04/15/2018 05:03 am
More detailed info on MIT's "Maglev Cubesat Testbed." They use a big electromagnet, a dampening system, and sensors to do the levitation. The Arcsecond Angular Encoder is what they use to collect data.  I'm really interested in what kind of signal the encoder generates and will be looking into that in detail. The Lifter just seems to hold it up when the electromagnet is off, but may also position the rig. The Electromagnetic Dampers allow for variable damping. What's really interesting is how the Helmholtz Coils interact with the with the permanent magnet. I think they use these to stabilize the rotation, but am not sure. Very cool stuff.  8)
Video: http://spl.mit.edu/spacecraft-systems (http://spl.mit.edu/spacecraft-systems)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 04/15/2018 05:09 am
The nationalistic approach is the right thing to do too. Humanity is not united yet. We're tribal, and it's not even wrong.

Society will evolve.  The U.S. state system actually encourages this evolution of societies for instance.  Advantages of the new may outweigh the old, supplanting what was.  Just as the world has become smaller with the advent of communications so society may have new avenues of change. 

What used to be overlooked and people got away with isn't so easy to do now.  We have all become more aware of our small world and the dangers it's facing.  It would be interesting if it turned out it was a race of collaboration among many that could circumnavigate some of those coming dangers, determining devastation or survival of early civilization growth.  What do we do when the fuel runs our for instance?  Food, resources, shipping, mining, research? 

Collaboration originally must have been some what limited in early human history but with its growth our rate of change and size of our societies has grown rapidly.  Who is to say even the advent of the evolving AI wouldn't be more of a companion and tool rather than a danger (though often portrayed as a danger).  Similar to the companion in Halo the game, further accelerating society.  New things don't come easy for us though.  Big question about open source collaboration is what about intellectual property protection and citing sources not published.  Or is it just for the spirit of change.

I think there was a lot of excitement at the discovery of nuclear decay and collaboration over the borders despite some views on borders.  The human spirit naturally contains curious minds that tend to go beyond the borders of boxes put in place by others. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: CW on 04/15/2018 07:55 am
There is stuff that works, and there is stuff that doesn't work. Konwledge is knowing that difference. There is no 'we' concerning humanity, as there are in fact many different humanities at the same time on this beautiful world. And it is good this way. This is true diversity. Let's keep it that way, m'kay?  :-*
Title: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star One on 04/15/2018 09:00 am
The nationalistic approach is the right thing to do too. Humanity is not united yet. We're tribal, and it's not even wrong.

Society will evolve.  The U.S. state system actually encourages this evolution of societies for instance.  Advantages of the new may outweigh the old, supplanting what was.  Just as the world has become smaller with the advent of communications so society may have new avenues of change. 

What used to be overlooked and people got away with isn't so easy to do now.  We have all become more aware of our small world and the dangers it's facing.  It would be interesting if it turned out it was a race of collaboration among many that could circumnavigate some of those coming dangers, determining devastation or survival of early civilization growth.  What do we do when the fuel runs our for instance?  Food, resources, shipping, mining, research? 

Collaboration originally must have been some what limited in early human history but with its growth our rate of change and size of our societies has grown rapidly.  Who is to say even the advent of the evolving AI wouldn't be more of a companion and tool rather than a danger (though often portrayed as a danger).  Similar to the companion in Halo the game, further accelerating society.  New things don't come easy for us though.  Big question about open source collaboration is what about intellectual property protection and citing sources not published.  Or is it just for the spirit of change.

I think there was a lot of excitement at the discovery of nuclear decay and collaboration over the borders despite some views on borders.  The human spirit naturally contains curious minds that tend to go beyond the borders of boxes put in place by others.

OT I know but with the current situation of the world we will be lucky if we aren’t chalked up as another failed civilisation in the universe within the next century.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 04/15/2018 01:26 pm
Version 3 of the liquid metal contact system is finished printing. The top piece is in gray on the left. It was printed at the fastest setting and took about 3 hours to print. The bottom piece on the right was printed using "clear" PLA on a much finer setting, since it needs to be as near as water-tight as possible. That printed over night and took about 10 hours. I placed a piece of metal in one of the reservoirs so you can see that it is indeed transparent enough that I will be able to see the liquid metal level. Next I will wire it up, making sure all pairs are twisted, mount it to the pendulum, and then wait until the liquid metal arrives on Tuesday.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: aceshigh on 04/17/2018 06:36 am
The nationalistic approach is the right thing to do too. Humanity is not united yet. We're tribal, and it's not even wrong.

so you think exploration of the Solar System will follow the same parameters of the European Nation States exploration of the Americas? And yet, that lasted only 300 years before every started going independent.

but if we are talking here about interstellar exploration, there is not even sense in start talking about nationalistic approach. The vast time and distances involved prevent Earth nation states from even trying to maintain some sort of control.

Quote
This subject is off topic for this thread, but I will say that I have a far less optimistic outlook on the subject. The rest of the world still thinks in terms of cultural dominance, and the West is on course to getting dominated for that naivete. Our monkey-brained tribalism hasn't gone anywhere, and it's become self-destructive in pursuit of fashionable ideas of grand idealism, or vacuous stands against everything in the West's past, while possessing no substance to uphold.

with "the rest of the world", do you mean SPECIFICALLY China and Russia? What a grand generalization that was.

plus tons of doomsday scenario being painted about what other humans might do, when right now the US and China and probably Russia are on a race for General Intelligence AI, as if they could dominate a thinking being that, even if it is only as intelligent as it's creator, it processes information 2 million times faster. So each hour it has to think is like a thousand years of it's creator thinking. You can´t outsmart or unplug such a thing. It will convince you to not do so. (if you could contain it on a box, to start with, which you can't)

There you have your real danger not only to western civilization, but to all humanity.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star One on 04/17/2018 02:15 pm
with "the rest of the world", do you mean SPECIFICALLY China and Russia? What a grand generalization that was.

plus tons of doomsday scenario being painted about what other humans might do, when right now the US and China and probably Russia are on a race for General Intelligence AI, as if they could dominate a thinking being that, even if it is only as intelligent as it's creator, it processes information 2 million times faster. So each hour it has to think is like a thousand years of it's creator thinking. You can´t outsmart or unplug such a thing. It will convince you to not do so. (if you could contain it on a box, to start with, which you can't)

There you have your real danger not only to western civilization, but to all humanity.

The world is bigger and has more sources of bad ideas than a China flirting with Imperialism or Russia seeking to regain strength through nationalism. I'm far more worried about Western civilization's nihilism and open invitations to replace itself with anything else that comes around.

Can we get this thread back on track and leave the politics to the policy section before this thread has to be locked and pruned.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SteveD on 04/17/2018 09:08 pm
Any updates from Tajmar at the conference?  Last I heard he thought the EM Drive was an interaction with external magnetic fields. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: oyzw on 04/18/2018 03:35 am
Any updates from Tajmar at the conference?  Last I heard he thought the EM Drive was an interaction with external magnetic fields.
The interaction with external magnetic fields? That means electromagnetic waves penetrate the metal cavity.That goes against the existing physics theory, right?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 04/18/2018 05:08 am
Any updates from Tajmar at the conference?  Last I heard he thought the EM Drive was an interaction with external magnetic fields.
The interaction with external magnetic fields? That means electromagnetic waves penetrate the metal cavity.That goes against the existing physics theory, right?
No, EM waves shouldn't penetrate the cavity (not that I'm aware of).  A static magnetic field may penetrate the cavity, or interact with external wires connected to the cavity.  I have my doubts any AC current would induce a unidirectional force other than maybe a repulsive effect from a metal surface by induction of counter currents.  I think it's likely they are referring to a DC current interaction with a magnetic field however. 

Some experiments can be set up with a Helmholtz coil to neutralize the earths magnetic field. 

Another option is a properly configured MU metal shielding to separate external magnetic fields from interacting with the experiment (external non rotating shielding) and an (internal) rotating MU metal shield to keep magnetic fields from the experiment from interacting with the (external) MU metal shielding.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: oyzw on 04/18/2018 06:31 am
Any updates from Tajmar at the conference?  Last I heard he thought the EM Drive was an interaction with external magnetic fields.
The interaction with external magnetic fields? That means electromagnetic waves penetrate the metal cavity.That goes against the existing physics theory, right?
No, EM waves shouldn't penetrate the cavity (not that I'm aware of).  A static magnetic field may penetrate the cavity, or interact with external wires connected to the cavity.  I have my doubts any AC current would induce a unidirectional force other than maybe a repulsive effect from a metal surface by induction of counter currents.  I think it's likely they are referring to a DC current interaction with a magnetic field however. 

Some experiments can be set up with a Helmholtz coil to neutralize the earths magnetic field. 

Another option is a properly configured MU metal shielding to separate external magnetic fields from interacting with the experiment (external non rotating shielding) and an (internal) rotating MU metal shield to keep magnetic fields from the experiment from interacting with the (external) MU metal shielding.
Magnetic shielding is not complicated, and they can do it.Using different q-value cavities, the same coupling power, if corresponding to different thrust signals, means that the thrust comes from the cavity itself.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 04/18/2018 10:11 am
Any updates from Tajmar at the conference?  Last I heard he thought the EM Drive was an interaction with external magnetic fields.
The interaction with external magnetic fields? That means electromagnetic waves penetrate the metal cavity.That goes against the existing physics theory, right?

Don't think so. Interaction of currents in/from the battery or other supply and in the amplifier with external (electro)magnetic fields.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 04/18/2018 12:41 pm
My recollection of his presentation is that Tajmar saw the same force signal with and without power reaching the cavity. Needs some fortitude to keep pedaling from there...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SteveD on 04/18/2018 09:19 pm
My recollection of his presentation is that Tajmar saw the same force signal with and without power reaching the cavity. Needs some fortitude to keep pedaling from there...

Is this at the current conference or at the prior one?  The last I heard the device had to be energized to pick up a signal.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 04/19/2018 01:09 am
I have the latest version of the liquid metal contact system mounted and wired. I also replaced most of the bubble insulation on the pendulum with a higher quality foam insulation as it is harder and more stable when mounting components.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 04/19/2018 01:19 am
I have the latest version of the liquid metal contact system mounted and wired. I also replaced most of the bubble insulation on the pendulum with a higher quality foam insulation as it is harder and more stable when mounting components.

Man, you've put so much work into this, it's incredible your dedication. It would be so cool if we could see a video of what you have going on there. You've done so much Monomorphic. I admire you because you have worked so hard to make and build.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 04/19/2018 09:45 am
My recollection of his presentation is that Tajmar saw the same force signal with and without power reaching the cavity. Needs some fortitude to keep pedaling from there...

Is this at the current conference or at the prior one?  The last I heard the device had to be energized to pick up a signal.

I'm referring to the presentation posted by Dr.Rodal currently at reply numbered 2978 a few pages back. If you have better news a link would be much appreciated.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 04/19/2018 09:55 am
I have the latest version of the liquid metal contact system mounted and wired. I also replaced most of the bubble insulation on the pendulum with a higher quality foam insulation as it is harder and more stable when mounting components.

Like Mulletron I'm in awe at what you've built - I'm the guy who needs the manual to use a screwdriver, you are so far beyond my capabilities it's outrageous.

However, by now I'm diagnosing some unknown psychopathology preventing you from actually making measurements! (I only say this because my main alternative 'MIB' theory would reflect badly on me...)

Please, pretty please, give us some measurements. Definitive to whatever accuracy your excellent rig allows! Just move to 10% of the time spent testing, and 90% spent improving the rig, from 100% spent improving the rig...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 04/19/2018 01:20 pm
Please, pretty please, give us some measurements. Definitive to whatever accuracy your excellent rig allows! Just move to 10% of the time spent testing, and 90% spent improving the rig, from 100% spent improving the rig...

The hope is that these newest upgrades will allow for a more seamless integration with LabView. Without a way to automate the experiment so that tests can be performed under exactly the same conditions, then the data will be harder to process for analysis. It has also allowed me to offload the computer, which generates quite a bit of heat. The battery was also a pain as it needed to be recharged between each test. Now there will be only three main components on the pendulum: signal generator/power detector, RF amplifier, and frustum. 

I also had to physically touch the pendulum two or three times to begin tests by pressing a button to turn on the on-board computer, and adding/charging the battery. This would disturb the pendulum long enough that heat from the computer was building up and causing displacement noise problems. If the liquid metal contacts work out, then the only time I will need to touch the pendulum is when centering it and when tuning the frustum. But once the frustum is tuned, it tends to stay in tune unless it gets bumped, likewise with the centering.

So what's left to do before tests can resume?  I need to finish the wiring for the liquid metal contacts by running the mains and USB cables. I would like to purchase a 30A USB relay board so I can automate main power on-off as well (my current relay board is only good to 10A). Then I need to finish building the phase change heat sink for the main amplifier. That is 80% finished and I have all the materials I need here to complete. Once all of that is finished I will begin working on the LabView scripting portion. It is highly probable that I will run a few manual tests during this time, so there may be limited data during that period.


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: dustinthewind on 04/19/2018 01:33 pm
I'm considering a cylindrical cavity design that would induce a transverse magnetic mode moving current up and down.  It could be considered mach effect or EM drive related.  I wan't to make an antenna that uses a capacitor on the end of the cylinder to induce currents.  The design is in the image below.  Any recommended dielectrics that would be cheap to apply and have very high thermal resistance and voltage breakdown or would it be better to use magnetic coupling?

The capacitance antennas should be able to induce the 1f and 2f frequency, possibly more by superimposing frequencies on a single antenna.  It could all be done with just 1 antenna, which may be the better choice.  Wondering if it's possible the frustum design does this naturally.  This cylindrical one would be a forced induction at 1f and 2f frequencies, possibly more at 3f 4f ect.  To increase the effect we might consider moving to current induction in large bundles of fibers at even higher frequency, possibly increasing the volume of current being manipulated or lots of cavities at higher frequencies. 

(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/assets/42978.0/1485592.jpg)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1806976#msg1806976
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 04/19/2018 01:46 pm
I have the latest version of the liquid metal contact system mounted and wired. I also replaced most of the bubble insulation on the pendulum with a higher quality foam insulation as it is harder and more stable when mounting components.

Your finding that insulation largely eliminates mechanical noise is significant for torsion balance experiments.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 04/19/2018 01:54 pm
Please, pretty please, give us some measurements. Definitive to whatever accuracy your excellent rig allows! Just move to 10% of the time spent testing, and 90% spent improving the rig, from 100% spent improving the rig...

The hope is that these newest upgrades will allow for a more seamless integration with LabView. Without a way to automate the experiment so that tests can be performed under exactly the same conditions, then the data will be harder to process for analysis. It has also allowed me to offload the computer, which generates quite a bit of heat. The battery was also a pain as it needed to be recharged between each test. Now there will be only three main components on the pendulum: signal generator/power detector, RF amplifier, and frustum. 

I also had to physically touch the pendulum two or three times to begin tests by pressing a button to turn on the on-board computer, and adding/charging the battery. This would disturb the pendulum long enough that heat from the computer was building up and causing displacement noise problems. If the liquid metal contacts work out, then the only time I will need to touch the pendulum is when centering it and when tuning the frustum. But once the frustum is tuned, it tends to stay in tune unless it gets bumped, likewise with the centering.

So what's left to do before tests can resume?  I need to finish the wiring for the liquid metal contacts by running the mains and USB cables. I would like to purchase a 30A USB relay board so I can automate main power on-off as well (my current relay board is only good to 10A). Then I need to finish building the phase change heat sink for the main amplifier. That is 80% finished and I have all the materials I need here to complete. Once all of that is finished I will begin working on the LabView scripting portion. It is highly probably that I will run a few manual tests during this time, so there may be limited data during that period.

Please make two switches, one for the amplifier and one for the signal generator. Making one switch for all prevented Star Drive's 2014 NASA EW experiment from running necessary null tests to assess the DC current interacting with magnetic field problem ( as pointed out by my paper, and now suspected by Tajmar for his experiments) .
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: kenny008 on 04/19/2018 04:52 pm
Please, pretty please, give us some measurements. Definitive to whatever accuracy your excellent rig allows! Just move to 10% of the time spent testing, and 90% spent improving the rig, from 100% spent improving the rig...
...
Now there will be only three main components on the pendulum: signal generator/power detector, RF amplifier, and frustum. 
...

So what's left to do before tests can resume?  I need to finish the wiring for the liquid metal contacts by running the mains and USB cables. I would like to purchase a 30A USB relay board so I can automate main power on-off as well (my current relay board is only good to 10A). Then I need to finish building the phase change heat sink for the main amplifier. That is 80% finished and I have all the materials I need here to complete. Once all of that is finished I will begin working on the LabView scripting portion. It is highly probable that I will run a few manual tests during this time, so there may be limited data during that period.

Mainly a lurker, but excited to see your progress. Not an expert by any means, but I had a question about the PCM heat sink.
As the material changes phase, it has the ability to move around quite a bit (like any other liquid). As I understand it, this is to be mounted on the beam. Is there any concern that, as the PCM liquifies and possibly shifts around, this can change center of mass of the beam?  This video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sC2csZlXeY

shows quite a bit of flow, and while most applications don’t care, will your exquisitely balanced setup notice this? 
Sorry if I’m misunderstanding the build if the PCM is off the beam. This would then not be an issue.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 04/19/2018 06:30 pm
Mainly a lurker, but excited to see your progress. Not an expert by any means, but I had a question about the PCM heat sink.
As the material changes phase, it has the ability to move around quite a bit (like any other liquid). As I understand it, this is to be mounted on the beam. Is there any concern that, as the PCM liquifies and possibly shifts around, this can change center of mass of the beam? 

shows quite a bit of flow, and while most applications don’t care, will your exquisitely balanced setup notice this? 
Sorry if I’m misunderstanding the build if the PCM is off the beam. This would then not be an issue.

Hello, welcome and thanks for the question. Unless I run the amplifier continuously for many minutes at a time, I do not expect the wax to liquefy but to be a store of heat. So far, I try and keep tests under one minute. Of course this means there will need to be some cool down time between tests.  :-\   Also, the video you show is a complicated structure with channels and it looks like it may not be level compared to when it solidified. I will have 4 simple identical rectangular reservoirs for the wax and if the wax melts, it will do so in the exact same position in which it solidified. There will be some expansion and contraction to be considered, but I'm doubtful there will be significant flow.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: oyzw on 04/20/2018 01:00 am
I think comparative law should be adopted to eliminate interference factors.For example cylindrical cavity load and different cavity value cavity are used to compare thrust response parameters under same frequency and power condition because interference factor outside cavity thrust is fixed.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 04/20/2018 04:32 am
I think comparative law should be adopted to eliminate interference factors.For example cylindrical cavity load and different cavity value cavity are used to compare thrust response parameters under same frequency and power condition because interference factor outside cavity thrust is fixed.

Translation: "comparative law" means "the method of comparing against proper null tests".
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: oyzw on 04/20/2018 05:06 am
I think comparative law should be adopted to eliminate interference factors.For example cylindrical cavity load and different cavity value cavity are used to compare thrust response parameters under same frequency and power condition because interference factor outside cavity thrust is fixed.

Translation: "comparative law" means "the method of comparing against proper null tests".
Yes, that's right. Contrast is the best way to eliminate distractions.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 04/20/2018 08:15 am
Please, pretty please, give us some measurements. Definitive to whatever accuracy your excellent rig allows! Just move to 10% of the time spent testing, and 90% spent improving the rig, from 100% spent improving the rig...
The hope is that these newest upgrades will allow for a more seamless integration with LabView....

OK, a true story, then I'll shut up.

Some decades ago I was a software performance specialist. I was asked to measure the performance of message routing software. It was important stuff, so I spent time writing scripts, automating procedures, testing what I'd done, and generally making sure I could reproduce the work at the touch of a button. After a few days I was still at it, but a senior engineer came to me, with the data he had wanted already in hand. He was at least two, probably three grades above me, the lead for dozens of engineers. "How did you do that?" I asked politely. "I just sat with a list of tests and executed all of them by hand, and used command line functions to measure resource usage. There were only a couple of hundred tests, it took about half a day.".

I'm sure you'll do a fantastic job, but the above is worth remembering.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: madmax on 04/20/2018 02:46 pm
Quote
Quote from: Monomorphic on 04/19/2018 01:20 PM
Quote from: RERT on 04/19/2018 09:55 AM
Please, pretty please, give us some measurements. Definitive to whatever accuracy your excellent rig allows! Just move to 10% of the time spent testing, and 90% spent improving the rig, from 100% spent improving the rig...
The hope is that these newest upgrades will allow for a more seamless integration with LabView....

OK, a true story, then I'll shut up.

Some decades ago I was a software performance specialist. I was asked to measure the performance of message routing software. It was important stuff, so I spent time writing scripts, automating procedures, testing what I'd done, and generally making sure I could reproduce the work at the touch of a button. After a few days I was still at it, but a senior engineer came to me, with the data he had wanted already in hand. He was at least two, probably three grades above me, the lead for dozens of engineers. "How did you do that?" I asked politely. "I just sat with a list of tests and executed all of them by hand, and used command line functions to measure resource usage. There were only a couple of hundred tests, it took about half a day.".

I'm sure you'll do a fantastic job, but the above is worth remembering.

RERT, while I agree in concept with you on the automation vs. manual process, ( See XKCD's wonderful example: https://xkcd.com/1319/  (https://xkcd.com/1319/) )  I don't think this applies in the case of Monomorphics work. Through my time lurking and seeing the results of the great DIY experiments being done here, most of the uncertainty in measurement and possible experimental error has been in not having a well laid out and repeateable process for collecting and recording data combined with non-ideal testbeds. The latter is somewhat unavoidable with DIY work, but the former can be developed and followed regardless of if the effort is DIY or professional.

Correct me if I'm wrong Monomorphic, but the whole purpose of the "rig improvement" has been in order to develop a smooth and nearly automatic process. This will allow the repeat of a single test configuration multiple times without disturbing the testbed. Then a new configuration can be set and again run multiple tests on that configuration. This is the type of rigor and correlated data the community needs.

I say keep on going Monomorphic, your rig is looking better every day, and I look forward to the glut of data you are going to produce. :)

Back to waiting patiently in the shadows.

MM
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 04/20/2018 03:52 pm
Please, pretty please, give us some measurements. Definitive to whatever accuracy your excellent rig allows! Just move to 10% of the time spent testing, and 90% spent improving the rig, from 100% spent improving the rig...
The hope is that these newest upgrades will allow for a more seamless integration with LabView....

OK, a true story, then I'll shut up.

Some decades ago I was a software performance specialist. I was asked to measure the performance of message routing software. It was important stuff, so I spent time writing scripts, automating procedures, testing what I'd done, and generally making sure I could reproduce the work at the touch of a button. After a few days I was still at it, but a senior engineer came to me, with the data he had wanted already in hand. He was at least two, probably three grades above me, the lead for dozens of engineers. "How did you do that?" I asked politely. "I just sat with a list of tests and executed all of them by hand, and used command line functions to measure resource usage. There were only a couple of hundred tests, it took about half a day.".

I'm sure you'll do a fantastic job, but the above is worth remembering.

Yeah, that would've been me with the data in hand.. However, I see first hand regarding testing my MEGA drives that having a superb, well shielded setup is paramount to getting any repeatable data. I thought it would be straight forward but the EM interference from the amplifier, the reaction to sound pressure on the MEGA when operating, the rate of discharge on the batteries, and the infinitesimal changes in output from my Wheatstone bridge, all added up to not being able to collect data for more than a few seconds before the system needed to be re-calibrated and adjusted back onto the screen.

Now, I have all the parts to finish it but I've been sidelined by other issues, like cracked bathtubs and sciatica. TBD when I'll be done.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 04/20/2018 09:40 pm
Sciatica sucks, IIRC. Otherwise, shutting up as advertised....
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: demofsky on 04/21/2018 05:43 am
Quote
Quote from: Monomorphic on 04/19/2018 01:20 PM
Quote from: RERT on 04/19/2018 09:55 AM
Please, pretty please, give us some measurements. Definitive to whatever accuracy your excellent rig allows! Just move to 10% of the time spent testing, and 90% spent improving the rig, from 100% spent improving the rig...
The hope is that these newest upgrades will allow for a more seamless integration with LabView....

OK, a true story, then I'll shut up.

Some decades ago I was a software performance specialist. I was asked to measure the performance of message routing software. It was important stuff, so I spent time writing scripts, automating procedures, testing what I'd done, and generally making sure I could reproduce the work at the touch of a button. After a few days I was still at it, but a senior engineer came to me, with the data he had wanted already in hand. He was at least two, probably three grades above me, the lead for dozens of engineers. "How did you do that?" I asked politely. "I just sat with a list of tests and executed all of them by hand, and used command line functions to measure resource usage. There were only a couple of hundred tests, it took about half a day.".

I'm sure you'll do a fantastic job, but the above is worth remembering.

RERT, while I agree in concept with you on the automation vs. manual process, ( See XKCD's wonderful example: https://xkcd.com/1319/  (https://xkcd.com/1319/) )  I don't think this applies in the case of Monomorphics work. Through my time lurking and seeing the results of the great DIY experiments being done here, most of the uncertainty in measurement and possible experimental error has been in not having a well laid out and repeateable process for collecting and recording data combined with non-ideal testbeds. The latter is somewhat unavoidable with DIY work, but the former can be developed and followed regardless of if the effort is DIY or professional.

Correct me if I'm wrong Monomorphic, but the whole purpose of the "rig improvement" has been in order to develop a smooth and nearly automatic process. This will allow the repeat of a single test configuration multiple times without disturbing the testbed. Then a new configuration can be set and again run multiple tests on that configuration. This is the type of rigor and correlated data the community needs.

I say keep on going Monomorphic, your rig is looking better every day, and I look forward to the glut of data you are going to produce. :)

Back to waiting patiently in the shadows.

MM


The other part that everyone is forgetting is that Monomorphic found the best time to get undisturbed data was at 3:00 in the morning when no one, including himself, was moving in his neighbourhood.  If you are measuring micron level movements and do not have access to purpose built labs with isolated foundations, etc. then this is exactly what you need to do.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 04/24/2018 02:43 am
I am finishing up on the phase change heat sink and am not sure if I should use wax that melts at 128°F (53°C) or 119°F (48°C) or something more like 99°F (37°C).    :-\  With tests limited to about a minute each, I do not know if the amplifier will go from room temperature to 128°F (53°C) in that time for the phase change to be of use. As components should be kept as cool as possible to reduce natural convection, it may make more sense to use something like petroleum jelly (soft paraffin wax) which begins to melt at 99°F (37°C) so that the temperature rise stalls at a lower temperature. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: oyzw on 04/24/2018 03:31 am
I am finishing up on the phase change heat sink and am not sure if I should use wax that melts at 128°F (53°C) or 119°F (48°C) or something more like 99°F (37°C).    :-\  With tests limited to about a minute each, I do not know if the amplifier will go from room temperature to 128°F (53°C) in that time for the phase change to be of use. As components should be kept as cool as possible to reduce natural convection, it may make more sense to use something like petroleum jelly (soft paraffin wax) which begins to melt at 99°F (37°C) so that the temperature rise stalls at a lower temperature.
It is more appropriate to use soft paraffin wax. Is the specific heat capacity of vaseline appropriate?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 04/24/2018 03:36 am
It is more appropriate to use soft paraffin wax. Is the specific heat capacity of vaseline appropriate?

I think petroleum jelly (Vaseline) may be a better place to start honestly. It would be very easy to remove if it doesn't work, and can be mixed with regular paraffin wax to reduce the melting temperature. I also ran across this youtube video of someone who used Vaseline as a Phase Change Material (PCM).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5RYtnT_TVA
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: oyzw on 04/24/2018 03:40 am
It is more appropriate to use soft paraffin wax. Is the specific heat capacity of vaseline appropriate?

I think petroleum jelly (Vaseline) may be a better place to start honestly. It would be very easy to remove if it doesn't work, and can be mixed with regular paraffin wax to reduce the melting temperature. I also ran across this youtube video of someone who used Vaseline as a Phase Change Material (PCM).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5RYtnT_TVA
So that's good. In addition, a pure load replacement cavity is required to obtain the data of the comparison test.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 04/24/2018 12:19 pm
Please, pretty please, give us some measurements. Definitive to whatever accuracy your excellent rig allows! Just move to 10% of the time spent testing, and 90% spent improving the rig, from 100% spent improving the rig...

The hope is that these newest upgrades will allow for a more seamless integration with LabView. Without a way to automate the experiment so that tests can be performed under exactly the same conditions, then the data will be harder to process for analysis. It has also allowed me to offload the computer, which generates quite a bit of heat. The battery was also a pain as it needed to be recharged between each test. Now there will be only three main components on the pendulum: signal generator/power detector, RF amplifier, and frustum. 

I also had to physically touch the pendulum two or three times to begin tests by pressing a button to turn on the on-board computer, and adding/charging the battery. This would disturb the pendulum long enough that heat from the computer was building up and causing displacement noise problems. If the liquid metal contacts work out, then the only time I will need to touch the pendulum is when centering it and when tuning the frustum. But once the frustum is tuned, it tends to stay in tune unless it gets bumped, likewise with the centering.

So what's left to do before tests can resume?  I need to finish the wiring for the liquid metal contacts by running the mains and USB cables. I would like to purchase a 30A USB relay board so I can automate main power on-off as well (my current relay board is only good to 10A). Then I need to finish building the phase change heat sink for the main amplifier. That is 80% finished and I have all the materials I need here to complete. Once all of that is finished I will begin working on the LabView scripting portion. It is highly probable that I will run a few manual tests during this time, so there may be limited data during that period.

Jamie - take your time and make sure you are happy with setup before taking and publishing data - don't let any of us here pressure you .   Of course we are waiting for data with worm on tongue*.  But as you know and have demonstrated with your approach, experimental physics/test engineering require VERY careful methodical work.   Like several others, I too am in awe over your build and efforts.  But sometimes even those of us who understand quite well the demands of doing precise experimentation get impatient . 

BTW - your efforts to incorporate LabView will likely be highly rewarded;  my limited experience with it is quite positive. 

Oh and keep twisting those wires LOL.   Shielded twisted pairs are VERY good practice .

Herman
graybeardsyseng

* Bated Breath - nanu nanu

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: MrFrankenverse on 04/25/2018 07:41 am
Well, my new lab is now completed and I'm in the process of moving my old lab gear from the house to the new facility, which I'm thinking about calling either the Gravity Reaction Lab or The Sorcerer's Apprentice Lab. 

Apprentice Sorcerer Gravity Appliances Reaction ....hmmm help me find something for the D, so that the acronym will be ASGARD :D

How about the Apprentice Sorcerer's Gravity Applied Reaction Displacer?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Subocaji on 04/25/2018 03:03 pm
In keeping with the Norse Theme How about

- Space Laser Physics and Non-Newtoninan Rocket labs

or SLPNR labs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleipnir
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 04/25/2018 03:33 pm
Brilliant DIY updates! Amazing to see the theoretical noise reduction techniques being put into practice with such vigor!

Some interesting news in keeping with the MHD and penetration talk.

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-cram-light-into-smallest-one-atom-space-possible-with-graphene
http://graphene-flagship.eu/graphene-confines-light

Carry on experimenters we are all enthused with your progress.

Edit: Regarding earlier misunderstanding @Meberbs: "The current behaves anomalously because certain paths are preferential based on prior particles (decreased resistance) as relationships are established within the shape of the foam itself which then reduce resistance for massive real particles. Think of it like a horse ploughing a furrow. Rain may smooth the furrow but it still remains there for a long time."

So think of it as the chaos or energy density in the quantum foam, with continuous directional radiation the foam is smoothed allowing light and massive objects to accelerate faster when not running against furrows. The speed of information itself is dependent on the degree of interference and interaction with the vacuum. Light speed is variable depending on the orientation within the foam structure and wormholes must therefore be absences of light, tunnels in the foam if you wish. Please read up on related theories. This effect is subtle but it determines the relative speed of all particles, it also messes with observations due to our proximity with a star, but it should allow for interesting time disparities and anomalies closer to the sun!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 04/26/2018 04:11 pm
Improved RF Measurements of SRF Cavity Quality Factors

Interesting article about measuring Q of RF cavities by Holzbauer et al.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.04747

Do I understand it right that the 'trombone' they use (variable phase shifter) can be used instead of a stub tuner?

regards,
Peter


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: graybeardsyseng on 04/27/2018 04:27 am
Improved RF Measurements of SRF Cavity Quality Factors

Interesting article about measuring Q of RF cavities by Holzbauer et al.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.04747

Do I understand it right that the 'trombone' they use (variable phase shifter) can be used instead of a stub tuner?

regards,
Peter

RE using the trombone for tuning:  Yes it can - at least  to some degree.   In the paper they are using the trombone to induce a phase change in the applied signal,  in order to determine behavior in the complex domain of the circulator and cavity together as a system.   Some tuning will occur, but the range may not be what is often desired for a stub tuner.  In many systems a stub tuner(s) are used in series with the trombone.     

 For more complete discussion of a somewhat complex (no pun intended) topic, here is a rather good link for how stubs, trombones etc are used in RF measurement at CERN along with some general discussion of RF measurement approaches.

Herman
graybeardsyseng

https://indico.cern.ch/event/115334/sessions/5217/attachments/50210/72213/C1_Piotr_Ex_all.pdf (https://indico.cern.ch/event/115334/sessions/5217/attachments/50210/72213/C1_Piotr_Ex_all.pdf)

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 04/27/2018 07:24 pm

APS April Meeting 2018
Abstract: X13.00004 : Is propellantless propulsion through gravitational induction possible in general relativity?

http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/APR18/Session/X13.4
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 04/28/2018 12:45 am
The phase change heat sink for the main 30W amplifier is finally finished! Extra care was taken to make sure it is as watertight as possible. I used high temp epoxy for the seal and also 3D printed the frame for a cellulose acetate window so I can view the melting while also providing some insulation. You can see in the images below that after I have poured the petroleum jelly, one half is still mostly melted and transparent while the other half is mostly solidified and opaque. This happens fairly quickly. I also received the 8-channel USB relay which will be used to automate the experiment.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 04/30/2018 05:22 am

APS April Meeting 2018
Abstract: X13.00004 : Is propellantless propulsion through gravitational induction possible in general relativity?

http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/APR18/Session/X13.4

Mulletron, these are the relevant questions. Thankyou.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/01/2018 12:18 am
Latest images. All major components are mounted and 95% or the wiring is completed. I need to test for shorts tomorrow and then I should be ready to pour the liquid metal into the liquid metal contact reservoirs.  ;D

I've also included an image of the "Rack" where most everything off the pendulum resides (minus the main computer).  This includes the sensors, DC power and relays, and 120V AC.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: otlski on 05/01/2018 11:50 pm
Mono,

With all that foam insulation in close proximity to your UUT and measurement structure, you might want to treat with an antistatic or dissipation spray to reduce electrostatic attraction.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: D_Dom on 05/03/2018 04:25 pm
With a brief exposure to fiber optic based instrumentation many years ago (OK decades) I consider this technology when thinking about force measurements at this scale. Here is a paper addressing this, many thanks to the fine folks at Luna Inc.

http://lunainc.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/LT_TD_EN-FY1324_MeasuringSmallStrainsWODB.pdf

Reason I find this so compelling is when using a wavelength of light as your measurement standard you have an ability to measure very small forces. I remember back in the day (eyeroll) seeing full page ads in Lasers and Electro-Optics describing the deflection of a manhole cover caused by a dime set on it. Another memorable claim was to measure change in shape of a glass of wine when filled as opposed to empty.

These sensors are lightweight, low profile and can easily be installed within challenging environments. The sensors are EMI immune and use no electrical signal. A single strand of fiber can be used for both temperature and strain. I realize this is not a low-cost solution, integrating a test rig sized to cubesat experiments is on my wish list. Lurking this forum helps me understand the challenge.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: otlski on 05/04/2018 12:01 am
With a brief exposure to fiber optic based instrumentation many years ago (OK decades) I consider this technology when thinking about force measurements at this scale. Here is a paper addressing this, many thanks to the fine folks at Luna Inc.

http://lunainc.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/LT_TD_EN-FY1324_MeasuringSmallStrainsWODB.pdf

Reason I find this so compelling is when using a wavelength of light as your measurement standard you have an ability to measure very small forces. I remember back in the day (eyeroll) seeing full page ads in Lasers and Electro-Optics describing the deflection of a manhole cover caused by a dime set on it. Another memorable claim was to measure change in shape of a glass of wine when filled as opposed to empty.

These sensors are lightweight, low profile and can easily be installed within challenging environments. The sensors are EMI immune and use no electrical signal. A single strand of fiber can be used for both temperature and strain. I realize this is not a low-cost solution, integrating a test rig sized to cubesat experiments is on my wish list. Lurking this forum helps me understand the challenge.

I went to their website I saw where you can integrate a fiber into your own mechanism.  Do they also have prepackaged optical strain gages?

What properties do you wish your rig for cubesats to measure?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 05/04/2018 04:32 am
I am glad to share that Mr. Mike McCulloch confirmed to me he and Mr. Tajmar received funding for their project. They have detailed technical plan to test it. Now only facing some negotiation difficulty with university. I hope they will be able to over come it!

Also Mr. McCulloch pays a visit to NSF sometimes and check on the progress here.

Great to see so much progress lately on the EmDrive (and other propellantless fields).

I also see that many testing projects are recieving more funding lately. That is a good news as we hope to see more testing data :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 05/06/2018 07:05 pm
This will deliver the power for a plant in future missions. Maybe for a propellantless pure electrical drive one day. :)


Quote
​Kilopower is a small, lightweight fission power system capable of providing up to 10 kilowatts of electrical power - enough to run several average households - continuously for at least 10 years. Four Kilopower units would provide enough power to establish an outpost.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/demonstration-proves-nuclear-fission-system-can-provide-space-exploration-power



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STJsc4TutSQ
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/07/2018 09:59 pm
The final version of the liquid metal contact system is up and running!  ;D  I completed the last of the wiring this morning and then used an eye-dropper to add ~7 ounces of liquid metal to the 8 reservoirs. If you look closely, you can see the liquid metal through the clear PLA used to 3D print the part.

Everything went smoothly except the USB connections didn't work at first. A USB signal can only travel 16.5 ft in the best of circumstances, and with all the wiring and twisted pairs, connections, and extension to the main computer, that came very close to 16 ft. This was solved by adding a $20 four-channel powered USB hub between the liquid metal contact and main computer.  Now it works like a charm. I had no problem accessing the Windfreak SynthNV signal generator on the pendulum through the liquid metal USB connection.

I also found out that the SynthNV software was written in LabView. This should save me untold amounts of heartache as I figured writing a LabView virtual instrument for the signal generator would be the most challenging part of the scripting. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: D_Dom on 05/08/2018 03:47 am
With a brief exposure to fiber optic based instrumentation many years ago (OK decades) I consider this technology when thinking about force measurements at this scale. Here is a paper addressing this, many thanks to the fine folks at Luna Inc.

http://lunainc.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/LT_TD_EN-FY1324_MeasuringSmallStrainsWODB.pdf

Reason I find this so compelling is when using a wavelength of light as your measurement standard you have an ability to measure very small forces. I remember back in the day (eyeroll) seeing full page ads in Lasers and Electro-Optics describing the deflection of a manhole cover caused by a dime set on it. Another memorable claim was to measure change in shape of a glass of wine when filled as opposed to empty.

These sensors are lightweight, low profile and can easily be installed within challenging environments. The sensors are EMI immune and use no electrical signal. A single strand of fiber can be used for both temperature and strain. I realize this is not a low-cost solution, integrating a test rig sized to cubesat experiments is on my wish list. Lurking this forum helps me understand the challenge.

I went to their website I saw where you can integrate a fiber into your own mechanism.  Do they also have prepackaged optical strain gages?

What properties do you wish your rig for cubesats to measure?

Still discussing possibilities, they have a wide experience with this measurement capability..
I think about setting an experiment capable of thermal and vacuum testing. No budget for any of that so it is just a mental exercise at this point.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 05/09/2018 07:12 am
I am glad to share that Mr. Mike McCulloch confirmed to me he and Mr. Tajmar received funding for their project. They have detailed technical plan to test it. Now only facing some negotiation difficulty with university. I hope they will be able to over come it!

Also Mr. McCulloch pays a visit to NSF sometimes and check on the progress here.

Great to see so much progress lately on the EmDrive (and other propellantless fields).

I also see that many testing projects are recieving more funding lately. That is a good news as we hope to see more testing data :)

Additional news today. Mr. McCulloch will have a speech at Plymounth University (UK) tomorrow (10.5.2018) on the topic of (quote from Twitter)

" 'Rocket propulsion from Quantised inertia'. ie: how to launch satellites without chemical rockets, as #QI suggests can be done. "

Trying to contact the University if it will be streamed or if video will be made, or presentation on the topic...ect. If answered will share here.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 05/09/2018 02:04 pm
The final version of the liquid metal contact system is up and running!  ;D  I completed the last of the wiring this morning and then used an eye-dropper to add ~7 ounces of liquid metal to the 8 reservoirs. If you look closely, you can see the liquid metal through the clear PLA used to 3D print the part.

Everything went smoothly except the USB connections didn't work at first. A USB signal can only travel 16.5 ft in the best of circumstances, and with all the wiring and twisted pairs, connections, and extension to the main computer, that came very close to 16 ft. This was solved by adding a $20 four-channel powered USB hub between the liquid metal contact and main computer.  Now it works like a charm. I had no problem accessing the Windfreak SynthNV signal generator on the pendulum through the liquid metal USB connection.

I also found out that the SynthNV software was written in LabView. This should save me untold amounts of heartache as I figured writing a LabView virtual instrument for the signal generator would be the most challenging part of the scripting.

Just a note on passing through and catching up. You might want to provide a ground return the metal wrap you added on your wires for the liquid metal contacts if your other end isn't grounded. It can be a source of noise and cross talk.

Beautiful work.

My Very Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/09/2018 03:32 pm
Just a note on passing through and catching up. You might want to provide a ground return the metal wrap you added on your wires for the liquid metal contacts if your other end isn't grounded. It can be a source of noise and cross talk.

I was wondering who was going to notice that.   ;)   It is definitely planned. I will either solder a small wire to each shield and ground that or use small clips.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/10/2018 12:33 am
More images.   ;D     I now have everything working as designed. This includes getting full power from the main amplifier over the liquid metal contacts. I had some interference problems with the ADC, but that was solved with ferrite cores. I've also continued covering everything I can in insulation. I hope to have a video out in the next few days detailing the setup and all the improvements. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: The_Optimist on 05/11/2018 03:12 pm
Amazing work! I’m in awe and very much hoping you measure something anomalous!
Stu


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/14/2018 12:53 am
More progress this weekend. While testing the main amplifier and phase change heat sink, I discovered a small leak in one of the petroleum jelly reservoirs. This is after taking special care to make sure everything was sealed as when I visited Paul March at NASA, they were having the same problem. Melted paraffin will flow through the tiniest hole! A generous application of high temperature epoxy seems to have sealed the leak.

I also moved the main amplifier to the center of the pendulum and completely encased it within a foam insulation box. This allowed me to remove several lbs of counterweight and further decrease the noise from convection. I can still view the petroleum jelly as it melts through a double-pane acrylic window at the top.   

I was also able to use the last remaining liquid metal contact for the MOSFET temperature sensor on the main amplifier. So while tests are running, the temperature of the amplifier transistor can also be monitored and recorded.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/15/2018 09:27 pm
Intel ISEF Public Day is this Thursday, May 17, 2018 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. This year the Emdrive Polish group headed up by Jakub Jedrzejewski will be presenting their findings. This is the group I have been advising on their experiment and test rig. They have some interesting test results to report (which I have already seen). If anyone is in the area, it is open to the public from 9:00 am to 9:00 pm.  https://student.societyforscience.org/intel-isef-2018-public-day

I have asked Jakub to post their results here after their presentation on Thrusday, but with them traveling, it may take a few days. Their chosen resonant mode (TE013), amplifier, signal generator and laser displacement sensor are the same as I am using, so it will be interesting to see if my tests replicate their findings.   :D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 05/16/2018 11:56 pm
New preprint from Prof. Tajmar and his team.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325177082_The_SpaceDrive_Project_-_First_Results_on_EMDrive_and_Mach-Effect_Thrusters (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325177082_The_SpaceDrive_Project_-_First_Results_on_EMDrive_and_Mach-Effect_Thrusters)

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 05/17/2018 03:40 am
New preprint from Prof. Tajmar and his team.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325177082_The_SpaceDrive_Project_-_First_Results_on_EMDrive_and_Mach-Effect_Thrusters (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325177082_The_SpaceDrive_Project_-_First_Results_on_EMDrive_and_Mach-Effect_Thrusters)

And so it remains infuriatingly ambiguous.  :-\
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThinkerX on 05/17/2018 06:51 am
Quote
And so it remains infuriatingly ambiguous.  :-\





To me, it looked like a lean towards the negative, especially with the reference to earths magnetic field. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chrochne on 05/17/2018 07:47 am
Intel ISEF Public Day is this Thursday, May 17, 2018 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. This year the Emdrive Polish group headed up by Jakub Jedrzejewski will be presenting their findings. This is the group I have been advising on their experiment and test rig. They have some interesting test results to report (which I have already seen). If anyone is in the area, it is open to the public from 9:00 am to 9:00 pm.  https://student.societyforscience.org/intel-isef-2018-public-day

I have asked Jakub to post their results here after their presentation on Thrusday, but with them traveling, it may take a few days. Their chosen resonant mode (TE013), amplifier, signal generator and laser displacement sensor are the same as I am using, so it will be interesting to see if my tests replicate their findings.   :D

Thank you on reporting this Monomorphic. I hope for some interesting data. Can you share any details on their setup?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 05/17/2018 08:15 am
Quote
And so it remains infuriatingly ambiguous.  :-\

To me, it looked like a lean towards the negative, especially with the reference to earths magnetic field.

To quote the paper:
Quote
This  clearly  indicates  that  the  “thrust”  is  not coming  from  the  EMDrive  but  from  some electromagnetic  interaction. 
People should read the paper for details, but basically, they did a good null test that showed comparable thrust. Looking at the data in the paper, it looks like out of the 2 mN/kW that they measured, if there was a hidden real signal I estimate it would be below 0.5 mN/kW. Keep in mind that 0.003 mN/kW is a laser pointer, by which point an experiment would have to account for all forms of emitted and incident radiation.

They make a good point in the conclusion, which I agree with and is one reason I continue to read this thread:
Quote
At least,  SpaceDrive  is an  excellent educational project by developing highly demanding test setups, evaluating  theoretical  models  and  possible experimental errors. It’s a great learning experience with the  possibility  to  find  something that  can  drive space exploration into its next generation.
The accurate measurement techniques they are developing and ways to control various errors can have a variety of potential applications.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/17/2018 12:49 pm
Thank you on reporting this Monomorphic. I hope for some interesting data. Can you share any details on their setup?

They have asked to keep specific details confidential until they've published. I can say that their setup is very similar to mine, with a few small differences, such as the length of the pendulum and torsion wire and the exact LDS model. So their setup is technically more sensitive than mine, but that difference is not so huge at the scales we are dealing with (<3uN). They are also still using a wifi signal and batteries for their experiment while I have switched to liquid metal contacts. That's about all I can share at this point.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 05/17/2018 02:24 pm
The accurate measurement techniques they are developing and ways to control various errors can have a variety of potential applications.

A small silver lining for a disappointing, but ultimately not surprising result.  :-\
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 05/17/2018 03:15 pm
Quote
And so it remains infuriatingly ambiguous.  :-\





To me, it looked like a lean towards the negative, especially with the reference to earths magnetic field.

If the interaction with Earth magnetic field is the cause, they should be able to rotate their test apparatus (the entire thing, not the resonance cavity) horizontally to find an angle with which the interaction is minimized (theoretically, zero).

I am happy to see that they cited our father-and-daughter paper about the NASA experiment.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star One on 05/17/2018 04:53 pm
Quote
And so it remains infuriatingly ambiguous.  :-\

To me, it looked like a lean towards the negative, especially with the reference to earths magnetic field.

To quote the paper:
Quote
This  clearly  indicates  that  the  “thrust”  is  not coming  from  the  EMDrive  but  from  some electromagnetic  interaction. 
People should read the paper for details, but basically, they did a good null test that showed comparable thrust. Looking at the data in the paper, it looks like out of the 2 mN/kW that they measured, if there was a hidden real signal I estimate it would be below 0.5 mN/kW. Keep in mind that 0.003 mN/kW is a laser pointer, by which point an experiment would have to account for all forms of emitted and incident radiation.

They make a good point in the conclusion, which I agree with and is one reason I continue to read this thread:
Quote
At least,  SpaceDrive  is an  excellent educational project by developing highly demanding test setups, evaluating  theoretical  models  and  possible experimental errors. It’s a great learning experience with the  possibility  to  find  something that  can  drive space exploration into its next generation.
The accurate measurement techniques they are developing and ways to control various errors can have a variety of potential applications.

Does this equally apply to both types of drive?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 05/17/2018 05:06 pm
Does this equally apply to both types of drive?

In short yes:
Quote
This again indicates that there must be some electromagnetic interaction or thermally induced center of mass shift that is masking any real thrust value.

I recommend reading the paper, the details are different due to the different types of drive, but both had a null test that showed that any real signal was masked by other effects. Also, the Mach thruster had voltage not power listed, so I am not sure of its effective thrust/power ratio. Since it has an actual theory tied to it, and V^4 scaling with voltage, it may be the easier one to confirm or invalidate, since if they increase the voltage, it should rapidly increase the signal. In this case, expected thrust (0.02 uN) was well below the measured error source (0.6 uN).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star One on 05/17/2018 05:50 pm
Does this equally apply to both types of drive?

In short yes:
Quote
This again indicates that there must be some electromagnetic interaction or thermally induced center of mass shift that is masking any real thrust value.

I recommend reading the paper, the details are different due to the different types of drive, but both had a null test that showed that any real signal was masked by other effects. Also, the Mach thruster had voltage not power listed, so I am not sure of its effective thrust/power ratio. Since it has an actual theory tied to it, and V^4 scaling with voltage, it may be the easier one to confirm or invalidate, since if they increase the voltage, it should rapidly increase the signal. In this case, expected thrust (0.02 uN) was well below the measured error source (0.6 uN).

Thank you.

The paper looks to be paywalled?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 05/17/2018 11:25 pm
Thank you.

The paper looks to be paywalled?
Not as far as I can tell (tried on multiple computers/networks).

Here (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Tajmar/publication/325177082_The_SpaceDrive_Project_-_First_Results_on_EMDrive_and_Mach-Effect_Thrusters/links/5afc3b400f7e9b3b0bf38a8e/The-SpaceDrive-Project-First-Results-on-EMDrive-and-Mach-Effect-Thrusters.pdf?origin=publication_detail) is the direct link from the "download pdf" button, maybe that will help.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 05/18/2018 01:37 am
Does this equally apply to both types of drive?

In short yes:
Quote
This again indicates that there must be some electromagnetic interaction or thermally induced center of mass shift that is masking any real thrust value.

I recommend reading the paper, the details are different due to the different types of drive, but both had a null test that showed that any real signal was masked by other effects. Also, the Mach thruster had voltage not power listed, so I am not sure of its effective thrust/power ratio. Since it has an actual theory tied to it, and V^4 scaling with voltage, it may be the easier one to confirm or invalidate, since if they increase the voltage, it should rapidly increase the signal. In this case, expected thrust (0.02 uN) was well below the measured error source (0.6 uN).

It is a big step in the right direction when it is tested by a professional in a dedicated physics institution, considering the lack of theory supporting it. The last thing we want is false positives.

Still hopeful of contributing concepts to the theory I re-wrote my last essay and entered it into the GRF gravity essay competition. Attached for those curious enough to reconsider the fundamentals  :)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star One on 05/18/2018 06:19 am
Thank you.

The paper looks to be paywalled?
Not as far as I can tell (tried on multiple computers/networks).

Here (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Martin_Tajmar/publication/325177082_The_SpaceDrive_Project_-_First_Results_on_EMDrive_and_Mach-Effect_Thrusters/links/5afc3b400f7e9b3b0bf38a8e/The-SpaceDrive-Project-First-Results-on-EMDrive-and-Mach-Effect-Thrusters.pdf?origin=publication_detail) is the direct link from the "download pdf" button, maybe that will help.

Thank you.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: tdperk on 05/18/2018 10:41 pm
Quote
And so it remains infuriatingly ambiguous.  :-\





To me, it looked like a lean towards the negative, especially with the reference to earths magnetic field.

Given Woodward's re-tests of his apparatus by turning it through 90 and 180 degrees, with a null result with respect to such orthogonality...
which must be present for the Earth's field to be the cause
...not so much.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Stormbringer on 05/19/2018 03:26 am
I don't know if it is old news to the participants in this thread but NBF has two articles on EM drives/MEGA Mach drives. One is what you are discussing now WRT Tajmar's paper but the other is about DR Sonny White saying he is making a new device operating at 400 Watts.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/05/sonny-white-at-eagleworks-scaling-emdrive-experiments-to-400-watts.html

there is also an article on Zurbin's dipole drive.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 05/19/2018 04:13 am
I don't know if it is old news to the participants in this thread but NBF has two articles on EM drives/MEGA Mach drives. One is what you are discussing now WRT Tajmar's paper but the other is about DR Sonny White saying he is making a new device operating at 400 Watts.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/05/sonny-white-at-eagleworks-scaling-emdrive-experiments-to-400-watts.html

there is also an article on Zurbin's dipole drive.
On youtube there is a great series (27 short videos) on Bohmian Mechanics by the members of the Workgroup Bohmian Mechanics at LMU Munich . They make some good arguments for it. Worth the watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6TNF854Xmo&list=PL7LbfRoKBR5OpRjt8toBOmzqGjH7zaM1m
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/19/2018 11:45 am
New PBS Spacetime episode on Noether's Theorem and The Symmetries of Reality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04ERSb06dOg&
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 05/19/2018 12:52 pm
New PBS Spacetime episode on Noether's Theorem and The Symmetries of Reality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04ERSb06dOg&
While I don't miss a episode and many times review past ones. Sadly the time restraints ~10 minutes limit what Matt O’Dowd can cover and as a result some content is left out.

On symmetry breaking I pulled up a paper I read last year and found fascinating:
Symmetry breaking in crossed magnetic and electric fields
C. Neumann, R. Ubert, S. Freund, E. Fl¨othmann, B. Sheehy,∗ and K. H. Welge†
Fakult¨at f¨ur Physik, Universit¨at Bielefeld, Universit¨atsstraße 25, D-33615 Bielefeld, Federal Republic of Germany
M. R. Haggerty and J. B. Delos†
Physics Department, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia 23187
(December 25, 2017)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/9701014.pdf

Even this paper can be supported by de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory. Which was reviewed by Matt O’Dowd in last weeks episode of Space/Time.

You have to agree there are still a lot of open questions in physics. I also find it interesting that Dr. Sonny White (EagleWorks) supports de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlXdsyctD50


My Very Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 05/19/2018 03:06 pm
On the Anomalous Forces in Microwave Cavity-Magnetron Systems
March 2018
DOI10.13140/RG.2.2.14981.86243
Elio Battista PorcelliElio Battista PorcelliVicto S. FilhoVicto S. Filho

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324023769_On_the_Anomalous_Forces_in_Microwave_Cavity-Magnetron_Systems
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 05/19/2018 03:47 pm
On the Anomalous Forces in Microwave Cavity-Magnetron Systems
March 2018
DOI10.13140/RG.2.2.14981.86243
Elio Battista PorcelliElio Battista PorcelliVicto S. FilhoVicto S. Filho

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324023769_On_the_Anomalous_Forces_in_Microwave_Cavity-Magnetron_Systems
My goodness. If you strap a magnetron to a Frustum you're going to get a mess. Heat, magnetic fields, DC currents and pulsing AC along with RF splattering all over base  frequencies.

Rfmwguy and Monomorphic and a few others found this out. If you're going to use a magnetron to get your RF, please clean up the power supply, fix the issues with the heater, thermally stabilize the magnetron, and get it away from the frustum!

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 05/20/2018 12:08 am
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325177082_The_SpaceDrive_Project_-_First_Results_on_EMDrive_and_Mach-Effect_Thrusters

Quote from their methodology:
"however, instead of hand-cut copper sheets and copper plated PCBs, our cavity geometry was manufactured from 1.5 mm thick copper  sheets  that  were  pressed  into  the  correct geometry (see Fig. 6)."

They have forgotten skin depth and radiation pressure. Their experiment is flawed, or am I misinterpreting? Since the early days it was calculated to be ~66um skin depth meaning at bare minimum 1/8 inch = ~3mm of Copper is safe against buckling/leakage.

Cheers,
L.A.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 05/20/2018 02:40 am
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325177082_The_SpaceDrive_Project_-_First_Results_on_EMDrive_and_Mach-Effect_Thrusters

Quote from their methodology:
"however, instead of hand-cut copper sheets and copper plated PCBs, our cavity geometry was manufactured from 1.5 mm thick copper  sheets  that  were  pressed  into  the  correct geometry (see Fig. 6)."

They have forgotten skin depth and radiation pressure. Their experiment is flawed, or am I misinterpreting? Since the early days it was calculated to be ~66um skin depth meaning at bare minimum 1/8 inch = ~3mm of Copper is safe against buckling/leakage.

Cheers,
L.A.
L.A.,

Is this what you're talking about?
RF Skin depth should be <5um so a copper cavity thicker than that would be fine although a 6um copper cavity might blow away in a light breeze and of course deform under heat from the RF and modes.
(https://www.pasternack.com/Images/reference-tools/images/skindepth_eq.png)

Resistivity (μΩ cm)1.678
Relative Permeability:   0.999991
Frequency:2.45GHz
Skin depth 1.32 μm

Several other things stood out on these tests. For starters driving the frustum with a dinky 2 watts because they were having issues with thermals is the first. Looking at general published data in some of the tests (EW or even Monomorphic's) it's obvious that 2 watts would drop them into the noise of their test stand.

The other thing that struck me as odd when they presented at SSI 2017 November at the Aerospace Corporation in El Segundo, California. Dr. Martin Tajmar he even said that Shawyer had emailed him telling him that the mode and frustum geometry was wrong and it wouldn't produce thrust. Also Dr. Rodal asked what mode were they using and they were not sure what it was. https://youtu.be/36Hpgxb9MdU?t=2782 starting 46:22

Mode setting, frustum dimensions, antenna placement, type of antenna are just a few critical items needed to be met. They honestly gave it a good try and Dr. Martin Tajmar said they would be trying it again. Also I would hope they get a thermal camera to verify the mode. Retesting? They need to.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 05/20/2018 06:10 am
I don't know if it is old news to the participants in this thread but NBF has two articles on EM drives/MEGA Mach drives. One is what you are discussing now WRT Tajmar's paper but the other is about DR Sonny White saying he is making a new device operating at 400 Watts.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/05/sonny-white-at-eagleworks-scaling-emdrive-experiments-to-400-watts.html

there is also an article on Zurbin's dipole drive.
The paywall on White's paper is kind of steep ($120). Does anyone have a link to the PDF?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Stormbringer on 05/20/2018 06:23 am
not I; unfortunately. :(
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/20/2018 02:35 pm
The paywall on White's paper is kind of steep ($120). Does anyone have a link to the PDF?

Attached is the PDF.
Title: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star One on 05/20/2018 08:39 pm
Paper is now being widely reported by those still interested on social media and general consensus is that’s that case closed. Lot of people saying oh we always knew it was nonsense.

Example here.

https://mobile.twitter.com/fcain/status/997586879779430400

One interesting comment here.

https://twitter.com/WayCharMar/status/997618367761735680?s=20

Quote
Actually if you read the paper it say “We found that e.g. magnetic interaction from cables and amplifiers with Earth’s magnetic field can be a significant error source for EMDrives.” The Mach-Effect Thruster did not show this as a problem as shown by their their graph @ 90 deg.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/21/2018 11:43 am
Paper is now being widely reported by those still interested on social media and general consensus is that’s that case closed.

~20 twitter followers of Fraser Cain is hardly general consensus.

Looking at the pictures of Tajmar's experiment, no wonder they are seeing nothing but Lorentz. First of all their twisted pairs do not appear to be twisted enough. There should be at least two twists per inch. In the image below it appears that there is maybe one twist per two inches or so. And then look at the location of the main amplifier and the length of the main leads!   :o

At only 2W of RF power, no wonder they are only seeing Lorentz. It's almost like they designed their experiment to be susceptible to this form of error.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/21/2018 12:12 pm
I also avoided bundling the twisted pairs as that can lead to problems with the fields not cancelling out properly. Otherwise you have to use twisted pairs with different twist rates.

You can see in these images that my main power leads are one quarter or less the length of Tajmar and my twisted pairs are highly twisted.

I had 6.7A going to the centrally mounted amplifier yesterday and was not seeing these same problems.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 05/21/2018 03:13 pm

If the interaction with Earth magnetic field is the cause, they should be able to rotate their test apparatus (the entire thing, not the resonance cavity) horizontally to find an angle with which the interaction is minimized (theoretically, zero).

I am happy to see that they cited our father-and-daughter paper about the NASA experiment.

I took a look of their paper. It seems their giant test apparatus is build on top of a non-movable air table so it is very difficult if not impossible to rotate the "entire thing" horizontally.

They use magnet damping. It is not clear whether the magnets are mounted on the arm or on the frame. If they are mounted on the frame, the leaked magnetic field will interact with DC on arm to move the arm. If they are mounted on the arm, their leaked magnet field will interact with DC off-arm to move the arm.

They use multiple stepper motors. It is not clear whether there are permanent magnets in the stepper motors.

They have not talked about grounding schemes of the circuits thus it is unclear whether they have DC ground loop in their circuits. If there is, its effect is larger than how tight the twisting of the power leads is.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star One on 05/21/2018 05:53 pm
Paper is now being widely reported by those still interested on social media and general consensus is that’s that case closed.

~20 twitter followers of Fraser Cain is hardly general consensus.

Looking at the pictures of Tajmar's experiment, no wonder they are seeing nothing but Lorentz. First of all their twisted pairs do not appear to be twisted enough. There should be at least two twists per inch. In the image below it appears that there is maybe one twist per two inches or so. And then look at the location of the main amplifier and the length of the main leads!   :o

At only 2W of RF power, no wonder they are only seeing Lorentz. It's almost like they designed their experiment to be susceptible to this form of error.

As I said in my OP that was merely an example of a wider discussion, or would you rather I have filled the post with Twitter links?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/21/2018 06:16 pm
As I said in my OP that was merely an example of a wider discussion, or would you rather I have filled the post with Twitter links?

I think the general scientific consensus has always been that the Emdrive does not work and it is a measurement artifact. However,  to claim that Tajmar's recent paper is "case closed" ignores the numerous problems identified with his experiment. 


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 05/21/2018 06:19 pm
It looks like they were expecting to get forces on the order of what Shawyer reported, so thought they could get away with being sloppy.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: venir on 05/21/2018 10:34 pm
Quote
And so it remains infuriatingly ambiguous.  :-\

To me, it looked like a lean towards the negative, especially with the reference to earths magnetic field.

To quote the paper:
Quote
This  clearly  indicates  that  the  “thrust”  is  not coming  from  the  EMDrive  but  from  some electromagnetic  interaction. 
People should read the paper for details, but basically, they did a good null test that showed comparable thrust. Looking at the data in the paper, it looks like out of the 2 mN/kW that they measured, if there was a hidden real signal I estimate it would be below 0.5 mN/kW. Keep in mind that 0.003 mN/kW is a laser pointer, by which point an experiment would have to account for all forms of emitted and incident radiation.

They make a good point in the conclusion, which I agree with and is one reason I continue to read this thread:
Quote
At least,  SpaceDrive  is an  excellent educational project by developing highly demanding test setups, evaluating  theoretical  models  and  possible experimental errors. It’s a great learning experience with the  possibility  to  find  something that  can  drive space exploration into its next generation.
The accurate measurement techniques they are developing and ways to control various errors can have a variety of potential applications.

Ars Technica weighs in on the paper as well: https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/05/nasas-em-drive-is-a-magnetic-wtf-thruster/
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SteveD on 05/21/2018 10:50 pm
Um, this paper seems to be reporting a directional force in whatever direction certain feed lines are pointed, even in a shielded box.  This seems to argue the question, is this an actual force or a measurement error?  If an actual force can it be harnessed in a useful manner?  If it's an interaction with the earth's magnetic field that lets you move in any direction you want in earth orbit, without needing the weight of the can at the end, that would seem like a potentially useful application.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: M.LeBel on 05/22/2018 12:32 am
Sometimes in science we may ask the question “why?” this or that happens. But the moment we start observing or measuring, it becomes a description, a relational point of view which can only bring back an answer in the form of “how” things work.

In my last FQXI essay (attached), I suggest a way to understand a valid “why?” question that would return an answer to the question “why” i.e. as a logical built-in causality.

This is without any claim as to the usefulness for the EM-Drive effort. It is a new and different angle under which one may examine physics...

Cheers,

Marcel,
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: zen-in on 05/23/2018 12:47 am
Lorentz force was investigated a lot by EW and others a couple of years back.   The part that cannot be ignored or explained away is the thrust is still there when an attenuator is used.    Another mechanism for error is the thermal movement of the metal when power is applied.   An attenuator will dissipate the same amount of power and cause the same kind of heating.   A few years ago I mentioned the thrust signature looked like a second order step response.   Heating is second order while a linear force is first order.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: oyzw on 05/23/2018 09:29 am
Tajmar教授的腔体模态与杨涓教授的一致,极有可能是TE011模态,推力方向易出现180°反转。要确认推力是否来自腔体本身,可以采用对比法,将腔体替换成负载,看看是否依然存在推力,这个方法很简单
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 05/23/2018 09:40 am
Tajmar教授的腔体模态与杨涓教授的一致,极有可能是TE011模态,推力方向易出现180°反转。要确认推力是否来自腔体本身,可以采用对比法,将腔体替换成负载,看看是否依然存在推力,这个方法很简单
Translation:
Prof. Tajmar's cavity mode is consistent with Prof. Yang's, most likely TE011. The direction of thrust seems to reverse when the cavity is flipped 180°. To confirm whether the thrust comes from the cavity itself, you can use a comparative method by replacing the cavity with the load and see if the thrust still exists. This method is very simple.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RotoSequence on 05/23/2018 09:47 am
Tajmar教授的腔体模态与杨涓教授的一致,极有可能是TE011模态,推力方向易出现180°反转。要确认推力是否来自腔体本身,可以采用对比法,将腔体替换成负载,看看是否依然存在推力,这个方法很简单
Translation:
Prof. Tajmar's cavity mode is consistent with Prof. Yang's, most likely TE011. The direction of thrust seems to reverse when the cavity is flipped 180°. To confirm whether the thrust comes from the cavity itself, you can use a comparative method by replacing the cavity with the load and see if the thrust still exists. This method is very simple.

Some of the earliest EM Drive experiments involved differential comparisons of these devices on a balance beam, mounted upside down and right side up. These experiments had too many uncontrolled variables, which led to the gradually more sophisticated test methods over the years. As sophistication has increased, the amount of "thrust" to be measured has decreased. Comparing the thrust in two different directions at this point would be a step backwards towards unaccounted for error sources, rather than meaningful measurements.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/23/2018 11:42 am
Translation:
Prof. Tajmar's cavity mode is consistent with Prof. Yang's, most likely TE011. The direction of thrust seems to reverse when the cavity is flipped 180°. To confirm whether the thrust comes from the cavity itself, you can use a comparative method by replacing the cavity with the load and see if the thrust still exists. This method is very simple.

The big problem is that when Tajmar flips his frustum, he flips the entire experiment box, including the amplifier, other electrical components, and most of the wiring along with it. This doesn't really make much sense if you want to isolate the contribution of the frustum alone.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 05/23/2018 12:13 pm
If the whole experiment can be rotated including the long wires, it is indeed not at all an experiment to measure the possible thrust produced by an EmDrive cavity, what a pity.

But if the Tajmar experiment is indeed an expensive giant compass, since the whole experiment can rigidly be positioned at various azimuthal angles, he could at least characterize it wrt the Earth magnetic field.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 05/23/2018 12:46 pm
Tajmar measured ~ 1 µN of force with only 2W of input power. According to Mike McCulloch (according to his theory of quantised inertia) thrust to power ratio does not add up in this 2018 experiment. At least his previous experiment (using a tiny oxidized cavity not even at full resonance and with a giant hole in the side wall to fit a waveguide) was consistent with QI.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ddt-KE-VQAAJA7R.jpg)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 05/23/2018 12:56 pm
Translation:
Prof. Tajmar's cavity mode is consistent with Prof. Yang's, most likely TE011. The direction of thrust seems to reverse when the cavity is flipped 180°. To confirm whether the thrust comes from the cavity itself, you can use a comparative method by replacing the cavity with the load and see if the thrust still exists. This method is very simple.

The big problem is that when Tajmar flips his frustum, he flips the entire experiment box, including the amplifier, other electrical components, and most of the wiring along with it. This doesn't really make much sense if you want to isolate the contribution of the frustum alone.
Agreed Jamie!

Also note to do the rotation they used a stepper motor (I even have an stepper armature on my desk, a left over piece) and it is comprised of magnets. It could provide errors as well. It is something that shouldn't be used in a test stand in this arrangement.

My Very Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/23/2018 01:33 pm
If the whole experiment can be rotated including the long wires, it is indeed not at all an experiment to measure the possible thrust produced by an EmDrive cavity, what a pity.

In fact, I spent part of Saturday working on making sure I could flip the frustum 180. This 3D printed 2.4Ghz TE013 frustum is much larger than I anticipated when I started building the test stand. I always intended to be able to flip 90 and 180, but the large size of this frustum would have bumped up against the bottom cross beam when turned 180. So I removed the cross beam (which was not necessary anymore because of other modifications), and raised the test stand a few inches to give me plenty of clearance below.  I also confirmed that I can flip it 90. 

You can see the difference in the two images below.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 05/23/2018 02:08 pm
Translation:
Prof. Tajmar's cavity mode is consistent with Prof. Yang's, most likely TE011. The direction of thrust seems to reverse when the cavity is flipped 180°. To confirm whether the thrust comes from the cavity itself, you can use a comparative method by replacing the cavity with the load and see if the thrust still exists. This method is very simple.

The big problem is that when Tajmar flips his frustum, he flips the entire experiment box, including the amplifier, other electrical components, and most of the wiring along with it. This doesn't really make much sense if you want to isolate the contribution of the frustum alone.
As RotoSequence said above, we are past the point where "flip and subtract" is the best method. The goal is to understand and remove error sources, rather than flip 180 Degrees and subtract, which will always potentially change something else. The attenuator test is there precisely because he knows the 180 degree flip may be flipping more than just the hypothetical thrust. (Also, more emDrive experiments should really do an attenuator test.)

Tajmar measured ~ 1 µN of force with only 2W of input power. According to Mike McCulloch (according to his theory of quantised inertia) thrust to power ratio does not add up in this 2018 experiment. At least his previous experiment (using a tiny oxidized cavity not even at full resonance and with a giant hole in the side wall to fit a waveguide) was consistent with QI.

That picture looks like stronger evidence than it is, since it uses data points from tests that we know were bad (like Shawyer, who handwaved away thrust direction flips with bad physics) Most of the rest are too clustered for a linear fit to mean much. The log-log scale disguises how much the bottom left corner would normally look like a giant scatter plot on its own.

Adding this new point to this graph does show that this experiment does provide new data pushing down the range of any potential thrust, by finally combining a well built cavity with enough removal of external error sources.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 05/23/2018 02:19 pm
Tajmar教授的腔体模态与杨涓教授的一致,极有可能是TE011模态,推力方向易出现180°反转。要确认推力是否来自腔体本身,可以采用对比法,将腔体替换成负载,看看是否依然存在推力,这个方法很简单
Translation:
Prof. Tajmar's cavity mode is consistent with Prof. Yang's, most likely TE011. The direction of thrust seems to reverse when the cavity is flipped 180°. To confirm whether the thrust comes from the cavity itself, you can use a comparative method by replacing the cavity with the load and see if the thrust still exists. This method is very simple.

Your translation mistranslated one sentence,

Quote
TE011模态,推力方向易出现180°反转
TE011. The direction of thrust seems to reverse when the cavity is flipped 180°.

It should be: TE011 mode. The direction of thrust (of which) tends to reverse 180° (by itself due to some subtle changes of its environment/configuration etc).

Words in parentheses are mine. Oyzw's statement is consistent with what Yang and collegues found in their experiment, that the thrust direction was 180° from that from Shawyer's and their own theoretic or simulation work.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 05/24/2018 06:21 am
This is the VNA sweep that looks for resonant rtn loss dips. Note how far down is the 1.865GHz dip when compared to the others. I have identified the modes of the other dips but not the 1.865GHz dip. A 55dB dip is not real especially when not confirmed by COMSOL or other such resonance analysis.

This suggests Tajmar was exciting a resonant coupler and not a resonant cavity mode.

Thus it is very likely little Rf energy entered the cavity and any that did could not excite a resonant mode.

I'm sure others here can take the EW cavity dimensions that Tajmar replicated, minus the EW dielectric and search for the resonant mode he excited at 1.865GHz?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 05/24/2018 08:28 am
Paul March (then head EW engineer) did a scan of the cavity minus dielectrics. Resonant mode, with best Q was TE012, 2.167GHz, 3.85mN/kWrf

This is public info so why did Tajmar use a freq that was not cavity mode resonant & was not the highest Q?

Lorentz was measured & applied.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/24/2018 11:27 am
I'm sure others here can take the EW cavity dimensions that Tajmar replicated, minus the EW dielectric and search for the resonant mode he excited at 1.865GHz?

This was already done by Frank Davies at NASA. COMSOL was used and TE212 found at 1880 Mhz (1.88 Ghz). I am assuming that is the mode as it is the closest to 1865 Mhz (1.865 Ghz).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/24/2018 11:32 am
Another thing to note is the mode Tajmar claims is TM212 at 1971 Mhz (1.971 Ghz) was identified as Tx3xx by NASA using COMSOL.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 05/24/2018 11:45 am
Paul March (then head EW engineer) did a scan of the cavity minus dielectrics. Resonant mode, with best Q was TE012, 2.167GHz, 3.85mN/kWrf

This is public info so why did Tajmar use a freq that was not cavity mode resonant & was not the highest Q?

Lorentz was measured & applied.

Those photos seems are about EW's 2014 paper. Their way of measuring Lorentz force was by replacing the cavity with a dummy load. However, the grounding schemes and lead configurations between the cavity exp and the dummy load exp were different, thus ground loop DC current were different, thus their way of measuring Lorentz force did not work. This was the main point of our 2015 arxiv paper, which was cited by Tajmar in his most recent paper.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 05/24/2018 12:09 pm
I'm sure others here can take the EW cavity dimensions that Tajmar replicated, minus the EW dielectric and search for the resonant mode he excited at 1.865GHz?

This was already done by Frank Davies at NASA. COMSOL was used and TE212 found at 1880 Mhz (1.88 Ghz). I am assuming that is the mode as it is the closest to 1865 Mhz (1.865 Ghz).

Jamie,

That analysis was with a dielectric at the small end. The mode was TE012.

Tajmar did not use a dielectric.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 05/24/2018 12:16 pm
Paul March (then head EW engineer) did a scan of the cavity minus dielectrics. Resonant mode, with best Q was TE012, 2.167GHz, 3.85mN/kWrf

This is public info so why did Tajmar use a freq that was not cavity mode resonant & was not the highest Q?

Lorentz was measured & applied.

Those photos seems are about EW's 2014 paper. Their way of measuring Lorentz force was by replacing the cavity with a dummy load. However, the grounding schemes and lead configurations between the cavity exp and the dummy load exp were different, thus ground loop DC current were different, thus their way of measuring Lorentz force did not work. This was the main point of our 2015 arxiv paper, which was cited by Tajmar in his most recent paper.

What Paul did was to remove the cavity, replacing it with a dummy load at the same location, moving nothing else.

This discussion is about Tajmar exciting his cavity at a freq it was not resonant at.

If you have cavity resonant data that supports a resonant mode at 1.865GHz for the cavity without a dielectric please post it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/24/2018 12:18 pm
That analysis was with a dielectric at thr small end.

Tajmar did not use a dielectric.

This analysis does not use a dialectric. It comes from Frustum Modes Overview 2A, which is without dialectric.  That is discussed here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.1680

I have also confirmed this analysis long ago with FEKO. No dialectric. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 05/24/2018 12:36 pm
That analysis was with a dielectric at thr small end.

Tajmar did not use a dielectric.

This analysis does not use a dialectric. It comes from Frustum Modes Overview 2A, which is without dialectric.  That is discussed here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38203.1680

I have also confirmed this analysis long ago with FEKO. No dialectric.

Jamie,

1.8806 GHz at TE012 with 2 dielectric discs is the data Paul shared.

Here is a phone image of his slide. Apologies for the poor image quality.

I can't find any non dielectric resonant mode at 1.865GHz. Can you?

Plus the way too low VNA rtn loss of -55dB strongly suggests it is a self resonant coupler freq.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 05/24/2018 12:43 pm
Paul March (then head EW engineer) did a scan of the cavity minus dielectrics. Resonant mode, with best Q was TE012, 2.167GHz, 3.85mN/kWrf

This is public info so why did Tajmar use a freq that was not cavity mode resonant & was not the highest Q?

Lorentz was measured & applied.

Those photos seems are about EW's 2014 paper. Their way of measuring Lorentz force was by replacing the cavity with a dummy load. However, the grounding schemes and lead configurations between the cavity exp and the dummy load exp were different, thus ground loop DC current were different, thus their way of measuring Lorentz force did not work. This was the main point of our 2015 arxiv paper, which was cited by Tajmar in his most recent paper.

What Paul did was to remove the cavity, replacing it with a dummy load at the same location, moving nothing else.

True but the grounding scheme and lead configuration were also changed.

Quote
This discussion is about Tajmar exciting his cavity at a freq it was not resonant at.

If you have cavity resonant data that supports a resonant mode at 1.865GHz for the cavity without a dielectric please post it.

I knew. I posted the unrelated reply because you added an unrelated statement to the discussion, "Lorentz was measured & applied." I just do not want people to be misled into believing that "3.85mN/kWrf" was real.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/24/2018 12:57 pm
1,880.6 GHz at TE012 with 2 dielectric discs is the data Paul shared.

I can't find any non dielectric resonant mode at 1.865GHz. Can you?

Plus the way too low VNA rtn loss of -55dB strongly suggests it is a self resonant coupler freq.

Please check what I wrote again: " TE212 found at 1880 Mhz (1.88 Ghz)"  I did not write TE012 at 1.88 Ghz.

However, I think you could be correct about them exciting a resonant coupler and not the cavity as if you look closely, there is a RL dip at 1.88 Ghz, where we would expect TE212.  There shouldn't be anything at 1.865 Ghz.   
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 05/24/2018 01:29 pm
1,880.6 GHz at TE012 with 2 dielectric discs is the data Paul shared.

I can't find any non dielectric resonant mode at 1.865GHz. Can you?

Plus the way too low VNA rtn loss of -55dB strongly suggests it is a self resonant coupler freq.

Please check what I wrote again: " TE212 found at 1880 Mhz (1.88 Ghz)"  I did not write TE012 at 1.88 Ghz.

However, I think you could be correct about them exciting a resonant coupler and not the cavity as if you look closely, there is a RL dip at 1.88 Ghz, where we would expect TE212.  There shouldn't be anything at 1.865 Ghz.

Jamie,

I have identified modes for the 4 rtn loss dips to the right of that massive -55dB rtn loss dip. But nothing for 1.865GHz.

Agree the little rtn loss dip is probably TE212.

Should add that Tajmar said he did not know what the excited mode was.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 05/24/2018 01:30 pm
1,880.6 GHz at TE012 with 2 dielectric discs is the data Paul shared.

I can't find any non dielectric resonant mode at 1.865GHz. Can you?

Plus the way too low VNA rtn loss of -55dB strongly suggests it is a self resonant coupler freq.

Please check what I wrote again: " TE212 found at 1880 Mhz (1.88 Ghz)"  I did not write TE012 at 1.88 Ghz.

However, I think you could be correct about them exciting a resonant coupler and not the cavity as if you look closely, there is a RL dip at 1.88 Ghz, where we would expect TE212.  There shouldn't be anything at 1.865 Ghz.
Just got on this morning reading these posts and I must say you both seemed to have shown why the Tajmar's team only showed Lorentz forces. Very nice detective work.

My Best,
Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 05/24/2018 01:46 pm
1,880.6 GHz at TE012 with 2 dielectric discs is the data Paul shared.

I can't find any non dielectric resonant mode at 1.865GHz. Can you?

Plus the way too low VNA rtn loss of -55dB strongly suggests it is a self resonant coupler freq.

Please check what I wrote again: " TE212 found at 1880 Mhz (1.88 Ghz)"  I did not write TE012 at 1.88 Ghz.

However, I think you could be correct about them exciting a resonant coupler and not the cavity as if you look closely, there is a RL dip at 1.88 Ghz, where we would expect TE212.  There shouldn't be anything at 1.865 Ghz.
Just got on this morning reading these posts and I must say you both seemed to have shown why the Tajmar's team only showed Lorentz forces. Very nice detective work.

My Best,
Shell

Shell,

Thanks.

As we both know, Rf microwave engineering is not easy. Tajmar needs a well experienced microwave engineering on his team that would instantly tell them a -55dB rtn loss on a VNA scan is false.

Plus where is the Smith Chart showing a nice round circle, crossing the centre line at 50 ohm impedance and showing equal amounts of L and C energy on both sides of resonance?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 05/24/2018 02:08 pm
McCulloch's opinion of the media reaction to the Tajmar EmDrive test:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dd92hZAUwAA46OZ.jpg)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 05/24/2018 02:12 pm
McCulloch's opinion of the media reaction to the Tajmar EmDrive test:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dd92hZAUwAA46OZ.jpg)
A farmer, an engineer, and a physicist were all asked to build a chicken coop. The farmer says, “Well, last time I had so many chickens and my coop was so and so big and this time I have this many chickens so I’ll make it this much bigger and that oughtta work just fine.” The engineer tackles the problem by surveying, costing materials, reading up on chickens and their needs, writing down a bunch of equations to minimize the cost per chicken, taking into account the lay of the land and writing a computer program to solve the problem. The physicist looks at the problem and says, “Let’s start by assuming a spherical chicken in a vacuum...”.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 05/24/2018 02:26 pm
Paul March (then head EW engineer) did a scan of the cavity minus dielectrics. Resonant mode, with best Q was TE012, 2.167GHz, 3.85mN/kWrf

This is public info so why did Tajmar use a freq that was not cavity mode resonant & was not the highest Q?

Lorentz was measured & applied.

Those photos seems are about EW's 2014 paper. Their way of measuring Lorentz force was by replacing the cavity with a dummy load. However, the grounding schemes and lead configurations between the cavity exp and the dummy load exp were different, thus ground loop DC current were different, thus their way of measuring Lorentz force did not work. This was the main point of our 2015 arxiv paper, which was cited by Tajmar in his most recent paper.

What Paul did was to remove the cavity, replacing it with a dummy load at the same location, moving nothing else.

True but the grounding scheme and lead configuration were also changed.

Quote
This discussion is about Tajmar exciting his cavity at a freq it was not resonant at.

If you have cavity resonant data that supports a resonant mode at 1.865GHz for the cavity without a dielectric please post it.

I knew. I posted the unrelated reply because you added an unrelated statement to the discussion, "Lorentz was measured & applied." I just do not want people to be misled into believing that "3.85mN/kWrf" was real.

White et al. (2017) in "Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum" (https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/1.B36120), Journal of Propulsion and Power, 33(4), part C "Vacuum campaign", section 8 "Error Sources", point 3 page 838:

"The third error is magnetic interaction, which has the potential for a false positive resulting from dc currents in power cables interacting during test article operation with ambient magnetic fields (e.g., local Earth field, magnetic damper) to generate a torque displacement on the pendulum. All dc power cables are a twisted pair or twisted shielded pair to minimize magnetic interaction. The test article is tested in forward, reverse, and null thrust orientations, but dc power cable routing and orientation is the same for all three configurations (power cables come in from the top of the test article), meaning any false positives will be the same magnitude and polarity for all three tests. This is not observed during the test campaign."

Eagleworks did not address the potential issue of DC ground loops, but their wires and electronics being fixed, such currents would have been the same whatever the cavity direction, so they would have been detected and could have been quantified if they occurred and affected the cavity behavior during forward and reverse tests. In such two tests, the grounding scheme was the same.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 05/24/2018 02:51 pm
1,880.6 GHz at TE012 with 2 dielectric discs is the data Paul shared.

I can't find any non dielectric resonant mode at 1.865GHz. Can you?

Plus the way too low VNA rtn loss of -55dB strongly suggests it is a self resonant coupler freq.

Please check what I wrote again: " TE212 found at 1880 Mhz (1.88 Ghz)"  I did not write TE012 at 1.88 Ghz.

However, I think you could be correct about them exciting a resonant coupler and not the cavity as if you look closely, there is a RL dip at 1.88 Ghz, where we would expect TE212.  There shouldn't be anything at 1.865 Ghz.
Just got on this morning reading these posts and I must say you both seemed to have shown why the Tajmar's team only showed Lorentz forces. Very nice detective work.

My Best,
Shell
I am disappointed.

Monomorphic and SeeShells, you have demonstrated with your experiments a commitment to the scientific method. But now on the prompting of one poster here who has repeatedly failed at entry-level physics, you jump on an explanation without any empirical evidence.

Never mind that no one has ever measured a large peak in any experiment reported here due to a "resonant coupler."

Never mind that it makes no sense for such a coupler to have such a high Q despite all the difficulty that everyone here knows goes into making high Q systems.

Never mind that they have a 3 stub tuner keeping more energy in the RF cavity, leading to lower reflections, so they should have a deep trough at the tuned frequency.

Never mind that TT claimed "not confirmed by COMSOL" in a post where he had attached a picture of the COMSOL simulation they did.

You apparently are giving up on science, and taking the path of jumping on the first explanation you are given that contradicts an experiment with a result you don't like.

McCulloch's opinion of the media reaction to the Tajmar EmDrive test:
Is everyone who has looked at the emDrive losing their minds? McCulloch has seemed reasonable before, but unless this was accompanied by an actual detailed explanation of a problem with the experiment, this comic is the equivalent of him plugging his ears and loudly saying "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU."

His comparison of this experiment to a dead chicken rather than a live one is significantly worse than any media treatment of this I have seen.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 05/24/2018 03:06 pm
On the contrary, I enjoyed McCulloch's cartoon. He has a good sense of humor.

Would like a sound comment from X_Ray about that 55dB dip of the S11 return loss.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 05/24/2018 03:20 pm
Paul March (then head EW engineer) did a scan of the cavity minus dielectrics. Resonant mode, with best Q was TE012, 2.167GHz, 3.85mN/kWrf

This is public info so why did Tajmar use a freq that was not cavity mode resonant & was not the highest Q?

Lorentz was measured & applied.

Those photos seems are about EW's 2014 paper. Their way of measuring Lorentz force was by replacing the cavity with a dummy load. However, the grounding schemes and lead configurations between the cavity exp and the dummy load exp were different, thus ground loop DC current were different, thus their way of measuring Lorentz force did not work. This was the main point of our 2015 arxiv paper, which was cited by Tajmar in his most recent paper.

What Paul did was to remove the cavity, replacing it with a dummy load at the same location, moving nothing else.

True but the grounding scheme and lead configuration were also changed.

Quote
This discussion is about Tajmar exciting his cavity at a freq it was not resonant at.

If you have cavity resonant data that supports a resonant mode at 1.865GHz for the cavity without a dielectric please post it.

I knew. I posted the unrelated reply because you added an unrelated statement to the discussion, "Lorentz was measured & applied." I just do not want people to be misled into believing that "3.85mN/kWrf" was real.

White et al. (2017) in "Measurement of Impulsive Thrust from a Closed Radio-Frequency Cavity in Vacuum" (https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/1.B36120), Journal of Propulsion and Power, 33(4), part C "Vacuum campaign", section 8 "Error Sources", point 3 page 838:

"The third error is magnetic interaction, which has the potential for a false positive resulting from dc currents in power cables interacting during test article operation with ambient magnetic fields (e.g., local Earth field, magnetic damper) to generate a torque displacement on the pendulum. All dc power cables are a twisted pair or twisted shielded pair to minimize magnetic interaction. The test article is tested in forward, reverse, and null thrust orientations, but dc power cable routing and orientation is the same for all three configurations (power cables come in from the top of the test article), meaning any false positives will be the same magnitude and polarity for all three tests. This is not observed during the test campaign."

Eagleworks did not address the potential issue of DC ground loops, but their wires and electronics being fixed, such currents would have been the same whatever the cavity direction, so they would have been detected and could have been quantified if they occurred and affected the cavity behavior during forward and reverse tests. In such two tests, the grounding scheme was the same.

This is their 2017 paper. We were talking about their 2014 paper. Seems they learned the lesson and in their 2017 paper there was probably no Lorentz problem but heat problem.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 05/24/2018 03:25 pm
1,880.6 GHz at TE012 with 2 dielectric discs is the data Paul shared.

I can't find any non dielectric resonant mode at 1.865GHz. Can you?

Plus the way too low VNA rtn loss of -55dB strongly suggests it is a self resonant coupler freq.

Please check what I wrote again: " TE212 found at 1880 Mhz (1.88 Ghz)"  I did not write TE012 at 1.88 Ghz.

However, I think you could be correct about them exciting a resonant coupler and not the cavity as if you look closely, there is a RL dip at 1.88 Ghz, where we would expect TE212.  There shouldn't be anything at 1.865 Ghz.
Just got on this morning reading these posts and I must say you both seemed to have shown why the Tajmar's team only showed Lorentz forces. Very nice detective work.

My Best,
Shell
I am disappointed.

Monomorphic and SeeShells, you have demonstrated with your experiments a commitment to the scientific method. But now on the prompting of one poster here who has repeatedly failed at entry-level physics, you jump on an explanation without any empirical evidence.

Never mind that no one has ever measured a large peak in any experiment reported here due to a "resonant coupler."

Never mind that it makes no sense for such a coupler to have such a high Q despite all the difficulty that everyone here knows goes into making high Q systems.

Never mind that they have a 3 stub tuner keeping more energy in the RF cavity, leading to lower reflections, so they should have a deep trough at the tuned frequency.

Never mind that TT claimed "not confirmed by COMSOL" in a post where he had attached a picture of the COMSOL simulation they did.

You apparently are giving up on science, and taking the path of jumping on the first explanation you are given that contradicts an experiment with a result you don't like.

McCulloch's opinion of the media reaction to the Tajmar EmDrive test:
Is everyone who has looked at the emDrive losing their minds? McCulloch has seemed reasonable before, but unless this was accompanied by an actual detailed explanation of a problem with the experiment, this comic is the equivalent of him plugging his ears and loudly saying "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU."

His comparison of this experiment to a dead chicken rather than a live one is significantly worse than any media treatment of this I have seen.
Forget your issues with TheTraveler, that is not the hot topic here.

Don't forget "There is no bad data", although it seems good data was interpreted badly here with Tajmar's team. And it seems everyone has jumped on his null tests without seriously evaluating his work.

In response to your post. I was questioning everything in Martin Tajmar's  presentation and what was a resonate frequency 55db dip. Including calculating out what mode they were running for the cavity dimensions.  Cavity dimensions they closely and methodically built to match EagleWorks.  Kept asking myself why they were 15MHz off in the frequency from EagleWorks resonate scans and operating mode. This was even before the issue with the coupler came up. As pointed out the numbers didn't match up to a resonate mode.

Whether I like or dislike test results (don't care either way if I'm objective) does not color the questions in lab test stand build or frustum build that need to be brought up. The builders here have been pushed and prodded to eliminate and categorize errors all of our home built test stands and we have taken years to do just that on a itsy bittsy budget. We should have the right to question other builds and data where we see glaring errors.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 05/24/2018 03:35 pm
.......

A -55dB rtn loss from the S11 VNA scan represents a VSWR of 1.004:1 which is an impossible real world result.

Yet it is there.

One explication is it was caused by coupler self resonance, which ignores cavity eddy current losses.

BTW a -25dB S11 rtn loss is an excellent real world result, VSWR 1.2:1, when dealing with a high Q EmDrive.

Maybe ask Jamie what S11 rtn loss his cavity generates?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RERT on 05/24/2018 03:53 pm
I emailed Martin Tajmar and he was kind enough to answer. I've put the input he was responding to in quotes. I've also stripped extraneous identifying email and other addresses.

Quote
You can pass on my response to the forum.

In general, I’m very surprised by this huge response. We posted preliminary results/work in progress, which was clearly stated in the paper. Work is ongoing, we will measure all the different frequencies/geometries/dielectric discs/higher power levels, etc. and hopefully publish the full analysis next year. So please be patient, more to come.

Regading your questions:

Quote
..... it would be that in none of the tests did RF energy reach the frustrum, thereby explaining why the application of the choke had no effect....

We did measure the RF-power going through our bi-directional coupler from the amplifier to the 3-stub-tuner and the cavity. We also measured the reflected power coming from the cavity. The input power was clearly bigger than the reflected power. So power can only be "lost" in the cavity. By tracking the minimum reflected power we always remained at resonance even during warming up of the cavity. Before test trials we did measure the reflection behaviour of the antenna inside the cavity (with NWA). Which means, that the antenna would radiate most of the inserted power (app. 80%) at certain frequencies which are the resonance frequencies of the cavity (standing wave, low power reflection back to antenna from cavity). Using the attenuator, we still measured the same input power, but the reflected power was so low, that our powermeters were not able to detect power anymore.

Quote
I was intruiged to note the suggestion that the Qfactor at that frequency was way to high, and note that Rodal and others had queried the Qfactor you noted in your earlier presentation.

In the design phase, we reached a Q-factor (with NWA, unstable) of about 300.000 and more. For test runs, a stabile Q-factor of app. 60,000 was measured with the NWA. This is the UNLOADED Q. Because of reflection at every RF-connector, lower radiation of the antenne due to warming up etc. the loaded Q is much smaller (around 700-1,000). This applies to the Eagleworks setup as well.

Quote
This is the VNA sweep that looks for resonant rtn loss dips. Note how far down is the 1.865GHz dip when compared to the others. I have identified the modes of the other dips but not the 1.865GHz dip. A 55dB dip is not real especially when not confirmed by COMSOL or other such resonance analysis.

This is a graph of the exported data from the NWA (unloaded case). The 1865MHz are matched with the 3-stub-tuner as good as possible. That means, the system antenna/cavity has a input resistance of nearly 50ohm. So there should be a minimum of power reflection at exact this frequency to the 50ohm-power-supply-system. So, most of provided power goes into cavity.

Quote
This suggests Tajmar was exciting a resonant coupler and not a resonant cavity mode.

Resonant coupling to what?

Quote
Thus it is very likely little Rf energy entered the cavity and any that did could not excite a resonant mode.

RF energy which enters the cavity and does not excite a resonant mode would be reflected to the antenna and increase the input resistance, the reflected power would be increased. That’s what we observe outside resonance. When we are at resonance, the RF power goes into the cavity as described above.

Quote
I'm sure others here can take the EW cavity dimensions that Tajmar replicated, minus the EW dielectric and search for the resonant mode he excited at 1.865GHz?

Every COMSOL simulation uses ideal geometry and material properties. COMSOL Eigenfrequency simulations also do not respect the antenne position and orientation which also supports certain modes.

I hope that helps. Again, more to come – please wait for the full analysis.

 

Best regards,

Martin Tajmar.

Gesendet: Donnerstag, 24. Mai 2018 12:44
An: Tajmar, Martin
Betreff: Comment in Nasa Spaceflight

 

Dr. Tajmar -

I was interested to see a comment today in the NASA Spaceflight/EM Drive blog, which I've pasted in below.

I'm sure everyone there would be very grateful if you were able to respond. If I were to try and paraphrase the argument, it would be that in none of the tests did RF energy reach the frustrum, thereby explaining why the application of the choke had no effect. I was intruiged to note the suggestion that the Qfactor at that frequency was way to high, and note that Rodal and others had queried the Qfactor you noted in your earlier presentation.

I could pass on any response you have, if you don't want to comment directly on the blog.

Regards,
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 05/24/2018 03:58 pm
Forget your issues with TheTraveler, that is not the hot topic here.
My post wasn't about TT, it was about your bandwagon jumping reaction to his post.

Don't forget "There is no bad data", although it seems good data was interpreted badly here with Tajmar's team. And it seems everyone has jumped on his null tests without seriously evaluating his work.
Your claim "it seems good data was interpreted badly" doesn't have any facts behind it, so you are not being objective.

We should have the right to question other builds and data where we see glaring errors.
You do have that right, but you haven't pointed out any glaring errors, and seem to have come tho the conclusion that the experiment must have been done wrong. Some difference in the frequency from a different build is not unexpected, and there isn't really a plausible alternative to the cavity being excited in a resonant mode for the VNA plot.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 05/24/2018 04:01 pm
.......

A -55dB rtn loss from the S11 VNA scan represents a VSWR of 1.004:1 which is an impossible real world result.
You don't get to talk about "impossible real world result" when you are claiming conservation of momentum does not work.

You didn't actually respond to any of my points, anything other than cavity resonance producing those features on the plot is what is implausible.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/24/2018 04:58 pm
You do have that right, but you haven't pointed out any glaring errors, and seem to have come tho the conclusion that the experiment must have been done wrong. Some difference in the frequency from a different build is not unexpected, and there isn't really a plausible alternative to the cavity being excited in a resonant mode for the VNA plot.

Claim made in Tajmar's paper: "Considering the magnetic field strength of the Earth’s magnetic field of 48 μT with an inclination of 70° in middle Europe, a few centimeters of cables and a current of 2 A (similar to what is needed to power the amplifier), we obtain Lorentz forces of a few μN, which is similar to our observed “thrust” values."

The image I posted clearly shows that there is probably over a meter of main power cables to the amplifier and then there is all the DC power that goes to the VNA, variable attenuator, stepper motor, etc. There is no way there is only a "few centimeters of cables."  That seems to be a pretty large glaring error.

As pointed out earlier, the entire experiment box rotates, including the long wires.  This was not made clear in the paper and doesn't make sense if we want to isolate the contribution of the frustum alone.

Then there is the Return Loss trace that shows a smaller dip very close to the main dip (which we have always been told to avoid).   Without an infrared camera image of the frustum walls to show a specific mode being excited, the RF could have gone any number of places besides the cavity.  This would be obvious by a hot spot in the IR camera where it shouldn't be.  That is the huge draw-back to my 3D printed frustum, it is impossible to see mode with the IR camera since PLA is insulative. Luckily Ozyw sent me his solid copper frustum and I should be able to confirm mode there.




Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SeeShells on 05/24/2018 04:59 pm
Forget your issues with TheTraveler, that is not the hot topic here.
My post wasn't about TT, it was about your bandwagon jumping reaction to his post.

Don't forget "There is no bad data", although it seems good data was interpreted badly here with Tajmar's team. And it seems everyone has jumped on his null tests without seriously evaluating his work.
Your claim "it seems good data was interpreted badly" doesn't have any facts behind it, so you are not being objective.

Sure I am, when he stated that the test stand and frustum were a compass, implying that they had taken extraordinary efforts to eliminate error, there were still build errors as we pointed out. A few were... Running a magnetic stepper motor in close proximity to the frustum and wiring, improper wiring (twisted pairs), limited to 2 watts RF because of thermal mitigation issues. Questions in modes run or the strange high Q (ask Dr. Rodal about that).

At least on the NRL test stand they realized the issues with the thermal (and Lorentz) causing errors, I believe Tajmar could take a few ideas from their build to incorporate into the next try.

We should have the right to question other builds and data where we see glaring errors.
You do have that right, but you haven't pointed out any glaring errors, and seem to have come tho the conclusion that the experiment must have been done wrong. Some difference in the frequency from a different build is not unexpected, and there isn't really a plausible alternative to the cavity being excited in a resonant mode for the VNA plot.

 
Not entirely true even when you think you have covered all the bases.

The sidewall loop antenna into a closed asymmetric cavity as detailed out here can cause issues.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1112/1112.3201.pdf
Pg 10.
Field distortions

This was the reason I quit doing waveguides and magnetic sidewall loops. It was never more apparent than when I was building the Yang/Shell frustum and we did a sidewall loop simulation and while the Q was high >50k and the numbers said the mode was correct the animated meep poynting data showed a different story of rotating fields and pointing vectors.

While this isn't proof they were not in the correct modes it does show that even other issues can crop up that are not apparent.

Shell
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/24/2018 05:17 pm
We should probably mention the makeshift aluminum foil gasket held in place with two clamps. Tajmar admitted that the frustum leaked RF as he stated that in his presentation (he was worried the European version of the FCC would coming knocking). That -55dB return loss could be most the RF leaking out for that given frequency. This should be quantified. I use an external antenna to monitor ambient RF from very near the frustum. I even completely rebuilt the small end twice because of unacceptable levels of RF leaking.

X_Ray has said that right angle connectors are known to have issues with reflections. It should be noted that Tajmar uses a right angle connector. I do not think anyone has used a right angle connector for the main RF input.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 05/24/2018 05:30 pm
You do have that right, but you haven't pointed out any glaring errors, and seem to have come tho the conclusion that the experiment must have been done wrong. Some difference in the frequency from a different build is not unexpected, and there isn't really a plausible alternative to the cavity being excited in a resonant mode for the VNA plot.

Claim made in Tajmar's paper: "Considering the magnetic field strength of the Earth’s magnetic field of 48 μT with an inclination of 70° in middle Europe, a few centimeters of cables and a current of 2 A (similar to what is needed to power the amplifier), we obtain Lorentz forces of a few μN, which is similar to our observed “thrust” values."

The image I posted clearly shows that there is probably over a meter of main power cables to the amplifier and then there is all the DC power that goes to the VNA, variable attenuator, stepper motor, etc. There is no way there is only a "few centimeters of cables."  That seems to be a pretty large glaring error.
Since increasing the length  of cables would increase the expected magnetic force, and the point of what you are quoting is that magnetic field interactions are a plausible reason for the observed force, I fail to see how this is an error of any sort. Since they are using twisted leads it makes sense that the effective length producing magnetic force is less than the total cable length anyway. (And if that didn't makes sense the question would be why didn't they measure more force.)

As pointed out earlier, the entire experiment box rotates, including the long wires.  This was not made clear in the paper and doesn't make sense if we want to isolate the contribution of the frustum alone.
Maybe you need to read the paper again. I had no problem understanding that from the paper, and there is a reason they used the attenuator test.


Sure I am, when he stated that the test stand and frustum were a compass, implying that they had taken extraordinary efforts to eliminate error, there were still build errors as we pointed out. A few were... Running a magnetic stepper motor in close proximity to the frustum and wiring, improper wiring (twisted pairs), limited to 2 watts RF because of thermal mitigation issues. Questions in modes run or the strange high Q (ask Dr. Rodal about that).

At least on the NRL test stand they realized the issues with the thermal (and Lorentz) causing errors, I believe Tajmar could take a few ideas from their build to incorporate into the next try.
Did you even read the paper? Things listed in the paper as "we will run more tests after fixing these issues" are not things you can fairly criticize the paper for. You are making it sound like they aren't aware of these issues, and that they are not already planning to fix them.

Let me emphasize something from Tajmar's response above:
Quote from: Tajmar
In general, I’m very surprised by this huge response. We posted preliminary results/work in progress, which was clearly stated in the paper. Work is ongoing, we will measure all the different frequencies/geometries/dielectric discs/higher power levels, etc. and hopefully publish the full analysis next year. So please be patient, more to come.
As he said, I found it clear in the paper that it was preliminary work with more to come, but it seems like some people (in particular emDrive supporters in this forum) keep missing that. He should get the same patience that the DIY builders in this forum are given.

X_Ray has said that right angle connectors are known to have issues with reflections. It should be noted that Tajmar uses a right angle connector. I do not think anyone has used a right angle connector for the main RF input.
They tracked the reflected power, so they can know just how much power is lost due to various sources of reflections.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 05/24/2018 05:32 pm
You do have that right, but you haven't pointed out any glaring errors, and seem to have come tho the conclusion that the experiment must have been done wrong. Some difference in the frequency from a different build is not unexpected, and there isn't really a plausible alternative to the cavity being excited in a resonant mode for the VNA plot.

Claim made in Tajmar's paper: "Considering the magnetic field strength of the Earth’s magnetic field of 48 μT with an inclination of 70° in middle Europe, a few centimeters of cables and a current of 2 A (similar to what is needed to power the amplifier), we obtain Lorentz forces of a few μN, which is similar to our observed “thrust” values."

The image I posted clearly shows that there is probably over a meter of main power cables to the amplifier and then there is all the DC power that goes to the VNA, variable attenuator, stepper motor, etc. There is no way there is only a "few centimeters of cables."  That seems to be a pretty large glaring error.
...

I think what he meant was (EVEN) a few centimeters of (unpaired) cable would cause problem large enough. At least this was my reaction the first time I read the statement a few days ago. It should not be regarded as a large glaring error, since most of his cables are paired/twisted; the net effect may be a just few centimeters of unpaired cable.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/24/2018 05:38 pm
Plus where is the Smith Chart showing a nice round circle, crossing the centre line at 50 ohm impedance and showing equal amounts of L and C energy on both sides of resonance?

Either their VNA doesn't have that capability, they didn't have time, or they chose not to show it.  With that second mode so close it will look something like this.   

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/24/2018 05:53 pm
As he said, I found it clear in the paper that it was preliminary work with more to come, but it seems like some people (in particular emDrive supporters in this forum) keep missing that. He should get the same patience that the DIY builders in this forum are given.

This whole discussion was started because someone said these specific results were "case closed." And it seems that a number of media outlets have also run with the same story. We are merely pointing out the reasons we think this is unlikely. You are welcome to participate in that discussion, but let's discuss the experiment, not your feelings. 

I welcome more tests from Tajmar, but it seems he has most of his work ahead of him.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 05/24/2018 08:08 pm
As he said, I found it clear in the paper that it was preliminary work with more to come, but it seems like some people (in particular emDrive supporters in this forum) keep missing that. He should get the same patience that the DIY builders in this forum are given.

This whole discussion was started because someone said these specific results were "case closed." And it seems that a number of media outlets have also run with the same story. We are merely pointing out the reasons we think this is unlikely. You are welcome to participate in that discussion, but let's discuss the experiment, not your feelings. 

I welcome more tests from Tajmar, but it seems he has most of his work ahead of him.
Someone saying "case closed" has nothing to do with the conversation I was involved in today. I quite clearly never said that.* I got involved when you and SeeShells jumped on TT's nonsensical explanation that the drive wasn't resonating. The difference between resonating and not resonating is important because it is a difference between the experiment just identifying what error sources still need to be eliminated, and the experiment  setting an upper limit on emDrive thrust. The second one is what is happening here based on the presented evidence.

I have been talking about the experiment not my feelings. I said one sentence and then moved on to directly discuss either the experiment, or statements and reactions of others to the experiment. If I am welcome to discuss the experiment, why aren't you addressing the primary content of any of my posts? (Hint: this question is best answered indirectly by responding to my statements other statements.)

*There are some things that are "case closed" for the emDrive, such as most things related to Shawyer. Lets not bother getting into those right now, they aren't particularly relevant.

OK, one more comment more related to feelings rather than the experiment.
On the contrary, I enjoyed McCulloch's cartoon. He has a good sense of humor.
In general, that is a funny comic. In this context, it seems to be a direct insult to Tajmar (effectively baselessly claiming that he didn't build the drive right), which is not funny at all.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 05/24/2018 09:33 pm
.......

A -55dB rtn loss from the S11 VNA scan represents a VSWR of 1.004:1 which is an impossible real world result.

Yet it is there.

One explication is it was caused by coupler self resonance, which ignores cavity eddy current losses.

BTW a -25dB S11 rtn loss is an excellent real world result, VSWR 1.2:1, when dealing with a high Q EmDrive.

Maybe ask Jamie what S11 rtn loss his cavity generates?
To me the simple answer, in the case of an S11 measurement is that each line crossing the center of the smith chart (almost exactly) will result in a huge return loss at that point. In the LogMag plot you can read how excact the condition Z=50Ω+j0Ω is satisfied for each frequency point. In theory the possible return loss can be infinite. In real world experiments it is finite because of several reasons but none of them is the Q of the cayity itself which is represented by the bandwidth not if there is any point on the curve where the impedance matches Z. You can have a low Q mode but with a proper couppling coefficient the return loss will be big.
The missing plot in the complex plane is a major problem here.
As first i would ask how well the calibration of the VNA was done, if there was a misstake the dB values say almost nothing.

As for the resonance dip in the plot i am with Jamie and his first thought taken from the analyzes of Frank Davies.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 05/24/2018 11:10 pm
.......

A -55dB rtn loss from the S11 VNA scan represents a VSWR of 1.004:1 which is an impossible real world result.

Yet it is there.

One explication is it was caused by coupler self resonance, which ignores cavity eddy current losses.

BTW a -25dB S11 rtn loss is an excellent real world result, VSWR 1.2:1, when dealing with a high Q EmDrive.

Maybe ask Jamie what S11 rtn loss his cavity generates?
To me the simple answer is, in the case of an for a S11 measurement that each line crossing the center of the smith chart (almost exactly) will result in a huge return loss at that point. In the LogMag plot you can read how excact the Z=Z0=50Ω+j0Ω  condition is present for each frequency point. In theory the possible return loss can be infinite. In real world experiments it is finite because of several reasons but none of them is the Q of the cayity itself which is represented by the bandwidth not if there is any point on the curve where the impedance matches Z0. You can have a low Q mode but with a proper couppling coefficient the return loss will be big.
The missing plot in the complex plane is a major problem here.
As first i would ask how well the calibration of the VNA was done, if there was a misstake the dB values say almost nothing.

As for the resonance dip in the plot i am with Jamie and his first thought taken from the analyzes of Frank Davies.

Xray,

I'm sure you are aware that couplers can have a self resonant freq. When excited at that freq the coupler will get very hot as its resistance is expending all the input energy as heat. The rtn loss value is so low because there is no energy coupled into the cavity and no eddy currents. So the VNA sees the resistance of the loop antenna, which at self resonance reflects very little Rf energy, instead getting very hot, well depending on the input power. A mini thermal load.

Tajmar needs a Rf engineer that will explain to him why a -55dB S11 rtn loss is saying "Danger Martin Tajmar, Danger".


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 05/25/2018 12:59 pm
.......

A -55dB rtn loss from the S11 VNA scan represents a VSWR of 1.004:1 which is an impossible real world result.

Yet it is there.

One explication is it was caused by coupler self resonance, which ignores cavity eddy current losses.

BTW a -25dB S11 rtn loss is an excellent real world result, VSWR 1.2:1, when dealing with a high Q EmDrive.

Maybe ask Jamie what S11 rtn loss his cavity generates?
To me the simple answer is, in the case of an for a S11 measurement that each line crossing the center of the smith chart (almost exactly) will result in a huge return loss at that point. In the LogMag plot you can read how excact the Z=Z0=50Ω+j0Ω  condition is present for each frequency point. In theory the possible return loss can be infinite. In real world experiments it is finite because of several reasons but none of them is the Q of the cayity itself which is represented by the bandwidth not if there is any point on the curve where the impedance matches Z0. You can have a low Q mode but with a proper couppling coefficient the return loss will be big.
The missing plot in the complex plane is a major problem here.
As first i would ask how well the calibration of the VNA was done, if there was a misstake the dB values say almost nothing.

As for the resonance dip in the plot i am with Jamie and his first thought taken from the analyzes of Frank Davies.

Xray,

I'm sure you are aware that couplers can have a self resonant freq. When excited at that freq the coupler will get very hot as its resistance is expending all the input energy as heat. The rtn loss value is so low because there is no energy coupled into the cavity and no eddy currents. So the VNA sees the resistance of the loop antenna, which at self resonance reflects very little Rf energy, instead getting very hot, well depending on the input power. A mini thermal load.

Tajmar needs a Rf engineer that will explain to him why a -55dB S11 rtn loss is saying "Danger Martin Tajmar, Danger".
TT,

high return loss (large negative dB value) means the detector in your measurement device detects almost no reflected signal. The hf-power somewhere disapeers, this can resulting from destructive interference, radiation loss or of course resonances in the system with associated thermal losses, either of single parts but more likely because RLC values of each network component act together with the others nearby. So the resulting RLC values (of cable, feed antenna, connectors, couppler, tuner, cavity, ...) as seen by the detector then may equivalent to the system impedance of the measuring device at defined frequency points in the spectrum.
What you describe is at least possible if a additional high resonant structure is part of the network. A way to test your theory could be to open up the cavity resonator and measure again. If the dip is still present it may be what you say, if it is gone it is most likely a cavity resonance.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 05/25/2018 01:32 pm
What you describe is at least possible if a additional high resonant structure is part of the network. A way to test your theory could be to open up the cavity resonator and measure again. If the dip is still present it may be what you say, if it is gone it is most likely a cavity resonance.
Opening up the cavity by say removing one end cap would make it basically a feedhorn antenna, which likely would effectively radiate near drive resonances. Better to replace the cavity with an open circuit, or otherwise a load known to be very mismatched. Might be what you meant, but I wanted to clarify.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 05/25/2018 02:11 pm
What you describe is at least possible if a additional high resonant structure is part of the network. A way to test your theory could be to open up the cavity resonator and measure again. If the dip is still present it may be what you say, if it is gone it is most likely a cavity resonance.
Opening up the cavity by say removing one end cap would make it basically a feedhorn antenna, which likely would effectively radiate near drive resonances. Better to replace the cavity with an open circuit, or otherwise a load known to be very mismatched. Might be what you meant, but I wanted to clarify.
To find "in system" resonances all the way along the cable path i would agree with you using a high reflective part like short or open (load not really because it will decrese the Q of possible in system resonances too..)
TT assumed a antenna resonance, to find out if this really happens it may be an easy to do thing what i said. Most of the possible standing wave pattern** in the frustum itself will be not present then. Moveing a plate of the truncated frustum could be enough to explore if the resonant frequency of the marked dip at 1.88GHz shifts in frequency. If so it is most likely no antenna resonance but a resonant mode in the cavity.

**Modes with index TXmn0 will still present.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mulletron on 05/25/2018 07:55 pm
A poor man's way of achieving the same result without a thermal camera. It glows in response to heat. Should mirror the mode being excited. Paint it on the outside of the cavity.

https://youtu.be/qhXbAoqWCwY
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 05/26/2018 06:32 am
Nice to see discussion and data flowing again.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: zen-in on 05/26/2018 05:26 pm
.......

A -55dB rtn loss from the S11 VNA scan represents a VSWR of 1.004:1 which is an impossible real world result.

Yet it is there.

One explication is it was caused by coupler self resonance, which ignores cavity eddy current losses.

BTW a -25dB S11 rtn loss is an excellent real world result, VSWR 1.2:1, when dealing with a high Q EmDrive.

Maybe ask Jamie what S11 rtn loss his cavity generates?

The VNA measured a S11 = -55dB so you can't say it is not a real world result.   If instead there was a high quality dummy load S11 would be just as low, but over a wide range of frequencies.   That would be another real world result.  The cavity just happens to be resonant at 1866 MHz and just about all the RF power is dissipated inside the cavity with very little being reflected.   I see nothing unusual about that.  We are barking up the wrong tree.

There are inconsistencies with the geomagnetic field interaction and other magnetic theories that explain the thrust.    Twisted power cables should cancel out any magnetic effects.  Even parallel conductors will do that quite well.   No attempt has been made yet to determine an optimum orientation of the experiment for the magnetic interaction.   If the whole apparatus was rotated there should be nulls and peaks.  This may be difficult to do but the fact remains there is not enough variability in the thrust to support a magnetic cause.   Mumetal is a wonderful material but is over-rated as a magnetic shield.  It's OK if you want to shield a Gaussmeter probe during calibration but for the purposes of isolating an EM-drive from the geomagnetic field it just won't work.

I still believe the "thrust" is a thermal effect.   Reading the paper by Martin Tajmar et al I see a very faithful replication of the work done by White et al at Eagle Works Lab at JSC.   The German team used a capacitor device for calibrating the force.   The thrust waveform when it is energized has a fast risetime and the appearance of an under-damped step response (ringing, etc) for a first order driving force.   That is what is expected.   However when the power is applied the trust wave form has a rounded and slower rise-time.   Immediately after the power is switched off the thrust drops with the shape of a decaying exponential waveform.   Those are the characteristic shapes of a second order step response.   I saw the same characteristics in the thrust waveforms that the Eagle Works tests produced.   Both are due to thermal effects.   Any EM-drive thrust due to RF being bottled up in a particular shaped cavity should have the characteristics of a first order step response, like the capacitive device.

Below is a section of one of the JSC EM-drive thrust waveform (Green) fitted to the temperature graph of an incandescent light bulb (Blue) after power on.   The time scales and vertical scales are different.  Both are exponential waveforms.  The latest experiments from Germany are similar.   I believe the EM-drive thrust is a thermal artifact.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TomH on 05/27/2018 04:03 am
5-22-18 Nat Geo Article re. EM drive testing @ Technische Universität Dresden, Germany

Simplistic summary: physicists theorize that the thrust that was measured is a product of an interaction between Earth's magnetic field and power cables within the mechanism.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/05/nasa-emdrive-impossible-physics-independent-tests-magnetic-space-science/?utm_source=quora&utm_medium=referral

(My own comment): If true, this would render moot most deep space use and limit productive research to travel within magnetic fields. Perhaps it might be effective at continual reboost for ISS. I suppose it might hold potential as a good way to power a space junk sweeper as it moves from target to target. Perhaps gravity assists at Jupiter and Saturn could be augmented with such a device. Or maybe interaction with the sun's magnetic field following a gravity assist from an inner planet.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: oyzw on 05/27/2018 07:42 am
Tajmor教授的这个腔体不具备Q50000的能力,他的腔体最高理论值在TE011下,但是S11不可能达到-55。而且它的天线形态无法激发TE模态,TM模态不可能有如此高的Q值和如此低的回波损耗。他的射频工程构建存在严重错误。另外,腔体信号系统并非闭环系统,没有腔体信号提取端口,不能实现腔体谐振频率的实时追踪,杨涓教授的系统能够实现完美匹配和模态锁定。我的观点是否有道理呢?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 05/27/2018 08:44 am
Tajmor教授的这个腔体不具备Q50000的能力,他的腔体最高理论值在TE011下,但是S11不可能达到-55。而且它的天线形态无法激发TE模态,TM模态不可能有如此高的Q值和如此低的回波损耗。他的射频工程构建存在严重错误。另外,腔体信号系统并非闭环系统,没有腔体信号提取端口,不能实现腔体谐振频率的实时追踪,杨涓教授的系统能够实现完美匹配和模态锁定。我的观点是否有道理呢?
If the mode in question was TE011 of course Q~50000 can be reached.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1536095#msg1536095
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=39214.0;attach=1116238;image)
This analysis was done with exact the same dimensions. The conductivity matches that of copper.

Again the return loss in S11 measurement depends on the couppling factor (impedance Z at a given frequency compared to the system impedance Z0) not the Q.
(https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1493685;image) https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1825112#msg1825112



I guess the team was able to rotate the antenna, if so the pattern can easy excited with this kind of antenna.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: oyzw on 05/27/2018 08:47 am
我赞同您的观点,在射频工程技术上保罗教授和杨涓教授的设计更加专业
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 05/27/2018 08:58 am
我赞同您的观点,在射频工程技术上保罗教授和杨涓教授的设计更加专业
I really hope the google translater works well...  ???

Quote from: google translation from oyzw's post above
I agree with your point of view. Prof. Paul and Prof. Yang Jie are more professional in radio frequency engineering.

I haven't made any statement about who has better skills in RF engineering. On the contrary, I would never make such statements without knowing the people and their abilities personally.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Mark7777777 on 05/27/2018 11:11 am
5-22-18 Nat Geo Article re. EM drive testing @ Technische Universität Dresden, Germany

Simplistic summary: physicists theorize that the thrust that was measured is a product of an interaction between Earth's magnetic field and power cables within the mechanism.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/05/nasa-emdrive-impossible-physics-independent-tests-magnetic-space-science/?utm_source=quora&utm_medium=referral

(My own comment): If true, this would render moot most deep space use and limit productive research to travel within magnetic fields. Perhaps it might be effective at continual reboost for ISS. I suppose it might hold potential as a good way to power a space junk sweeper as it moves from target to target. Perhaps gravity assists at Jupiter and Saturn could be augmented with such a device. Or maybe interaction with the sun's magnetic field following a gravity assist from an inner planet.

If that's the case can a galaxy's magnetic field be used?

https://public.nrao.edu/news/galaxy-magnetic-field/

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 05/27/2018 02:51 pm
Copper flower pots rule?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 05/27/2018 03:49 pm
Tajmor教授的这个腔体不具备Q50000的能力,他的腔体最高理论值在TE011下,但是S11不可能达到-55。而且它的天线形态无法激发TE模态,TM模态不可能有如此高的Q值和如此低的回波损耗。他的射频工程构建存在严重错误。另外,腔体信号系统并非闭环系统,没有腔体信号提取端口,不能实现腔体谐振频率的实时追踪,杨涓教授的系统能够实现完美匹配和模态锁定。我的观点是否有道理呢?
Google:


Professor Tajmor's cavity does not have the capability of Q50000. His cavity has the highest theoretical value under TE011, but S11 cannot reach -55. Moreover, its antenna shape cannot excite the TE mode, and the TM mode cannot have such a high Q value and such a low return loss. His RF engineering has serious errors. In addition, the cavity signal system is not a closed-loop system, and there is no cavity signal extraction port, so real-time tracking of cavity resonance frequency cannot be realized. Prof. Yang Xi's system can achieve perfect matching and modal locking. Does my opinion make sense?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/27/2018 04:02 pm
Professor Tajmor's cavity does not have the capability of Q50000. His cavity has the highest theoretical value under TE011, but S11 cannot reach -55. Moreover, its antenna shape cannot excite the TE mode, and the TM mode cannot have such a high Q value and such a low return loss. His RF engineering has serious errors. In addition, the cavity signal system is not a closed-loop system, and there is no cavity signal extraction port, so real-time tracking of cavity resonance frequency cannot be realized. Prof. Yang Xi's system can achieve perfect matching and modal locking. Does my opinion make sense?

It can't be TE011 as that mode is over 100Mhz away. The closest possibility is TE212, at 15Mhz away, but that is still a stretch. I noticed in the presentation, when asked by Rodal what mode they thought they were exciting, they said TM212. But TM212 is located at 2.45Ghz, which is 570 Mhz away!  I will give them the benefit of the doubt that they misspoke and meant TE212, but it just goes to show that they haven't put a lot of thought into what mode, if any, they are exciting. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 05/27/2018 04:13 pm
Tajmor教授的这个腔体不具备Q50000的能力,他的腔体最高理论值在TE011下,但是S11不可能达到-55。而且它的天线形态无法激发TE模态,TM模态不可能有如此高的Q值和如此低的回波损耗。他的射频工程构建存在严重错误。另外,腔体信号系统并非闭环系统,没有腔体信号提取端口,不能实现腔体谐振频率的实时追踪,杨涓教授的系统能够实现完美匹配和模态锁定。我的观点是否有道理呢?
Google:


Professor Tajmor's cavity does not have the capability of Q50000. His cavity has the highest theoretical value under TE011, but S11 cannot reach -55. Moreover, its antenna shape cannot excite the TE mode, and the TM mode cannot have such a high Q value and such a low return loss. His RF engineering has serious errors. In addition, the cavity signal system is not a closed-loop system, and there is no cavity signal extraction port, so real-time tracking of cavity resonance frequency cannot be realized. Prof. Yang Xi's system can achieve perfect matching and modal locking. Does my opinion make sense?

I approve this message.

AI is now amazing. Such an excellent translation is not possible just a year ago. But it now surpasses my translation. I guess "translator" as a profession will be among early victims of AI.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/27/2018 04:31 pm
To put it into perspective how much being off by 15Mhz means, simulations showed TE013 at 2.4042Ghz for my 3D printed frustum.  When assembled, TE013 was found right on the money at 2.40465Ghz. After aligning the small end parallel by using the screw adjusters to tighten down on the copper gasket, TE013 ended up at 2.40765Ghz. That is a difference of 3Mhz for ~2 mm of adjustments.

For TE212 to be 15Mhz off, Tajmar's frustum dimensions would need to be off by up to ~1cm.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 05/27/2018 08:52 pm
5-22-18 Nat Geo Article re. EM drive testing @ Technische Universität Dresden, Germany

Simplistic summary: physicists theorize that the thrust that was measured is a product of an interaction between Earth's magnetic field and power cables within the mechanism.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/05/nasa-emdrive-impossible-physics-independent-tests-magnetic-space-science/?utm_source=quora&utm_medium=referral

(My own comment): If true, this would render moot most deep space use and limit productive research to travel within magnetic fields. Perhaps it might be effective at continual reboost for ISS. I suppose it might hold potential as a good way to power a space junk sweeper as it moves from target to target. Perhaps gravity assists at Jupiter and Saturn could be augmented with such a device. Or maybe interaction with the sun's magnetic field following a gravity assist from an inner planet.

If that's the case can a galaxy's magnetic field be used?

https://public.nrao.edu/news/galaxy-magnetic-field/
Not really. The field strength of a DC-magnetic field decreases with the third power with the distance from its source**. The galactic magnetic field is rather weak. Therefore, the movement of even a strong neodymium magnet in free space is usually determined by its mass and impulse. The rather weak magnetic component acting on such a magnetized body is only of very low order.

**Yes of course i know due to Maxwell the magnetic field is free of sources. It is a rather verbal problem here, i hope it's clear what i meant.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/27/2018 09:34 pm
Not really. The field strength of a DC-magnetic field decreases with the third power with the distance from its source. The galactic magnetic field is rather weak. Therefore, the movement of even a strong neodymium magnet in free space is usually determined by its mass and impulse. The rather weak magnetic component acting on such a magnetized body is only of very low order.

Tajmar claims this is a compass-like effect.  A compass only works because of the central bearing and the electromagnetic fields imparting angular momentum on to the pendulum as they align it with the geomagnetic field. This would not be thrust, but more of a false positive thrust signal.

It is worth pointing out that last we saw Shawyer was testing using a linear air bearing.  As far as I know, he has never used a torsional pendulum. So the question becomes, is a linear air bearing vulnerable to false positive thrust using Lorentz forces?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 05/27/2018 09:42 pm
Not really. The field strength of a DC-magnetic field decreases with the third power with the distance from its source. The galactic magnetic field is rather weak. Therefore, the movement of even a strong neodymium magnet in free space is usually determined by its mass and impulse. The rather weak magnetic component acting on such a magnetized body is only of very low order.

Tajmar claims this is a compass-like effect.  A compass only works because of the central bearing and the electromagnetic fields imparting angular momentum on to pendulum as they align with the geomagnetic field. This would not be thrust, but more of a false positive thrust signal.

It is worth pointing out that last we saw Shawyer was testing using a linear air bearing.  As far as I know, he has never used a torsional pendulum. So the question becomes, is a linear air bearing vulnerable to false positive thrust using Lorentz forces?
Why not? It depends on the sensitivity of the apparatus, the strength of the inducted magnetic force and the vectors of both the earth (surrounding) magnetic field and the one generated by his system.

Did we saw results from him with respect to different directions against the earth magnetic field using the linear bearing based drive? Can' remember this.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/27/2018 09:49 pm
Why not? It depends on the sensitivity of the apparatus, the strength of the inducted magnetic force and the vectors of both the earth magnetic (surrounding) magnetic field and the one generated by his system.

I agree.  The Lorentz forces could push off the linear air bearing depending on how the bearing is oriented with the geomagnetic field. So perhaps what is needed is a low-friction table like an air hockey table. Build a self-contained engine and have it perform maneuvers on the table.  :D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Augmentor on 05/28/2018 01:27 am
Monomorphic

An isolation transformer as in the original experiment by Woodward is needed.

Then making sure shielded cables, not just twisted pair, and in critical areas, more isolation.  As necessary Triax cable but then we are talking real money.

Better PC board design/build efforts to reduce EMC and EMI.  Notably guard traces and again, isolation transformers for power, and for signals, optical isolation.

IMHO Tajmar wanted to shakedown his test equipment but only did a shakedown of the community and world by publishing unclear results.

When writing one has to write so as NOT to be misunderstood. Apparently, this paper is a work of art more than science and  english.

Martin will continue the hunt  and gets bonus points for attempting both emDrive and MEGA testing.

There is still the matter of physics in the case of the emDrive...

Is the emDrive simply a variation on the theme of Mach effects?

David

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 05/28/2018 03:39 am
Why not? It depends on the sensitivity of the apparatus, the strength of the inducted magnetic force and the vectors of both the earth magnetic (surrounding) magnetic field and the one generated by his system.

I agree.  The Lorentz forces could push off the linear air bearing depending on how the bearing is oriented with the geomagnetic field. So perhaps what is needed is a low-friction table like an air hockey table. Build a self-contained engine and have it perform maneuvers on the table.  :D
I volunteer to pilot the apparatus. If it can move my big butt we're halfway to Proxima... ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 05/28/2018 04:40 pm
Monomorphic

An isolation transformer as in the original experiment by Woodward is needed.

About this isolation transformer: Tajmar did NOT use it. Woodward said in his mailing list a couple of days ago:

Quote from: Jim Woodward
I should also mention that you may have heard that Martin Tajmar recently got results that disproved the reality of Mach effects.  Be not fooled.  Martin did not get any such results. Among other things, Martin did not employ an isolation/stepup transformer we sent him in the power circuit he used.  I neglected to tell him that the transformer was an essential part of the circuit (as I did George and Nembo).  This is addressed in the attached PPT file. Martin's presentation in Sevilla was not intended to give definitive results on anything.  It was intended to inform the audience about the state of the art nature of his lab at TU Dresden.  Martin has returned the demo device as agreed. But he will soon be getting a replacement, with transformer, to test on his balance.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: otlski on 05/29/2018 01:21 am
Why not? It depends on the sensitivity of the apparatus, the strength of the inducted magnetic force and the vectors of both the earth magnetic (surrounding) magnetic field and the one generated by his system.

I agree.  The Lorentz forces could push off the linear air bearing depending on how the bearing is oriented with the geomagnetic field. So perhaps what is needed is a low-friction table like an air hockey table. Build a self-contained engine and have it perform maneuvers on the table.  :D

The air hockey table puck concept with air jets coming through the bottom would be constantly steered by those jets as they impinged on the experiment platform.  At the thrust levels supposedly involved here, the inadvertent steering would overwhelm the experiment.

If inverted, and the air was released from the top from the experiment platform, this error would go away.  However, leveling errors would still exist as the experiment platform would seek the low spot.  Also, undulations in the surface flatness would cause similar issues.  The air would have to be stored on-board in a tank which either limits the time of flotation if too small, or causes mass/inertia response delays if too large.

A high quality hemispherical air bearing which allowed the experiment to rotate 360 degrees around would be a better choice as a base component; and several rotations of the experiment would pass through nulls and peaks in Earth's magnetic field.  Self induced motoring of such bearings can be quantified and subtracted out.  The one Eagleworks used appeared to be of poor quality and was not properly characterized.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThinkerX on 05/29/2018 02:34 am
Putting the whole apparatus on a miniature barge and float testing it in a basin of still water might be an option.  Or maybe a near frictionless platform on a near frictionless solid surface (ice, maybe?)  Neither would work in vacuum.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/29/2018 11:06 am
A high quality hemispherical air bearing which allowed the experiment to rotate 360 degrees around would be a better choice as a base component; and several rotations of the experiment would pass through nulls and peaks in Earth's magnetic field.  Self induced motoring of such bearings can be quantified and subtracted out.  The one Eagleworks used appeared to be of poor quality and was not properly characterized.

I think MIT's Maglev Cubesat Testbed is a more economical option than a high quality hemispherical air bearing. If the apparatus can hang far enough below, then interference from the electromagnet would be negligible. http://spl.mit.edu/spacecraft-systems
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 05/29/2018 07:32 pm
A high quality hemispherical air bearing which allowed the experiment to rotate 360 degrees around would be a better choice as a base component; and several rotations of the experiment would pass through nulls and peaks in Earth's magnetic field.  Self induced motoring of such bearings can be quantified and subtracted out.  The one Eagleworks used appeared to be of poor quality and was not properly characterized.

I think MIT's Maglev Cubesat Testbed is a more economical option than a high quality hemispherical air bearing. If the apparatus can hang far enough below, then interference from the electromagnet would be negligible. http://spl.mit.edu/spacecraft-systems

I am not sure that a Maglev Testbed would be a good choice for an EmDrive, at least until after establishing a repeatable useable thrust has been experimentally demonstrated/proven. Even if/when error sources have been designed out or identified and characterized, the EmDrive is inherently an electromagnetic device... and the magnetic field of a Maglev Testbed would have to introduce at least one or more additional sources of ... noise.

It seems from the sidelines here, that the focus on improving the current test bed designs is the best approach.., where the focus is to prove/disprove any potentially useable thrust. When and if a useable thrust is confirmed and repeatable, the use of magnetic and air bearings for rotary testbeds, would provide additional data about any potential sustainable thrust... the Maglev Testbed then being useful for vacuum chamber tests.

Still.., it seems to me that once a useable in atmosphere thrust was confirmed, the next step should be a redesign of the successful testbed, intended for replication of the in atmosphere experiments, in a vacuum chamber.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 05/29/2018 11:08 pm
A brief comment: it pains me that so much experimental error could be avoided by going for a better alloy than just pure Cu. Have talked in depth on this topic earlier.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 05/30/2018 02:54 am
I have access to one of these at work: https://www.physikinstrumente.com/en/products/guiding-systems/air-bearing/a-65x-piglide-hb-hemispherical-air-bearing-900712/
I have the 65Kg capacity version.

-- Emory

...
A high quality hemispherical air bearing which allowed the experiment to rotate 360 degrees around would be a better choice as a base component; and several rotations of the experiment would pass through nulls and peaks in Earth's magnetic field.  Self induced motoring of such bearings can be quantified and subtracted out.  The one Eagleworks used appeared to be of poor quality and was not properly characterized.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 05/30/2018 05:57 pm
Nice mandrel:

https://www.bunnings.com.au/eden-300-x-280mm-lime-estoril-self-watering-planter_p2940934
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 05/30/2018 07:34 pm
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41732.msg1628886#msg1628886
Phil (aka TheTraveller),
is there any news about your business related to the emdrive and what about the kiss-thruster project?
Does you have any news to share about it to the public? We are curious about the results.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 05/30/2018 08:33 pm
Phil (aka TheTraveller),
is there any news about your business related to the emdrive and what about the kiss-thruster project?
Does you have any news to share about it to the public? We are curious about the results.

X-Ray,

A super simple to build KISS thruster is being developed. Based on a commercial flower pot. More details & build pictures once the basic thruster is fabricated. BTW it will have KISS copper pcb flat end plates as per Paul's build.

Public demos of the KISS rotary test rig will be held initially in the UK then in the EU, US, Asia and Australia. The demo road trip is planned for early 2019 with the commercial TRL 9 satellite thruster system release in late 2019. Satellite thruster system is a totally different design and build vs the KISS demo thruster.

Projected build specs (subject to change):

Bd: 280mm
Sd: 150mm
Len: 308mm
Material: 1 oz copper PCB flat end plates, 0.5mm thick frustum
Mode: TE013
Freq: 2.45GHz
Df: 0.813
Ql: 22k
Force: min 11mN or 1gf
Forward pwr: 90Wrf
Rotary acceleration data as attached:
Rotary test rig image as attached (note 100W Rf amp to replace the 8W Rf amp shown)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/30/2018 09:05 pm
A super simple to build KISS thruster is being developed. Based on a commercial flower pot. More details & build pictures once the basic thruster is fabricated. BTW it will have KISS copper pcb flat end plates as per Paul's build.

Force: min 11mN or 1gf
Phil, a quick calculation using my spreadsheet indicates that your rotary test rig will only rotate 137.5° with 11mN of thrust.

My calcs come to 0.081476 mN/degree using 2 meters of #14 piano wire.  Those calcs are for 0.5 meters from center wire to thruster.  If you mount the thruster 1 meter from the center wire, then you will just barely get one 360° rotation at 0.034872 mN/degree.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RonM on 05/30/2018 10:27 pm
Phil (aka TheTraveller),
is there any news about your business related to the emdrive and what about the kiss-thruster project?
Does you have any news to share about it to the public? We are curious about the results.

X-Ray,

A super simple to build KISS thruster is being developed. Based on a commercial flower pot. More details & build pictures once the basic thruster is fabricated. BTW it will have KISS copper pcb flat end plates as per Paul's build.

Public demos of the KISS rotary test rig will be held initially in the UK then in the EU, US, Asia and Australia. The demo road trip is planned for early 2019 with the commercial TRL 9 satellite thruster system release in late 2019. Satellite thruster system is a totally different design and build vs the KISS demo thruster.

Projected build specs (subject to change):

Bd: 280mm
Sd: 150mm
Len: 308mm
Material: 1 oz copper PCB flat end plates, 0.5mm thick frustum
Mode: TE013
Freq: 2.45GHz
Df: 0.813
Ql: 22k
Force: min 11mN or 1gf
Forward pwr: 90Wrf
Rotary acceleration data as attached:
Rotary test rig image as attached (note 100W Rf amp to replace the 8W Rf amp shown)

I'm sure you're a busy individual, but you've been posting about KISS thrusters since 2015 without showing any progress on a build. Got any pictures or data to share?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 05/30/2018 11:15 pm
...

TheTraveller,

As discussed long time ago, your balance will not stay horizontal, but will tip over instead. You need to either add a rigid structure in the middle and mount the piano wire on the highest point of the structure, or mount the components on the down side of the wood plank.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: otlski on 05/31/2018 12:28 am
I have access to one of these at work: https://www.physikinstrumente.com/en/products/guiding-systems/air-bearing/a-65x-piglide-hb-hemispherical-air-bearing-900712/
I have the 65Kg capacity version.

-- Emory

...
A high quality hemispherical air bearing which allowed the experiment to rotate 360 degrees around would be a better choice as a base component; and several rotations of the experiment would pass through nulls and peaks in Earth's magnetic field.  Self induced motoring of such bearings can be quantified and subtracted out.  The one Eagleworks used appeared to be of poor quality and was not properly characterized.

Good quality there.  When PI bought Nelson Air a few years back they picked up some nice capability.  Our company both purchases from PI (very small bearings) and competes with them in slightly larger bearings.  Our current max capacity is 23,000 lbs but may increase pending the results of a feasibility study.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 05/31/2018 05:14 am
A super simple to build KISS thruster is being developed. Based on a commercial flower pot. More details & build pictures once the basic thruster is fabricated. BTW it will have KISS copper pcb flat end plates as per Paul's build.

Force: min 11mN or 1gf
Phil, a quick calculation using my spreadsheet indicates that your rotary test rig will only rotate 137.5° with 11mN of thrust.

My calcs come to 0.081476 mN/degree using 2 meters of #14 piano wire.  Those calcs are for 0.5 meters from center wire to thruster.  If you mount the thruster 1 meter from the center wire, then you will just barely get one 360° rotation at 0.034872 mN/degree.

Will be using monofilament fishing line.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 05/31/2018 05:22 am
...

TheTraveller,

As discussed long time ago, your balance will not stay horizontal, but will tip over instead. You need to either add a rigid structure in the middle and mount the piano wire on the highest point of the structure, or mount the components on the down side of the wood plank.

Will be using 4 bridle attachment points that join together well above the centre of gravity, plus using monofilament fishing line and not piano wire.

EmDrive, electronics and laptop will be inside 3 light weight 5 sided plastic boxes so heat can't generate any significant rotary torque. EmDrive can be rotated to point small end CC, CCW, In, Out or any desired direction.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 05/31/2018 05:32 am
Phil (aka TheTraveller),
is there any news about your business related to the emdrive and what about the kiss-thruster project?
Does you have any news to share about it to the public? We are curious about the results.

X-Ray,

A super simple to build KISS thruster is being developed. Based on a commercial flower pot. More details & build pictures once the basic thruster is fabricated. BTW it will have KISS copper pcb flat end plates as per Paul's build.

Public demos of the KISS rotary test rig will be held initially in the UK then in the EU, US, Asia and Australia. The demo road trip is planned for early 2019 with the commercial TRL 9 satellite thruster system release in late 2019. Satellite thruster system is a totally different design and build vs the KISS demo thruster.

Projected build specs (subject to change):

Bd: 280mm
Sd: 150mm
Len: 308mm
Material: 1 oz copper PCB flat end plates, 0.5mm thick frustum
Mode: TE013
Freq: 2.45GHz
Df: 0.813
Ql: 22k
Force: min 11mN or 1gf
Forward pwr: 90Wrf
Rotary acceleration data as attached:
Rotary test rig image as attached (note 100W Rf amp to replace the 8W Rf amp shown)

I'm sure you're a busy individual, but you've been posting about KISS thrusters since 2015 without showing any progress on a build. Got any pictures or data to share?

Goal here is to make this built very low cost and as simple as possible to replicate. Do hope many 1,000 will replicate it. Have seen many very over built cavities that achieved next to nothing because the basic EmDrive design and build guidelines were not followed. Building a 1st cavity is not a place for renvention of the wheel. Nor a place to copy a very low efficiency build.

General Principles for the Successful Design and Manufacture of an EmDrive Thruster
http://www.emdrive.com/GeneralPrinciples.pdf

I'm searching for a desired mandrel on which to form the frustum. Very difficult to do this without an internal form.

Once I find it, can then calc the final dimensions to achieve TE012 or TE013 resonance at a freq the 100W Rf amp can drive.

Then the frustum curve will be cut and the photos will start.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 05/31/2018 10:26 am
I'm searching for a desired mandrel on which to form the frustum. Very difficult to do this without an internal form.

Once I find it, can then calc the final dimensions to achieve TE012 or TE013 resonance at a freq the 100W Rf amp can drive.

Then the frustum curve will be cut and the photos will start.

Can you explain further the building process I'm not so sure to understand? Are you saying you are searching for a simple low-cost hollow conical object (a flower pot in plastic for example) with some special aspect ratio, in order to use it on a lathe to force some spun solid copper to take its shape?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 05/31/2018 10:48 am
I'm searching for a desired mandrel on which to form the frustum. Very difficult to do this without an internal form.

Once I find it, can then calc the final dimensions to achieve TE012 or TE013 resonance at a freq the 100W Rf amp can drive.

Then the frustum curve will be cut and the photos will start.

Can you explain further the building process I'm not so sure to understand? Are you saying you are searching for a simple low-cost hollow conical object (a flower pot in plastic for example) with some special aspect ratio, in order to use it on a lathe to force some spun solid copper to take its shape?

Mandrel is probably not the best word. I need a form that goes inside the frustum which can be used to assist forming the 0.5mm sheet Cu into a frustum, and in doing the butt joint side seam. The internal form dimensions will thus determine the frustum dimensions and might need the length adjusted to obtain resonance in the freq range the Rf system can excite.

Goal is to do the frustum build with no soldering plus hopefully there will be no flanges. All internal surfaces will be mirror polished to achieve as high a Ql as possible. If the Ql is not high enough, goal is min 40k, will get the end plates and frustum Cu electropolished. However that increases built complexity and cost, so will try to avoid going down that pathway.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 05/31/2018 11:21 am
Mandrel is probably not the best word. I need a form that goes inside the frustum which can be used to assist forming the 0.5mm sheet Cu into a frustum, and in doing the butt joint side seam. The internal form dimensions will thus determine the frustum dimensions and might need the length adjusted to obtain resonance in the freq range the Rf system can excite.
Thanks, understood. Although if the male form goes inside the frustum you probably meant "external" instead. "Internal" if it is the other way around, i.e. if the copper goes inside the female form.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/31/2018 12:39 pm
Goal here is to make this built very low cost and as simple as possible to replicate. Do hope many 1,000 will replicate it.

Switching to the 100W amplifier does complicate things somewhat. You will need a large battery and a voltage step-down regulator to keep the voltage from falling as the battery discharges. You should look at the Polish build for a good example of this.

I can't remember which forward and reverse power detector you are using, but that will usually require an ADC to function with the computer. 

I would also recommend a second computer off the test rig so you can use it to control the first computer via remote desktop.   Make sure they use 5G wifi as testing at 2.45Ghz will cause problems with standard wifi. The Polish group used arduino wifi at 900Mhz or so. And remember, even solid state computers have fanless vents to move air. Those need to be taped over.

I am also curious how you plan on impedance matching the antenna as that is not shown on your graphic.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 05/31/2018 02:48 pm
Bd: 280mm
Sd: 150mm
Len: 308mm
Material: 1 oz copper PCB flat end plates, 0.5mm thick frustum
Mode: TE013
Freq: 2.45GHz
Df: 0.813
Ql: 22k
Force: min 11mN or 1gf
Forward pwr: 90Wrf

TT, you said to Mike McCulloch that increasing the length of an EmDrive systematically decreases the force produced. Further you say "TE012 or TE013" but every time you put numbers in you still prefer TE013 mode before TE012 mode. I know Shawyer advised you to go for TE013 in 2015, but as you are aware, for the same wide end diameter and frequency, TE013 implies a longer cavity than its TE012 counterpart. So it seems to me this is rather contradictory.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 05/31/2018 02:57 pm
Goal here is to make this built very low cost and as simple as possible to replicate. Do hope many 1,000 will replicate it.

Switching to the 100W amplifier does complicate things somewhat. You will need a large battery and a voltage step-down regulator to keep the voltage from falling as the battery discharges. You should look at the Polish build for a good example of this.

I can't remember which forward and reverse power detector you are using, but that will usually require an ADC to function with the computer. 

I would also recommend a second computer off the test rig so you can use it to control the first computer via remote desktop.   Make sure they use 5G wifi as testing at 2.45Ghz will cause problems with standard wifi. The Polish group used arduino wifi at 900Mhz or so. And remember, even solid state computers have fanless vents to move air. Those need to be taped over.

I am also curious how you plan on impedance matching the antenna as that is not shown on your graphic.

Jamie,

Rf amp is a 100W unit that has inbuilt dual directional coupler plus 31dB attenuator in 1dB steps. Can accept 12 to 28 vdc input as it has onboard switching PSU. Comms are RS485 back to the laptop which also drives the freq gen via a USB port. Both Freq gen and Rf Amp have vendor supplied PC software to monitor and control them. Plus I have a PC program that also can control them and do the lowest VSWR tracking.

The coupler will be able to be moved up and down the frutum side wall and be rotated plus penetration depth adjusted. Experience has shown coupler tuning is best done inside the frustum as external tuners do nothing to fix any issue with the coupler and instead just make the load look nice to the Rf amp.

As stated the laptop, the electronics package plus batteries and the drive will be placed inside their own clear plastic 5 sided boxes that have much higher side walls than the object inside the box, so hot rising air can only move up and not sideways. Well not a lot. Considering using a smoke source to allow air movement to be seen.

Look we are talking about a min 12mN or 1.1g of force, or 120mN/kWrf, ie approx 100x what EW achieved.

A friend who is a keen fisherman is taking me to the fishing tackle store so I can buy a range of different tech fishing lines and using a spring gram scale, will twist up the rotarty test rig, loaded with equivalent book mass, so to measure how many revs can be achieved before the twisting up fishing line generates 1g of back torque. Then once the lowest torque, highest rev line is selected, will then proceed to map the back torque at various rotation points so there is a plot of back torque vs deg of rotation, which will later allow a position corrected dynamic accelerative force to be calculated. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 05/31/2018 03:10 pm
Bd: 280mm
Sd: 150mm
Len: 308mm
Material: 1 oz copper PCB flat end plates, 0.5mm thick frustum
Mode: TE013
Freq: 2.45GHz
Df: 0.813
Ql: 22k
Force: min 11mN or 1gf
Forward pwr: 90Wrf

TT, you said to Mike McCulloch that increasing the length of an EmDrive systematically decreases the force produced. Further you say "TE012 or TE013" but every time you put numbers in you still prefer TE013 mode before TE012 mode. I know Shawyer advised you to go for TE013 in 2015, but as you are aware, for the same wide end diameter and frequency, TE013 implies a longer cavity than its TE012 counterpart. So it seems to me this is rather contradictory.

Travelling wave transit time between the end plates varies with the cavity length and the integral of the group velocity. What I said to Mike was if the Q is held constant, ie constant 5x TC decay time (5 Qu) / (2 Pi Freq) sec, then the longer the transit time (longer length and/ or slower group velocity due to cavity design variant), the lower the number of transits during the 5x TC fill and decay time, the lower the number of end plate impacts/emission events and the lower the force generated.

With this drive, the dimensions are forced by the selection of the form used to make the frustum. A KISS build is not necessarily the way get achieve optimal force.


Consider a TE011 cavity at say 5GHz yet with the same Qu as a TE013 cavity at 2.45GHz. 1/6 the wavefront transit distance and with the same Q, 6x the number of inelastic (during acceleration) end plate impact / emit events during the 5x TC fill and decay time.

Then consider a TE011 24GHz cavity.............
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 05/31/2018 03:47 pm
Consider a TE011 cavity at say 5GHz yet with the same Qu as a TE013 cavity at 2.45GHz. 1/6 the wavefront transit distance and with the same Q, 6x the number of inelastic (during acceleration) end plate impact / emit events during the 5x TC fill and decay time.

Then consider a TE011 24GHz cavity.............

You are implying that the higher the frequency, the greater the force. Your hypothesis compares cavities with different frequencies but sharing "the same Q"… yet this ideal situation seems rather impossible in practice, as much larger cavities have higher Q factor than smaller ones, and larger cavities lower the frequency. This is why some people on these boards including myself suggested in a previous thread that if someone involved in this field had enough money, he should build a big L-band thruster like a "church bell" (such as the concept in Shawyer's IAC 2013 conference paper, operating at 900 MHz). So all this is not so simple as when you change one setting, all cursors move with respect to the others, and not necessarily in the right direction.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: bmcgaffey20 on 05/31/2018 05:48 pm
Phil (aka TheTraveller),
is there any news about your business related to the emdrive and what about the kiss-thruster project?
Does you have any news to share about it to the public? We are curious about the results.

X-Ray,

A super simple to build KISS thruster is being developed. Based on a commercial flower pot. More details & build pictures once the basic thruster is fabricated. BTW it will have KISS copper pcb flat end plates as per Paul's build.

Public demos of the KISS rotary test rig will be held initially in the UK then in the EU, US, Asia and Australia. The demo road trip is planned for early 2019 with the commercial TRL 9 satellite thruster system release in late 2019. Satellite thruster system is a totally different design and build vs the KISS demo thruster.

Projected build specs (subject to change):

Bd: 280mm
Sd: 150mm
Len: 308mm
Material: 1 oz copper PCB flat end plates, 0.5mm thick frustum
Mode: TE013
Freq: 2.45GHz
Df: 0.813
Ql: 22k
Force: min 11mN or 1gf
Forward pwr: 90Wrf
Rotary acceleration data as attached:
Rotary test rig image as attached (note 100W Rf amp to replace the 8W Rf amp shown)

I'm sure you're a busy individual, but you've been posting about KISS thrusters since 2015 without showing any progress on a build. Got any pictures or data to share?

Goal here is to make this built very low cost and as simple as possible to replicate. Do hope many 1,000 will replicate it. Have seen many very over built cavities that achieved next to nothing because the basic EmDrive design and build guidelines were not followed. Building a 1st cavity is not a place for renvention of the wheel. Nor a place to copy a very low efficiency build.

General Principles for the Successful Design and Manufacture of an EmDrive Thruster
http://www.emdrive.com/GeneralPrinciples.pdf

I'm searching for a desired mandrel on which to form the frustum. Very difficult to do this without an internal form.

Once I find it, can then calc the final dimensions to achieve TE012 or TE013 resonance at a freq the 100W Rf amp can drive.

Then the frustum curve will be cut and the photos will start.

To be quite honest with you sir; your under-estimation of the rest of the world to build a working frustum is insulting. If you think a "cheap and easy way" to break the known laws of physics, is actually the answer to getting people to 'believe' that this device works.... IDK what to tell you or any of your followers. Show us some real, tangible results and data already. At this point I don't think it really matters what it costs to build if you can show a working one. I thought 2017 was supposed to be an interesting year man.... what about 2018? 2019 is coming... I'm still waiting.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 05/31/2018 09:41 pm
Bd: 280mm
Sd: 150mm
Len: 308mm
Mode: TE013
Freq: 2.45GHz

When I run a sweep from 2.4Ghz to 2.5Ghz using these dimensions, I only find one mode at 2.41Ghz. Interestingly, it is one of those modes that looks like TE01x from one slice, but when we look at the surface currents, we can see that it is TE213 (thanks X_Ray!) instead.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 06/01/2018 05:08 am
Bd: 280mm
Sd: 150mm
Len: 308mm
Mode: TE013
Freq: 2.45GHz

When I run a sweep from 2.4Ghz to 2.5Ghz using these dimensions, I only find one mode at 2.41Ghz. Interestingly, it is one of those modes that looks like TE01x from one slice, but when we look at the surface currents, we can see that it is a TM mode instead.
Looks like TE214
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/01/2018 06:28 am
Consider a TE011 cavity at say 5GHz yet with the same Qu as a TE013 cavity at 2.45GHz. 1/6 the wavefront transit distance and with the same Q, 6x the number of inelastic (during acceleration) end plate impact / emit events during the 5x TC fill and decay time.

Then consider a TE011 24GHz cavity.............

You are implying that the higher the frequency, the greater the force. Your hypothesis compares cavities with different frequencies but sharing "the same Q"… yet this ideal situation seems rather impossible in practice, as much larger cavities have higher Q factor than smaller ones, and larger cavities lower the frequency. This is why some people on these boards including myself suggested in a previous thread that if someone involved in this field had enough money, he should build a big L-band thruster like a "church bell" (such as the concept in Shawyer's IAC 2013 conference paper, operating at 900 MHz). So all this is not so simple as when you change one setting, all cursors move with respect to the others, and not necessarily in the right direction.

Freq has nothing directly to do with force. However a cavity designed to operate in TE011 mode at 24GHz will have a very small distance between the end plates and thus the travelling wave will make the trip in a much shorter time than in a TE013 cavity with a length that resonates at 2.45GHz.

Lets take a step or two back and consider TE012 vs TE013 at the same Q. TE012 has a smaller distance between it's end plates than does a TE013 cavity. The travelling waves will transit between the TE012 end plates fasten than in the TE013 cavity. Thus for a fixed decay time of (5 Qu) / (2 Pi Freq) and a faster transit time for the TE012 cavity, it would be shown that the force generated by the shorter TE012 cavity will be greater than the force generated by the longer TE013 cavity.

The SPR force equation N = (2 Qu Pwr Df) / 2 is a simplifed equation and uses Qu as an approximation of the number of end plate travelling wave impacts during (5 Qu) / (2 Pi Freq) seconds. The real SPR force equation is more complex.

You might be interested in this analysis I did of the SPR and Qi force equations which suggests the Qi force equation is based on (2 Qu Pwr) / c, as is the SPR equation, with a similar equation to adjust the force per the ratio of the end plate diameters, which both SPR and Qi do.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/01/2018 06:40 am
Bd: 280mm
Sd: 150mm
Len: 308mm
Mode: TE013
Freq: 2.45GHz

When I run a sweep from 2.4Ghz to 2.5Ghz using these dimensions, I only find one mode at 2.41Ghz. Interestingly, it is one of those modes that looks like TE01x from one slice, but when we look at the surface currents, we can see that it is a TM mode instead.

Jamie I do have a concern about your use of a circular coupler in the middle of the small end plate.

Exciting a cavity needs to generate travelling waves that move in opposite directions. This is normally achieved by using a sidewall coupler where the big end lobe E field strength is the highest. That point is 1/4 guide wave from the big end. As such when the coupler is excited, some of the energy propogates toward the big end being 1/4 guide wave away, gets a 180 deg flip and comes back to the coupler in phase with the exciting freq.

Same principal is used to design cantennas.

Is why as you will see, the side wall mounted coupler in the KISS drive can be slid up and down the side wall so to find the ideal 1/4 guide wave point from the big end and achieves really good coupler match to the amp without needing an external tuner.

Roger did something like this for the Flight Thruster as he explains:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUX8EWxmS3k?t=553
(start  time 9:12 if the link opens at the start of the video)

Bottom line is you need to physically tune the coupler to obtain the best match.

Attached image with Roger pointing to the Flight Thruster inbuilt coupler tuner.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: oyzw on 06/01/2018 07:54 am
Bd: 280mm
Sd: 150mm
Len: 308mm
Mode: TE013
Freq: 2.45GHz

When I run a sweep from 2.4Ghz to 2.5Ghz using these dimensions, I only find one mode at 2.41Ghz. Interestingly, it is one of those modes that looks like TE01x from one slice, but when we look at the surface currents, we can see that it is a TM mode instead.

Jamie I do have a concern about your use of a circular coupler in the middle of the small end plate.

Exciting a cavity needs to generate travelling waves that move in opposite directions. This is normally achieved by using a sidewall coupler where the big end lobe E field strength is the highest. That point is 1/4 guide wave from the big end. As such when the coupler is excited, some of the energy propogates toward the big end being 1/4 guide wave away, gets a 180 deg flip and comes back to the coupler in phase with the exciting freq.

Same principal is used to design cantennas.

Is why as you will see, the side wall mounted coupler in the KISS drive can be slid up and down the side wall so to find the ideal 1/4 guide wave point from the big end and achieves really good coupler match to the amp without needing an external tuner.

Roger did something like this for the Flight Thruster as he explains:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUX8EWxmS3k?t=553
(start  time 9:12 if the link opens at the start of the video)

Bottom line is you need to physically tune the coupler to obtain the best match.

Attached image with Roger pointing to the Flight Thruster inbuilt coupler tuner.
您的解释非常有价值,我同样认为锁定TE01X模态,需要采用侧壁耦合环天线。
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/01/2018 08:16 am
Bd: 280mm
Sd: 150mm
Len: 308mm
Mode: TE013
Freq: 2.45GHz

When I run a sweep from 2.4Ghz to 2.5Ghz using these dimensions, I only find one mode at 2.41Ghz. Interestingly, it is one of those modes that looks like TE01x from one slice, but when we look at the surface currents, we can see that it is a TM mode instead.

Jamie I do have a concern about your use of a circular coupler in the middle of the small end plate.

Exciting a cavity needs to generate travelling waves that move in opposite directions. This is normally achieved by using a sidewall coupler where the big end lobe E field strength is the highest. That point is 1/4 guide wave from the big end. As such when the coupler is excited, some of the energy propogates toward the big end being 1/4 guide wave away, gets a 180 deg flip and comes back to the coupler in phase with the exciting freq.

Same principal is used to design cantennas.

Is why as you will see, the side wall mounted coupler in the KISS drive can be slid up and down the side wall so to find the ideal 1/4 guide wave point from the big end and achieves really good coupler match to the amp without needing an external tuner.

Roger did something like this for the Flight Thruster as he explains:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUX8EWxmS3k?t=553
(start  time 9:12 if the link opens at the start of the video)

Bottom line is you need to physically tune the coupler to obtain the best match.

Attached image with Roger pointing to the Flight Thruster inbuilt coupler tuner.
您的解释非常有价值,我同样认为锁定TE01X模态,需要采用侧壁耦合环天线。

"Your explanation is very valuable. I also think that locking the TE01X mode requires the use of a side-coupled loop antenna."

For ease of replication, will 1st try a 1/4 wave stub antenna being 1/4 the excited resonant wavelength, which at 2.45GHz is 30.55mm. As Rf input power is low and the E field intensity at the big end lobe is the lowest of the lobes, hopefully the end of the stub antenna sticking into the big end E field lobe will not turn into a match.

Then it needs to be placed on the side wall at 1/4 guide wavelength from the big end, which needs simulation as the tapered cavity generates a continually varying guide wavelength and is why it needs to be able to be slid along the side wall so to find the optimal 1/4 guide wavelength spacing from the big end position as simulations are never good enough.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/01/2018 11:50 am
Jamie I do have a concern about your use of a circular coupler in the middle of the small end plate.

Exciting a cavity needs to generate travelling waves that move in opposite directions. This is normally achieved by using a sidewall coupler where the big end lobe E field strength is the highest. That point is 1/4 guide wave from the big end. As such when the coupler is excited, some of the energy propogates toward the big end being 1/4 guide wave away, gets a 180 deg flip and comes back to the coupler in phase with the exciting freq.

I have very little doubt that TE013 is being excited with the circular antenna at the small end because simulations show that it is TE013. Also, when adjusting the screws on the small end, the RL trace moves up and down - which generally means the cavity is resonating, not the system.  The microwaves reflect off the small end and destructively interfere with the waves reflecting off the big end. This also requires moving the antenna up and down along the Z axis to find the best spot. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 06/01/2018 11:56 am
Jamie I do have a concern about your use of a circular coupler in the middle of the small end plate.

Exciting a cavity needs to generate travelling waves that move in opposite directions. This is normally achieved by using a sidewall coupler where the big end lobe E field strength is the highest. That point is 1/4 guide wave from the big end. As such when the coupler is excited, some of the energy propogates toward the big end being 1/4 guide wave away, gets a 180 deg flip and comes back to the coupler in phase with the exciting freq.

I have very little doubt that TE013 is being excited with the circular antenna at the small end because simulations show that it is TE013. Also, when adjusting the screws on the small end, the RL trace moves up and down - which generally means the cavity is resonating, not the system.  The microwaves reflect off the small end and destructively interfere with the waves reflecting off the big end. This also requires moving the antenna up and down along the Z axis to find the best spot.

Jamie, may it be possible that your antenna placement in the middle of the small end works well with your own cavity (i.e. it indeed triggers a resonant TE013 mode) but not with some other aspect ratios like the cavity design just presented by TT (as you didn't find any TE013 mode with this cavity in a 2.4–2.5GHz sweep simulation for the antenna located at small end axis)?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/01/2018 12:05 pm
Jamie, may it be possible that your antenna placement in the middle of the small end works well with your own cavity (i.e. it indeed triggers a resonant TE013 mode) but not with some other aspect ratios like the cavity design just presented by TT (as you didn't find any TE013 mode with this cavity in a 2.4–2.5GHz sweep simulation for the antenna located at small end axis)?

It's possible and it is a simple matter to change the antenna type and location and run another sweep. We tried 1/4 wave stub and loop antennas on the sidewall long ago and it didn't seem to make any difference except the stub will excite different modes than the loop. So with TT's newest dimensions and at 2.45Ghz the wavelength is 12.236cm. 1/4 wavelength is 3.06cm from the big end. That is where I will place the antenna.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/01/2018 12:50 pm
Jamie, may it be possible that your antenna placement in the middle of the small end works well with your own cavity (i.e. it indeed triggers a resonant TE013 mode) but not with some other aspect ratios like the cavity design just presented by TT (as you didn't find any TE013 mode with this cavity in a 2.4–2.5GHz sweep simulation for the antenna located at small end axis)?

It's possible and it is a simple matter to change the antenna type and location and run another sweep. We tried 1/4 wave stub and loop antennas on the sidewall long ago and it didn't seem to make any difference except the stub will excite different modes than the loop. So with TT's newest dimensions and at 2.45Ghz the wavelength is 12.236cm. 1/4 wavelength is 3.06cm from the big end. That is where I will place the antenna.

Jamie,

The coupler needs to be 1/4 guide wavelength from the big end plate and not 1/4 excitation wavelength from the big end plate. As the guide wavelength alters as the cavity diameter alters, it is not a straight forward measurement. Which is why the coupler Rf connector needs to be designed into a sliding arrangement that can be moved toward and away from the big end to optimise coupler efficiency and lowest VSWR without needing nor using an external 3 pot tuner.

Plus you may need to bend the antenna a bit and move it in and out a bit to get an even better position and coupler efficiency.

BTW it is altering guide wavelength, smaller with larger diameter and longer with smaller diameter, that causes the small end 1/2 wave to be longer than the big end 1/2 wave.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 06/01/2018 01:24 pm
The antenna placement discussion is interesting. But speaking of Shawyer and replication:

Look we are talking about a min 12mN or 1.1g of force, or 120mN/kWrf, ie approx 100x what EW achieved.

The main problem with Shawyer's EmDrive (besides his own theory, as his working principles are rejected by almost all physicists) is that Shawyer doesn't allow any proper IV&V.

Take Woodward's Mach Effect Thrusters for example, now called MEGA (Mach Effect Gravity Assist) drives. Completely different story (again, besides the fact Woodward has a sound working theory and tests his models in a vacuum). Woodward and his team build test articles in California, and they ship them to independent labs, e.g. George Hathaway in Toronto, Canada; and in Europe: Nembo Buldrini in Wiener Neustadt, Austria; and Martin Tajmar in Dresden, Germany… so they can test these thrusters with their own sensitive balance test rigs.

(http://ayuba.fr/images/emdrive/MEGA-drive.jpg)
A recent Mach Effect Thruster or MEGA drive built by Jim Woodward.
Before being enclosed in a mu-metal box and tested in a vacuum.



All Shawyer had to do is to ship from UK a "Flight Thruster" presented in the video (a ten-year-old model that according to him produces 100× to 300× the thrust of the Eagleworks Brady cavity) to Martin Tajmar in Germany. Even an older SPR model with flat end plates could have done the trick.

(http://ayuba.fr/images/emdrive/flight-thruster.jpg)
An EmDrive (the "Flight Thruster" 2008 version) presented by Roger Shawyer.

There is no good reason he refused and still refuses to do so. NDAs, etc. are nothing but red herrings that do not hold anymore for old models, especially when Shawyer is able to show some of these old thrusters on TV; that 2008 contracts and export licences have expired; and the tech nowadays (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/8c/a3/e2/5c1a433de94de8/GB2493361A.pdf) is said to be based on more advanced superconducting "2nd gen" thrusters. Therefore, unlike Woodward, this behavior looks like a scam.

The timeline is also dubious and reinforces the impression: the EmDrive had been invented a couple of years ago, there would be no issue. But it has been imagined thirty years ago, in 1988 (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/40/2f/01/afe95cd34c9540/GB2229865A.pdf) as a cylinder with a dielectric, and 1998 (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/50/85/7a/1073a67d5ff7d1/GB2334761A.pdf) as a truncated cone, and first built in 2001, so this story has been the same for 17 years (and I'm only taking the first prototype as a beginning). The propellantless thrust is not the only thing anomalous with the impossible drive.

"100× to 300× what EW achieved" has been measured (claimed) by only two individuals in the world: Roger Shawyer, and Phil Wilson (TheTraveller). Although TT states that besides his own (unpublished) tests, several other companies have successfully replicated SPR EmDrives, achieved high thrust levels and are on the verge to launch commercial thrusters… they have not published anything, so there is absolutely no evidence. In science, this is equal to something that does not even exist, so these claims can't be taken into account at all, as they could be genuine, gossip or even deceptive. Same for the Chinese announcements in 2017 from Yue Chen at CAST.
There are only three controlled valuable experiments acceptable to date:
- NASA Eagleworks (tiny thrust levels barely above the noise)
- Chinese Northwestern Polytechnical University (first high power positive results later retracted)
- TU Dresden (major flaws in experiments for now)
And that's all. So everything could be thermal or EM interactions.
SPR Ltd. data is rather sparse and Roger Shawyer being the inventor, his thrusters cannot count in the IV&V list.
Everything else has been only claims for a long time, and is still the case for now.

Monomorphic is the only remaining active hope for the future on the front of DIYers, as proven by his frequently updated cavity and test rig, that are both very well built and regularly shared with the community. I hope Michelle Broyles aka SeeShells will resume her work as well, and Paul March aka Star-Drive can start his activities in his own private lab. I still hope that Phil Wilson aka TheTraveller will share pictures and videos of his own EmDrives, even if the wait has been long overdue and keeps going, and the hope is therefore fading away.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/01/2018 02:15 pm
I still hope that Phil Wilson aka TheTraveller will share pictures and videos of his own EmDrives, even if the wait has been long overdue and keeps going, and the hope is therefore fading away.

Consider if you will what the effect on you and others will be when you see my KISS drive and KISS rotary test rig spinning round and round?

Plus you and others get to see all the build steps and learn a few not until now revealed critical secrets on how to build an EmDrive that no one had previously considered. Including many so called experts. Any you ask why many failed?

As example that input tuner on the Flight Thruster has been pointed out by myself before. But did any other builder take notice, work to understand why it was there and incorporate it into their build? No. None.

And you question why builders with little or no microwave experience can't build something better than what EW did.

Maybe ask Sonny White why he did not follow the data, abandon the dielectric and explore TE012 mode operation without a dielectric as it was found to have over 3x the specific force as when using the dielectric. Isn't the rule to FOLLOW tHE DATA?

Why did the force direction change? Well in fact it didn't. It followed the end with the shortest 1/2 guide wavelength, fastest group velocity and highest radiation pressure. As per SPR theory.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 06/01/2018 02:17 pm
Jamie I do have a concern about your use of a circular coupler in the middle of the small end plate.

Exciting a cavity needs to generate travelling waves that move in opposite directions. This is normally achieved by using a sidewall coupler where the big end lobe E field strength is the highest. That point is 1/4 guide wave from the big end. As such when the coupler is excited, some of the energy propogates toward the big end being 1/4 guide wave away, gets a 180 deg flip and comes back to the coupler in phase with the exciting freq.

I have very little doubt that TE013 is being excited with the circular antenna at the small end because simulations show that it is TE013. Also, when adjusting the screws on the small end, the RL trace moves up and down - which generally means the cavity is resonating, not the system.  The microwaves reflect off the small end and destructively interfere with the waves reflecting off the big end. This also requires moving the antenna up and down along the Z axis to find the best spot.

Jamie, may it be possible that your antenna placement in the middle of the small end works well with your own cavity (i.e. it indeed triggers a resonant TE013 mode) but not with some other aspect ratios like the cavity design just presented by TT (as you didn't find any TE013 mode with this cavity in a 2.4–2.5GHz sweep simulation for the antenna located at small end axis)?
The Eigen-frequencies of a cavity resonator is given from its dimensions. When a coupler is placed into the cavity its presence can push the resonant frequency a bit, depending on its shape. This effect does not change the Eigen-frequency spectrum much. Different kind of couplers are able to excite a Eigenresonance. Depending on the vectors field generated by the antenna the coupling factor changes. The Loop antenna used by Jamie is of course a good choice to excite TE01p modes, but if there is no Eigen-frequency solution of this kind within the bandwidth there is nothing to excite.

For the given dimensions TE012(~2 GHz) and TE013(~2.3 GHz) are much lower in frequency, TE014(~2.65GHz) is above the discussed band between 2.4 GHz and 2.5 GHz
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/01/2018 02:30 pm
Jamie I do have a concern about your use of a circular coupler in the middle of the small end plate.

Exciting a cavity needs to generate travelling waves that move in opposite directions. This is normally achieved by using a sidewall coupler where the big end lobe E field strength is the highest. That point is 1/4 guide wave from the big end. As such when the coupler is excited, some of the energy propogates toward the big end being 1/4 guide wave away, gets a 180 deg flip and comes back to the coupler in phase with the exciting freq.

I have very little doubt that TE013 is being excited with the circular antenna at the small end because simulations show that it is TE013. Also, when adjusting the screws on the small end, the RL trace moves up and down - which generally means the cavity is resonating, not the system.  The microwaves reflect off the small end and destructively interfere with the waves reflecting off the big end. This also requires moving the antenna up and down along the Z axis to find the best spot.

Jamie, may it be possible that your antenna placement in the middle of the small end works well with your own cavity (i.e. it indeed triggers a resonant TE013 mode) but not with some other aspect ratios like the cavity design just presented by TT (as you didn't find any TE013 mode with this cavity in a 2.4–2.5GHz sweep simulation for the antenna located at small end axis)?
The Eigen-frequencies of a cavity resonator is given from its dimensions. When a coupler is placed into the cavity its presence can push the resonant frequency a bit, depending on its shape. This effect does not change the Eigen-frequency spectrum much. Different kind of couplers are able to excite a Eigenresonance. Depending on the vectors field generated by the antenna the coupling factor changes. The Loop antenna used by Jamie is of course a good choice to excite TE01p modes, but if there is no Eigen-frequency solution of this kind within the bandwidth there is nothing to excite.

For the given dimensions TE012(~2 GHz) and TE013(~2.3 GHz) are much lower in frequency, TE014(~2.65GHz) is above the discussed band between 2.4 GHz and 2.5 GHz

The small end is only 13MHz above cutoff. Know from experience that neither Feko nor COMSOL properly handle cutoff in a tapered cavity where the small end is very close to cutoff. You may doubt that but it is the case.

When the cavity is built, will share the VNA scan showing there is resonance where it was predicted. Do hope that example will end the unquestionability of the resonance results from Feko and COMSOL when dealing with small ends that are just above cutoff.

There will be a few more unexpected design and build reveals as the build and test process moves forward. You see I have been here before and know the pathway.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Dark.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 06/01/2018 02:48 pm
TheTraveller, you said you were looking for a bucket with proper dimension. It might be easier to 3-D print one or turn one from a wood log section.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 06/01/2018 02:55 pm
Jamie I do have a concern about your use of a circular coupler in the middle of the small end plate.

Exciting a cavity needs to generate travelling waves that move in opposite directions. This is normally achieved by using a sidewall coupler where the big end lobe E field strength is the highest. That point is 1/4 guide wave from the big end. As such when the coupler is excited, some of the energy propogates toward the big end being 1/4 guide wave away, gets a 180 deg flip and comes back to the coupler in phase with the exciting freq.

I have very little doubt that TE013 is being excited with the circular antenna at the small end because simulations show that it is TE013. Also, when adjusting the screws on the small end, the RL trace moves up and down - which generally means the cavity is resonating, not the system.  The microwaves reflect off the small end and destructively interfere with the waves reflecting off the big end. This also requires moving the antenna up and down along the Z axis to find the best spot.

Jamie, may it be possible that your antenna placement in the middle of the small end works well with your own cavity (i.e. it indeed triggers a resonant TE013 mode) but not with some other aspect ratios like the cavity design just presented by TT (as you didn't find any TE013 mode with this cavity in a 2.4–2.5GHz sweep simulation for the antenna located at small end axis)?
The Eigen-frequencies of a cavity resonator is given from its dimensions. When a coupler is placed into the cavity its presence can push the resonant frequency a bit, depending on its shape. This effect does not change the Eigen-frequency spectrum much. Different kind of couplers are able to excite a Eigenresonance. Depending on the vectors field generated by the antenna the coupling factor changes. The Loop antenna used by Jamie is of course a good choice to excite TE01p modes, but if there is no Eigen-frequency solution of this kind within the bandwidth there is nothing to excite.

For the given dimensions TE012(~2 GHz) and TE013(~2.3 GHz) are much lower in frequency, TE014(~2.65GHz) is above the discussed band between 2.4 GHz and 2.5 GHz

The small end is only 13MHz above cutoff. Know from experience that neither Feko nor COMSOL properly handle cutoff in a tapered cavity where the small end is very close to cutoff. You may doubt that but it is the case.

When the cavity is built, will share the VNA scan showing there is resonance where it was predicted. Do hope that example will end the unquestionability of the resonance results from Feko and COMSOL when dealing with small ends that are just above cutoff.

There will be a few more unexpected design and build reveals as the build and test process moves forward. You see I have been here before and know the pathway.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Dark.
It is more likely that your calculation program cannot handle the CutOff condition. The FEA software solves the maxwell equations and was developed to calculate such problems correctly.
We already had this discussion some time ago.

I look forward to the results of your experiments.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/01/2018 03:09 pm
.........
It is more likely that your calculation program cannot handle the CutOff condition. The FEA software solves the maxwell equations and was developed to calculate such problems correctly.
We already had this discussion some time ago.

I look forward to the results of your experiments.

You expressed your opinion, which based on a lack of EmDrive experience is understandable. However you will learn that opinion is not reflected in experimental data.

Roger also once thought COMSOL told the truth, but found from experimental data that it did not. Which is why he developed another method to calc resonance in cavities with the small end close to cutoff. A method I copied.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Dark.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/01/2018 03:28 pm
.........
It is more likely that your calculation program cannot handle the CutOff condition. The FEA software solves the maxwell equations and was developed to calculate such problems correctly.
We already had this discussion some time ago.

I look forward to the results of your experiments.

You expressed your opinion, which based on a lack of EmDrive experience is understandable. However you will learn that opinion is not reflected in experimental data.

Roger also once thought COMSOL told the truth, but found from experimental data that it did not. Which is why he developed another method to calc resonance in cavities with the small end close to cutoff. A method I copied.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Dark.
You need to learn the difference between opinion and fact.

It is a fact that FEA programs have correctly calculated modes for every cavity tested in these threads (to within model fidelity to the actual build). Shawyer's methods are limited and the ones that have problems dealing with "cutoff" conditions, as well as generally being limited to only certain modes. Despite being asked repeatedly, you have never provided a cavity shape that experimentally resonates significantly differently than the FEA programs predict. Forgetting everything about propellantless thrust, such a finding would be revolutionary on its own.

You keep dispensing advice about RF systems, claiming things based on "experiment" when you have never even claimed to have done the experiments that would be required to support your assertions. When you disagree with people who obviously have RF backgrounds, while claiming that people who are running experiments need an RF engineer to tell them that they are doing it wrong, it is insulting. You clearly have no actual background yourself.

Please stop making unsupported and false assertions, and come back if you ever actually run an experiment to support your claims.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: bad_astra on 06/01/2018 03:45 pm


You expressed your opinion, which based on a lack of EmDrive experience is understandable. However you will learn that opinion is not reflected in experimental data.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Dark.
Care to show your experimental data?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/01/2018 03:59 pm


You expressed your opinion, which based on a lack of EmDrive experience is understandable. However you will learn that opinion is not reflected in experimental data.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Dark.
Care to show your experimental data?

Need to build this KISS thruster 1st. This time there will be plenty of build photos & videos as the project develops.

Going out tomorrow to buy most of the hardware. Build activity will start next week.

100W Rf amp is on order. Should be able to buy everything else needed from local suppliers. Do have a few bits & pieces from previous efforts.

Early day tomorrow chasing bits & pieces. Past my bed time. Nite, nite.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Dark
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/01/2018 04:01 pm
Please stop making unsupported and false assertions, and come back if you ever actually run an experiment to support your claims.

Your opinion is your opinion.
And the facts I stated are facts. Tautologies are useless.

Never having built an EmDrive nor conducted experimental work with one does limit your experience base to form correct knowledge. So it is understandable you and others have issues.
Pot, Kettle, Black. You have not provided any evidence that you have ever built an emDrive either. What you claim to have built (without evidence) involved end plates not even being firmly attached, and was one of the most simplistic, poorly controlled force measurement setups done by anyone.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Dark
Actions are much greater than words. Every time you say things like this while still having provided no data, you are just reinforcing your hypocrisy. You have been claiming you would have something to show "soon" or "in a few months" for years. You don't get to say "soon" to excuse that statement.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RonM on 06/01/2018 04:06 pm
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Dark

You've been posting about your EM drive builds since 2015. Yes, it's time for you to show something. Pictures and videos of your test rig, data from tests, etc.



You expressed your opinion, which based on a lack of EmDrive experience is understandable. However you will learn that opinion is not reflected in experimental data.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Dark.
Care to show your experimental data?

Need to build this KISS thruster 1st. This time there will be plenty of build photos & videos as the project develops.

Going out tomorrow to buy most of the hardware. Build activity will start next week.

100W Rf amp is on order. Should be able to buy everything else needed from local suppliers. Do have a few bits & pieces from previous efforts.

Early day tomorrow chasing bits & pieces. Past my bed time. Nite, nite.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Dark


Really? You've been saying this for years and you still haven't built one.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/01/2018 04:54 pm
The coupler needs to be 1/4 guide wavelength from the big end plate and not 1/4 excitation wavelength from the big end plate. As the guide wavelength alters as the cavity diameter alters, it is not a straight forward measurement. Which is why the coupler Rf connector needs to be designed into a sliding arrangement that can be moved toward and away from the big end to optimise coupler efficiency and lowest VSWR without needing nor using an external 3 pot tuner.

Plus you may need to bend the antenna a bit and move it in and out a bit to get an even better position and coupler efficiency.

Here is a sweep using the 1/4 wavelength stub. I will try the half-loop next.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 06/01/2018 08:09 pm
...

BTW I'll offer to visit Tajmar with a complete KISS thruster & test rig system and work with him & his team to repeat the rotary test rig demo in his lab.


I would be happy to see the result of your development at TU-Dresden for some tests. I also hope that the team there follows this conversation to notice your offer and accept. 

cheers
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/01/2018 09:26 pm
Here is a sweep using the 1/4 wavelength stub. I will try the half-loop next.

The half-loop showed the exact same modes as the 1/4 wavelength stub, only the half-loop antenna was more under-coupled (even though it was the same length as the stub). I'm not going to bother with pasting images of the E-fields or surface currents - they are the same as in the above image.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/01/2018 09:43 pm
X_Ray, would we call this mode at 2.456Ghz TE313?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/01/2018 10:46 pm
X_Ray, would we call this mode at 2.456Ghz TE313?

Jamie,

Thanks for doing this. It is TE013 at 2.453GHz as predicted by my spreadsheet as attached. Your resonance is shown at 2.455GHz or 2MHz higher than my value. Seems we agree.

Haven't used this spreadsheet for some time now. Will do some work on it as it will be released as part of the KISS thruster design & build package.

Note the very lengthened 1/2 guide wave lobe at the small end of your simulation. Exactually as predicted with a small end very close to cutoff, being 16MHz above cutoff. That may be a bit tight, so the small end dia may increase a bit to give future builders a bit of build tolerance to work with.

The wavy side wall eddy currents are caused by the coupler not being exactually at 1/4 guide wave from the big end. Which is why in the KISS thruster build, the coupler will be able to be moved closer or further away from the big end to achieve ideal coupler excitation vs travelling wave phase matching.

BTW in TE313 mode the small end is heavily cutoff with a cutoff freq of 2.672GHz. So any excitation needs to be above the cutoff freq.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WarpTech on 06/01/2018 11:15 pm
TheTraveller, you said you were looking for a bucket with proper dimension. It might be easier to 3-D print one or turn one from a wood log section.

I bought a copper ice bucket that has the right shape, but just a warning that these buckets are NOT spun. They are hand pounded or welded. Neither of the two I bought were symmetrical, very oblong in fact and not good for resonance. Jamie's method would work better.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/01/2018 11:29 pm
TheTraveller, you said you were looking for a bucket with proper dimension. It might be easier to 3-D print one or turn one from a wood log section.

I bought a copper ice bucket that has the right shape, but just a warning that these buckets are NOT spun. They are hand pounded or welded. Neither of the two I bought were symmetrical, very oblong in fact and not good for resonance. Jamie's method would work better.


Fair comment.

The form I'm going out today to buy is molded plastic, so I expect it to be very round. Do have 6 round hoop rings of various diameters that I will use to ensure it is round and to hold the 0.55mm Cu against the form while the butt joint is secured. The hoop rings will stay on the frustum to ensure it stays round and to give it additional strength / rigidity.

This is my 1st frustum fabrication using an internal form. Do expect the job will be made MUCH simpler and quicker using the internal form.

Using the hoop rings is a trick I learned from Dave, RfMwGuy. As attached.

BTW the frustum copper sheet will be highly polished BEFORE cutting it and wrapping it around the form. It is NOT easy to highly polish the inside of a built frustum. So please take note as highly polishing a flat sheet of Cu is fairly easy.

Will wrap the form with Cling Wrap to ensure the form does not scratch the highly polished Cu sheet.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Carl G on 06/02/2018 01:23 am
Some notes. Only post in English on here. This is not a Chinese site. TheTraveller is historically copy and paste, rinse and repeat in his comments. Ignore him unless he provides some actual content like the rare occasion as above.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/02/2018 03:54 am
Got most of what I need. Missing are 2 sheets of 101 Cu 0.55mm x 450mm x 900mm as the sheet metal supplier's guillotine was being serviced. Plus the 100W Rf amp, Li Ion 18650 Lit Ion batteries and a few connectors plus coax.

The black box is a USB freq gen that missed the trip with all my other gear to my partners lab/workshop in the EU.

However you should get the idea how this will come together and be a KISS thruster and KISS rotary test rig.

BTW the internal frustum form I bought is 300mm Bd x 180mm Sd x 280mm high. Will now make the necessary adjustments to the build frustum.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/02/2018 04:49 am
Updated overview.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Jim Davis on 06/02/2018 04:55 am
However you should get the idea how this will come together and be a KISS thruster and KISS rotary test rig.

Just out of curiosity, why couldn't this have been done last year or the year before? What came together recently to allow this to be done this year?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/02/2018 05:07 am
However you should get the idea how this will come together and be a KISS thruster and KISS rotary test rig.

Just out of curiosity, why couldn't this have been done last year or the year before? What came together recently to allow this to be done this year?

I engaged in a commercial contract with a mid size EU based aerospace company to develop a TRL 9 EmDrive thruster. That unit will soon be tested in space and commercial release is scheduled late 2019. More details AFTER the release.

I have always wanted to get back to building the KISS thruster and now my partners have given me the Green light. Well provisional Green light as I have a lot of restrictions on what I can show and tell about. My KISS plans are passed by them before I post them here and elsewhere.

Actually the delay was a good thing as I have a lot more experience to throw into building the thruster, the Rf system, how to tune the coupler, explaining how it works, etc.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/02/2018 05:58 am
Based on the form, the KISS thruster dimensions and predicted data are:

Bd: 300mm
Sd: 180mm
Len: 280mm
Mode: TE013
Freq: 2.282GHz
Cutoff: 2.031GHz
CufOff headroom: 251MHz
Qu: 48.6K
Force at 100W forward: 20.5mN
Specific Force: 0.205N/kWrf

Freq is outside the ISM S Band, so need to work on the dimension sets that the form can deliver. Can increase freq by reducing length but doing that increases the small end diameter, which causes the Df to drop, which drops the generated force.

Need to find the best compromise.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/02/2018 07:11 am
Thanks for doing this. It is TE013 at 2.453GHz as predicted by my spreadsheet as attached. Your resonance is shown at 2.455GHz or 2MHz higher than my value. Seems we agree.
The shape is basically the definition of a TE313 mode. That first "m=3" specifically refers to the circular symmetry, which has 6 nulls (2*m).  The lower frequency mode from the simulation has the pattern of a TE214 mode. TE013 is a mode that should be lower frequency than either of these modes.

I find the last one in that sweep interesting. It seems like a TE02X mode, but those don't come up much, so I am not sure. I am not sure what X is, since there seems to be half of a "lobe" next to the big end. It might be one of those hybrid modes that seems to be a mix of TE and TM.

Haven't used this spreadsheet for some time now. Will do some work on it as it will be released as part of the KISS thruster design & build package.
Unless you can fix your spreadsheet to accurately predict these different kinds of modes, it is just a waste of time.

The wavy side wall eddy currents are caused by the coupler not being exactually at 1/4 guide wave from the big end. Which is why in the KISS thruster build, the coupler will be able to be moved closer or further away from the big end to achieve ideal coupler excitation vs travelling wave phase matching.
No, problems due to poor antenna placement would appear as an asymmetric distortion. Usually with a descent Q, this would not noticeably affect the field pattern, though it is a problem for getting high return loss.

BTW in TE313 mode the small end is heavily cutoff with a cutoff freq of 2.672GHz. So any excitation needs to be above the cutoff freq.
Still no reason that cutoff would be a problem, other than "Shawyer said so" and it has been long established that Shawyer has no clue what he is talking about. Also, the depicted mode is TE313, and cutoff clearly is not present.

Actually the delay was a good thing as I have a lot more experience to throw into building the thruster, the Rf system, how to tune the coupler,
Yet you keep making incorrect claims about basic RF principles.

explaining how it works, etc.
Then maybe you could now actually answer the simple questions I have asked you about what direction something moves when you bounce a ball off of it. Or better yet, you could recognize that Shawyer's claims are self contradictory nonsense, and that he has failed at basic physics.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 06/02/2018 11:40 am
......

It is TE013.

Feko does wavy side wall eddy current patterns when the position of the coupler is not quite correct. Example is the thruster Roger and I worked on for NASA, with Feko help from Jamie.
Using the dimensions as suggested (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1826510#msg1826510) by yourself there is no TE013 mode between 2.4 GHz & 2.5 GHz. As shown by Monomorphic in this (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1826966#msg1826966) post there are three other field pattern instead. The one you called TE013 is TE313, clearly indicated by the current vectors.

The patter you show above in your post is of course TE013 but with some deformations. This is most likely due to the visualization frequency is slightly beyond the resonance frequency (typically feko visualisize the calculated frequencies, not each other possible point on the interpolated graph).
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1614781#msg1614781

edit:
mode index corrected
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/02/2018 02:29 pm
......

It is TE013.

Feko does wavy side wall eddy current patterns when the position of the coupler is not quite correct. Example is the thruster Roger and I worked on for NASA, with Feko help from Jamie.
Using the dimensions as suggested (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1826510#msg1826510) by yourself there is no TE013 mode between 2.4 GHz & 2.5 GHz. As shown by Monomorphic in this (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1826966#msg1826966) post there are three other field pattern instead. The one you called TE013 is TE313, clearly indicated by the current vectors.

The patter you show above in your post is of course TE013 but with some deformations. This is most likely due to the visualization frequency is slightly beyond the resonance frequency (typically feko visualisize the calculated frequencies, not each other possible point on the interpolated graph).
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1614781#msg1614781

edit:
mode index corrected

Would suggest you apply the Bessel J function for TE313 and see that you get.

Then explain the 6 side wall modes observed in this Feko analysis of TE013 due to the coupler being not at the ideal side wall position? Please let me know your opinion why those very visible big end eddy currents in the attached image, Jamie's work not mine, show a clear 6 node wddy current image that you now claim is TE313 mode?

In reality everything you claim as fact will become null and void when you see the KISS thruster going round and round. Are you ready for that?

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/02/2018 03:52 pm
Would suggest you apply the Bessel J function for TE313 and see that you get.
Using the exact analytic, solution for curved end plates in spherical coordinates, Bessel functions apply to variations in the radial direction (from the small plate to the large plate). The third number (p) by convention of mode naming describes which scaling factor to use for the radial variations, effectively determining the number of lobes between the end plates. The first number on the other hand describes variations in the spherical Phi direction, which are simply a sin(m*phi) or cos(m*phi).

Then explain the 6 side wall modes observed in this Feko analysis of TE013 due to the coupler being not at the ideal side wall position? Please let me know your opinion why those very visible big end eddy currents in the attached image, Jamie's work not mine, show a clear 6 node wddy current image that you now claim is TE313 mode?
X_Ray literally just answered this in the post you quoted. It is not due to antenna position, it is due to the tool using a slightly off resonance frequency for the visualization. It is clear in the image that you are posting, that fields are continuously present around the phi direction, just slightly distorted, whereas the TE313 image shows clear and obvious nulls.

besides you are ignoring the TE214 mode also present at a lower frequency in the sweep. If the TE313 mode was in fact a TE013, it would make no sense for any TEx14 mode to exist at a frequency lower than it.

In reality everything you claim as fact will become null and void when you see the KISS thruster going round and round. Are you ready for that?
In the unlikely event that happens (unlikely based on the experimental data that no one else who has ever tested one of these devices has come within orders of magnitude of the force required for that), it will say nothing about the existing mode shapes we are discussing. 1+1 will still equal 2. The solutions to Maxwell's equations will not change, nor the fact that Maxwell's equations have predicted resonance correctly in every cavity tested.

The question for you (besides the other ones you have ignored) is if your experiment sits there without moving, beyond some small motion easily attributed to air currents or magnetic fields, are you ready for that?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/02/2018 07:57 pm
Please let me know your opinion why those very visible big end eddy currents in the attached image, Jamie's work not mine, show a clear 6 node wddy current image that you now claim is TE313 mode.

Phil, the reason the TE013 looks different in the images for Paul March was because of a mistake in how the file was set up. If I recall correctly, that was when I was using Higher Order Basis Functions (HOBF) with too course of a mesh. The mode was distorted because of an error on my part. It is not a proper TE013 but since then we stopped using HOBF and use a dense mesh, the mode is no longer distorted.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Peter Lauwer on 06/02/2018 09:10 pm
In the meantime, I was working on my torsion balance (in the picture below it is shown without cover). Up to now, I have not been able to achieve the stability and low noise I had in the past. Most of the noise is mechanical. It turned out not to be a good idea to place it on the (concrete) floor. Even if I move a little, the balance notices the distortion of the floor.
I am mounting it on a construction attached to the wall now. I will report when this works better.
First going on a short holiday now.
Cheers, keep up the good work, I see a lot of progress with some of you now.
Peter
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 06/02/2018 09:56 pm
Please let me know your opinion why those very visible big end eddy currents in the attached image, Jamie's work not mine, show a clear 6 node wddy current image that you now claim is TE313 mode.

Phil, the reason the TE013 looks different in the images for Paul March was because of a mistake in how the file was set up. If I recall correctly, that was when I was using Higher Order Basis Functions (HOBF) with too course of a mesh. The mode was distorted because of an error on my part. It is not a proper TE013 but since then we stopped using HOBF and use a dense mesh, the mode is no longer distorted.
I had HOBF (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1614283#msg1614283)  in mind but was not quite sure that this was the reason, however you are right i did a look to this feko solver funktion again.... in contrast when using a normal dense mesh there isn't this abnormal pattern anymore.
Thanks for clarify.

Not as clear as in the case of Monomorphic's run but a good visible example of the effect when using HOBF:
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Kenjee on 06/03/2018 12:51 am
......

It is TE013.

Feko does wavy side wall eddy current patterns when the position of the coupler is not quite correct. Example is the thruster Roger and I worked on for NASA, with Feko help from Jamie.
Using the dimensions as suggested (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1826510#msg1826510) by yourself there is no TE013 mode between 2.4 GHz & 2.5 GHz. As shown by Monomorphic in this (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1826966#msg1826966) post there are three other field pattern instead. The one you called TE013 is TE313, clearly indicated by the current vectors.

The patter you show above in your post is of course TE013 but with some deformations. This is most likely due to the visualization frequency is slightly beyond the resonance frequency (typically feko visualisize the calculated frequencies, not each other possible point on the interpolated graph).
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39214.msg1614781#msg1614781

edit:
mode index corrected

There is nothing in that range, only complex modes with real and imaginary parts (i)
(The ratio of the imaginary to the real part gives the relative damping factor)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Kenjee on 06/03/2018 12:56 am
IMO, only modes worth pursuing with this dimensions are:
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/03/2018 01:39 am
IMO, only modes worth pursuing with this dimensions are:

Thanks Kenjee, I was hoping you would weigh in on this. When you have a chance, could you also do TT’s latest dimensions from the plastic form he found? I would do it myself, but I am staying at a friend’s lake house for a couple of days and do not have access to my workstation. Here are the dimensions:

Bd: 300mm
Sd: 180mm
Len: 280mm
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/03/2018 03:18 am
IMO, only modes worth pursuing with this dimensions are:

Thanks Kenjee, I was hoping you would weigh in on this. When you have a chance, could you also do TT’s latest dimensions from the plastic form he found? I would do it myself, but I am staying at a friend’s lake house for a couple of days and do not have access to my workstation. Here are the dimensions:

Bd: 300mm
Sd: 180mm
Len: 280mm

Checked with Roger.

He calcs 2.2608Ghz in TE013.
I get 2.2821GHz in TE013. Clearly a 21.3MHz error is not accceptable.

So it seems something has changed in my spreadsheet. Roger is feeding me more data so I can work out what is not correct.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/03/2018 03:32 am
IMO, only modes worth pursuing with this dimensions are:

In your 2nd image, the small is clearly in cutoff as the eddy current density on the small end plate is very much below that in the small end side wall ring.

Normally the small end plate eddy current ring shoud be MUCH higher intenssity than the side wall ring at the small end.

This occurs because as the diameter decreases, the ping angle off the side walls the photon take gets steeper and steeper until they never hit the end plate and just ping between the small end side wall lobe before returning to the big end. So YES you can have resonance in a tapered waveguide without the use of a small end plate. See attached. If you do not believe me, please check out the patent in the image.

This cutoff effect is clearly shown by progressively reducing the small end diameter and observing that as the small end starts to get into cutoff, the intensity of the side wall small end ring starts in increase as the small end plate ring intensity starts to decrease. Roger calls that point cutoff.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/03/2018 03:40 am
Please let me know your opinion why those very visible big end eddy currents in the attached image, Jamie's work not mine, show a clear 6 node wddy current image that you now claim is TE313 mode.

Phil, the reason the TE013 looks different in the images for Paul March was because of a mistake in how the file was set up. If I recall correctly, that was when I was using Higher Order Basis Functions (HOBF) with too course of a mesh. The mode was distorted because of an error on my part. It is not a proper TE013 but since then we stopped using HOBF and use a dense mesh, the mode is no longer distorted.

Jamie,

I found a simiar wavy side wall eddy current ring effect as the couper position was adjusted up and down the side wall. Can't replicate the effect as no longer have access to Feko.

Did you ever try that?

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/03/2018 03:58 am
Here is the patent, US 3425006 "Cavity Resonator with mode discriminating means", for the cavity resonator that does not use a small end plate.

It is an interesting read.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Kenjee on 06/03/2018 02:59 pm
IMO, only modes worth pursuing with this dimensions are:

Thanks Kenjee, I was hoping you would weigh in on this. When you have a chance, could you also do TT’s latest dimensions from the plastic form he found? I would do it myself, but I am staying at a friend’s lake house for a couple of days and do not have access to my workstation. Here are the dimensions:

Bd: 300mm
Sd: 180mm
Len: 280mm

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 06/03/2018 07:07 pm
Bd: 300mm
Sd: 180mm
Len: 280mm

Checked with Roger.

He calcs 2.2608Ghz in TE013.

COMSOL TE013 2.2548 GHz vs Shawyer TE013 2.2608 Ghz
Difference of +6 MHz for COMSOL vs Shawyer's private method! Not too bad :)

So finally Kenjee found resonance with TE013 mode for the shape TT provided.
Seems Monomorphic and X_RaY didn't find TE013 as their sweeps were restricted to a slightly higher range out of reach (2.4–2.5 GHz).

According to Shawyer's controversial "cutoff rule" the small end diameter is large enough for such frequency, i.e. it would operate above the threshold below which thrust would collapse. Besides, according to Shawyer's guidelines if I made no mistake: Df = 0.64, loaded Q = 60k, predicted thrust @ 100W = 38 mN

Freq is outside the ISM S Band, so need to work on the dimension sets that the form can deliver. Can increase freq by reducing length but doing that increases the small end diameter, which causes the Df to drop, which drops the generated force.

This frequency is still microwaves. What is the problem of running outside the ISM S Band? Especially as solid-state RF power generators can produce any frequency?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/03/2018 11:36 pm
This frequency is still microwaves. What is the problem of running outside the ISM S Band? Especially as solid-state RF power generators can produce any frequency?

In the US, ~2.25Ghz is used for NASA satellite tracking, telemetry and control (space-to-Earth, space-to-space).  2.29–2.3 GHz is the NASA Deep Space Network.  In the UK and Australia, ~2.25Ghz looks unused/reserved, and is close to 3G Cellular Communications  - Base Station Downlink (2.11–2.17 GHz).

This is why the 3D printed cavity resonator was designed to work on the  2.4–2.483GHz Industrial, Scientific and Medical (ISM) band, which is widely used for low power unlicensed microwave devices.

Fortunately, a well-built cavity will contain a vast majority of the microwave energy. I rebuilt the small end twice to get my leaking down to ~-40dB at ~0.5 meters from the cavity when off resonance. What's really convenient is that when the cavity goes into resonance, the leaked RF goes down even further, to lower than -60dB, which is the limit of the detection ability.

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: oyzw on 06/04/2018 12:08 am
This frequency is still microwaves. What is the problem of running outside the ISM S Band? Especially as solid-state RF power generators can produce any frequency?

In the US, ~2.25Ghz is used for NASA satellite tracking, telemetry and control (space-to-Earth, space-to-space).  2.29–2.3 GHz is the NASA Deep Space Network.  In the UK and Australia, ~2.25Ghz looks unused/reserved, and is close to 3G Cellular Communications  - Base Station Downlink (2.11–2.17 GHz).

This is why the 3D printed cavity resonator was designed to work on the  2.4–2.483GHz Industrial, Scientific and Medical (ISM) band, which is widely used for low power unlicensed microwave devices.

Fortunately, a well-built cavity will contain a vast majority of the microwave energy. I rebuilt the small end twice to get my leaking down to ~-40dB at ~0.5 meters from the cavity when off resonance. What's really convenient is that when the cavity goes into resonance, the leaked RF goes down even further, to lower than -60dB, which is the limit of the detection ability.
30/5000

Hi, Mr. Jamie, is it all right now? How is your experiment progressing?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/04/2018 12:35 am
Hi, Mr. Jamie, is it all right now? How is your experiment progressing?

My experiment is ready to go. I purchased LabView and have used the sample code to communicate with the relay board. I need to work on getting the relays on timers in LabView and then I should be able to run multiple identical experiments and average the results.

I'm not sure how long that will take, so I plan on running several manual tests in the next few days. I will be posting that data here on NSF.

After these first high-power manual tests, I will also begin working on Oyzw's solid copper frustum. I need to 3D print some parts for the impedance matching controls, fashion a new antenna, and increase the size of the cavity some using a gasket ( to get it in the ISM band). I also need to build the aluminum frame that attaches the cavity to the thrust balance. It will be painted so IR cameras can be used to observe surface heating and mode shape. After that, it will be covered with insulation, attached to the thrust balance, and tested.

What most here do not know, but I have told others privately, is that my condo complex had two main water pipes burst within a week from one another, so we and 40 other homes have been without water for almost two weeks. I was one of those selected by the board of directors to help oversee the emergency and it ended up being one of the worst experiences of my life. One leak was under a giant crepe myrtle and the other was 10 ft below someone's brick patio. My spouse and I decided to go to a friend's lake house this weekend to get away from the fiasco and rest. Water has been restored today, finally, and I am happily home now and things are getting back to normal.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/04/2018 01:31 am
Thanks Kangee for doing that,

Like Jamie I no longer have Feko access and thus placing the side wall 1/4 excitation freq wavelength stub antenna coupler was going to be a hit and miss affair. Now I have a much better idea where to place the couper as shown. Plus will be using the attached SMA bulkhead fitting to allow the fitting to be screwed in and out from the fixed bulkhead mounting nuts to obtain both best length and best up and down side wall position.

As I will show, being able to tune the coupler, in length, position and angle is critical to obtaining optimal coupler efficiency and a very low VSWR without needing the use of an external 3 pot tuner.

Plus a side wall position is needed to generate dual travelling waves that, via superposition, form the resonant standing waves. I may be wrong but don't think an end plate coupler will be able to generate dual direction travelling waves if it is not placed 1/4 guide wavelength away from the big end plate.

In Roger's latest patent application he did use a small end plate located coupler which was placed 1/4 guide wave from the small end plate as shown. Which again shows the coupler in an EmDrive neeeds to be placed 1/4 guide wavelength from an end plate so as to obtain phase matching and to generate travelling waves that propograte in both direction, which then generate the resonant standing waves.

It is my opinion that using an external 3 pot tuner may allow the Rf amp to see an ideal load but it will not tune what is happening inside the EmDrive.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/04/2018 02:07 am
As I will show, being able to tune the coupler, in length, position and angle is critical to obtaining optimal coupler efficiency and a very low VSWR without needing the use of an external 3 pot tuner.
Phil, this was shown several months ago. You will have a hard time with that SMA bulkhead fitting. I used those at first, but found it was too tedious loosening, screwing, and tightening those nuts.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/04/2018 02:52 am
For those that doubt the stability of the rotary test rig under construction and/or the ability of 1g to rotate such a rig here is info from those that went before. As can be seen the bridle based rotary test rig is very stable and easily rotates with 0.2g of force applied.

Quote
Some material details if interested:
- Hanging support line - dacron fishing tow line - 135lb test
- Base beam - 3/4" plywood - 200cm x 24cm
- Aluminum (3003H14) frustum
   - 26.6cm inner plate spacing (cone .032")
   - 16.0cm diam small endplate .032"
   - 28.0cm diam large endplate .050"

10mN or 1g:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn8Ysy_45Us

2mN or 0.2g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRLMPHZdVqs

Build images attached.

To be clear this magnetron based build never showed any force generation. However the rotary test rig
"Emmett Brown"
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=49812
developed was the basis for the KISS rotary test rig I'm building.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/04/2018 02:57 am
Goal is to use silver epoxy to do all the joining, including the frustum side wall seam. Selected silver epoxy totally cures in 15 min at 65c or the gentle heat from a hair dryer.
I was able to use an acetylene torch to silver solder the nuts to the copper wall. You have to be very careful and only apply a very small amount of solder so that the threads are still usable.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/04/2018 05:28 am
Looks like extending the frustum toward the small end, reducing the small end diameter to 2mm above cutoff and exciting TE014 improves the Df and Q enough to lift the predicted force to around 3g.

Predicted resonance is still above the ISM band so maybe a few more tweeks to drop it back a bit.

Some advise Roger shared with me a long time ago. Here I address those that give Roger enough credibility to expend time and money to try to replicate his invention, yet totally discount his advise on the use of COMSOL and other resonance simulation tools.

Quote
Hi Phil

Your proposals sound fine to me.

Note that the Q you achieve will also be dependent on how well you tune and match the impedance of the input antenna. We have used probe, loop and waveguide iris plates as input circuits. All have their own problems, but you should first calculate the wave impedance of the cavity at the input position. Standard text book equations work, as they always do. You can then design your chosen input circuit to match the wave impedance at the cavity resonant frequency.

All successful EmDrive thrusters that I know of have incorporated a tuning element of some sort at the input.

Also no successful design used COMSOL without correction, as the software does not seem to cope with conditions close to cut-off, as NASA should have realised.
[highlights my add]

Best regards

Roger

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/04/2018 06:33 am
Some advise Roger shared with me a long time ago. Here I address those that give Roger enough credibility to expend time and money to try to replicate his invention, yet totally discount his advise on the use of COMSOL and other resonance simulation tools.
People are attempting to replicate experiments like those at Eagleworks, not Shawyer at this point.

COMSOL and other programs use the "standard textbook equations" that Shawyer says work. The quote you provided simply demonstrates that he doesn't know how to use these tools, and it is certainly possibly to get bad answers from them if you don't know what you are doing.

FEA tools have no problem with cutoff conditions, nor does this pose a problem for the exact solutions for spherical endplates. Science is based on evidence, and there is no evidence for your or Shawyer's claims of problems with these tools.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/04/2018 08:13 am
Some advise Roger shared with me a long time ago. Here I address those that give Roger enough credibility to expend time and money to try to replicate his invention, yet totally discount his advise on the use of COMSOL and other resonance simulation tools.
People are attempting to replicate experiments like those at Eagleworks, not Shawyer at this point.

COMSOL and other programs use the "standard textbook equations" that Shawyer says work. The quote you provided simply demonstrates that he doesn't know how to use these tools, and it is certainly possibly to get bad answers from them if you don't know what you are doing.

FEA tools have no problem with cutoff conditions, nor does this pose a problem for the exact solutions for spherical endplates. Science is based on evidence, and there is no evidence for your or Shawyer's claims of problems with these tools.

Do expect, after seeing the KISS thruster going round and round on the KISS rotary test rig, people will stop efforts trying to replicate the EW cavity and switch to replicating a cavity, coupler tuning system and Rf system that does generate very significant Force.

A Force that does Work to Move mass a Distance or in simple terms to accelerate mass with it gaining both momentum and KE from the resonant cavity photons.

Those cavity photon's wavelengths slowly increase after each inelastic impact and emission event where momentum and energy are transferred from photon to mass.

Then others can start debate on the theory as to why it does what it does.

Trust me it can and will be shown that EmDrive acceleration of mass complies with both CofM and CofE. Do understand your opinion is different to that but is probably based on experimental data that you don't consider as significant. An opinion shared with many.

My goal is to change that opinion and present very credible experimental data that can not be ignored or denied. Plus a public set of DIY instructions and easy to obtain Bill Of Materials that just about anyone can follow to build a working EmDrive.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: X_RaY on 06/04/2018 08:50 am
Bd: 300mm
Sd: 180mm
Len: 280mm

Checked with Roger.

He calcs 2.2608Ghz in TE013.

COMSOL TE013 2.2548 GHz vs Shawyer TE013 2.2608 Ghz
Difference of +6 MHz for COMSOL vs Shawyer's private method! Not too bad :)

So finally Kenjee found resonance with TE013 mode for the shape TT provided.
Seems Monomorphic and X_RaY didn't find TE013 as their sweeps were restricted to a slightly higher range out of reach (2.4–2.5 GHz).


According to Shawyer's controversial "cutoff rule" the small end diameter is large enough for such frequency, i.e. it would operate above the threshold below which thrust would collapse. Besides, according to Shawyer's guidelines if I made no mistake: Df = 0.64, loaded Q = 60k, predicted thrust @ 100W = 38 mN

Freq is outside the ISM S Band, so need to work on the dimension sets that the form can deliver. Can increase freq by reducing length but doing that increases the small end diameter, which causes the Df to drop, which drops the generated force.

This frequency is still microwaves. What is the problem of running outside the ISM S Band? Especially as solid-state RF power generators can produce any frequency?
We did calculations based on the dimensions TT stated before he switched to others:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1826510#msg1826510
Bd: 280mm
Sd: 150mm
Len: 308mm
Material: 1 oz copper PCB flat end plates, 0.5mm thick frustum
Mode: TE013
Freq: 2.45GHz
Df: 0.813
Ql: 22k

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42978.msg1827133#msg1827133
Bd: 300mm
Sd: 180mm
Len: 280mm
Mode: TE013
Freq: 2.282GHz
Cutoff: 2.031GHz
CufOff headroom: 251MHz
Qu: 48.6K

 ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/04/2018 09:51 am
Decided to go forward with the following dimensions:

Bd: 300mm
Sd: 180mm
Len: 280mm

OK the TE013 resonance from both Roger and Kenjee agree, However it is outside the ISM band. But for a 1st inhouse build it will do.

The cutoff issue can lay dormant, not the time yet to fight that fight, until such time as I reduce the small end enough for the 2 resonance calculations to fall out of sync. Which means those doing replications in Unis and Corp business can use COMSOL, Feko and such to do their resonance calcs and see they are close enough to move forward with their replication effort.

From the video I linked it is very clear that 2mN or 0.2g can cause more than enough rotary action to convince the critics. Looks like even 1mN or 0.1g will do the trick.

10mN or 1g:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn8Ysy_45Us

2mN or 0.2g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRLMPHZdVqs

So no sense in trying to optimise the dimensions to achieve 3g when 0.1g will do and will not engage a "CutOff War" of words and inject doubt into replicators minds.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/04/2018 11:02 am
OK KISS thruster dimensions are locked and loaded.

Bd: 300mm
Sd: 180mm
Len: 280mm

Time to get 2 sheets of 0.55mm x 450mm x 900mm soft 101 Cu, give one a high polish, scribe the curves and start cutting copper. Buying 2 sheets as will build TWO fully operational KISS thruster so to compare performance.

Will post photos of the process.

BTW inches in the image of the frustum template should be mm.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Kenjee on 06/04/2018 12:05 pm
@Monomorphic

If you have time check out DIY solution for Schlieren photography. It was something that was talked about earlier.
http://www.instructables.com/id/Schlieren-Imaging-How-to-see-air-flow/ (http://www.instructables.com/id/Schlieren-Imaging-How-to-see-air-flow/)

I still think that airflow aspect is overlooked.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/04/2018 12:34 pm
@Monomorphic

If you have time check out DIY solution for Schlieren photography. It was something that was talked about earlier.
http://www.instructables.com/id/Schlieren-Imaging-How-to-see-air-flow/ (http://www.instructables.com/id/Schlieren-Imaging-How-to-see-air-flow/)

I still think that airflow aspect is overlooked.

Hi Kenjee,

Yes I agree. My rotary tests will include a session with a smoke generator so the effect of the rising waste heat can be clearly observed.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/04/2018 12:51 pm
If you have time check out DIY solution for Schlieren photography. It was something that was talked about earlier.
http://www.instructables.com/id/Schlieren-Imaging-How-to-see-air-flow/ (http://www.instructables.com/id/Schlieren-Imaging-How-to-see-air-flow/)

I still think that airflow aspect is overlooked.

Agreed, which is why everything was covered in insulation, so there can't be any airflow. Natural convection is the #1 source of mechanical noise when testing in air.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/04/2018 02:39 pm
Do expect, after seeing the KISS thruster going round and round on the KISS rotary test rig, people will stop efforts trying to replicate the EW cavity and switch to replicating a cavity, coupler tuning system and Rf system that does generate very significant Force.
You have yet to provide a singal thing that is special about your build to make it produce orders of magnitude more force than anyone else has produced.

A Force that does Work to Move mass a Distance or in simple terms to accelerate mass with it gaining both momentum and KE from the resonant cavity photons.

Those cavity photon's wavelengths slowly increase after each inelastic impact and emission event where momentum and energy are transferred from photon to mass.

Then others can start debate on the theory as to why it does what it does.
What you just stated is a "theory" on how it works. Specifically an incorrect one that has been demonstrated nonsensical repeatedly.

Trust me it can and will be shown that EmDrive acceleration of mass complies with both CofM and CofE.
That sentence I believe, but I also am certain you don't know what the words you used mean. If the emDrive obeys conservation of momentum, that means it is useless. You just described the drive working by transferring momentum between the photons and walls of the cavity. Since the photons get their momentum from the antenna attached to the cavity when they are initially emitted, and don't have anything else to interact with but the cavity walls, conservation of momentum means that the drive moves nowhere.

Do understand your opinion is different to that but is probably based on experimental data that you don't consider as significant. An opinion shared with many.
No, what I just stated is a fact, nit an opinion. It is the definition of the words involved, and is just as much of a fact as 1+1=2. Calling it an "opinion" is just an insult, so stop. Also, the only experimental data I reject is from Shawyer because he has proven that he doesn't understand the definition of the word force, so none of his measurements are trustworthy, and flaws in his methods have been pointed out many times. The little outside review he allowed found multiple flaws. You however reject every bit of data that keeps showing force no better than the noise or known errors, a result that gets stays the same even as better experiments keep reducing error sources. Accusing me of rejecting data while you are ignoring the actual data is another insult.

My goal is to change that opinion and present very credible experimental data that can not be ignored or denied. Plus a public set of DIY instructions and easy to obtain Bill Of Materials that just about anyone can follow to build a working EmDrive.
A more achievable, and more scientific goal is "to clearly demonstrate whether or not the emDrive works." Your goal is unscientific because you are assuming that it works without evidence, and this will just lead you to ignore flaws in your experiments due to confirmation bias.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/04/2018 03:36 pm
A more achievable, and more scientific goal is "to clearly demonstrate whether or not the emDrive works." Your goal is unscientific because you are assuming that it works without evidence, and this will just lead you to ignore flaws in your experiments due to confirmation bias.

I know the EmDrive works. I'm building the KISS thruster based on years of experience. When has anyone before shared details about how to design and tune a coupler so to eliminate the need for an external 3 pot tuner? The idea to track freq based on lowest VSWR was mine. I shared it here and to EW. And I will clearly demonstrate to the world that the EmDrive does work as claimed.

What flaws can there be when the battery powered EmDrive rotates round and round? Point the small end CW and it rotates CW. Point the small end CCW and it rotates CCW. Point the small end In or Out and it does not rotate.

You have been a great critic and denier.

Time now to work out how the EmDrive works and why it does not violate either CofM and CofE. Think about resonant photons slowly transferring some of their momentum and energy to mass and then watching as their wavelengths slowly lengthen. Think about what that would do to the resonant nature of the photons in the cavity and how the slowly increasing wavelength will alter cavity dynamics.

A few questions to ask yourself:

1) Will the VSWR alter during acceleration compared to pre acceleration?
2) Will the coupler impedance alter during acceleration compared to pre acceleration?
3) Will the Q alter during acceleration vs pre acceleration?
4) Will the KE gain of the accelerating mass become another per cycle loss on cavity energy?
5) Will the resonant photons increase their wavelength during acceleration but not pre acceleration?

I could add more but that is enough to hopefully start you thinking down a new pathway.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: RonM on 06/04/2018 04:00 pm
A more achievable, and more scientific goal is "to clearly demonstrate whether or not the emDrive works." Your goal is unscientific because you are assuming that it works without evidence, and this will just lead you to ignore flaws in your experiments due to confirmation bias.

I know the EmDrive works. I'm building the KISS thruster based on years of experience. When has anyone before shared details about how to design and tune a coupler so to eliminate the need for an external 3 pot tuner? The idea to track freq based on lowest VSWR was mine. I shared it here and to EW. And I will clearly demonstrate to the world that the EmDrive does work as claimed.

What flaws can there be when the battery powered EmDrive rotates round and round? Point the small end CW and it rotates CW. Point the small end CCW and it rotates CCW. Point the small end In or Out and it does not rotate.

You have been a great critic and denier.

Time now to work out how the EmDrive works and why it does not violate either CofM and CofE. Think about resonant photons slowly transferring some of their momentum and energy to mass and then watching as their wavelengths slowly lengthen. Think about what that would do to the resonant nature of the photons in the cavity and how the slowly increasing wavelength will alter cavity dynamics.

A few questions to ask yourself:

1) Will the VSWR alter during acceleration compared to pre acceleration?
2) Will the coupler impedance alter during acceleration compared to pre acceleration?
3) Will the Q alter during acceleration vs pre acceleration?
4) Will the KE gain of the accelerating mass become another per cycle loss on cavity energy?
5) Will the resonant photons increase their wavelength during acceleration but not pre acceleration?

I could add more but that is enough to hopefully start you thinking down a new pathway.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

For years you have been saying you know the EM drive works, but you have not shown any data from your own experiments. As far as anyone can tell, you have never built and tested an EM drive. Blind faith is not how science works. Build your KISS drive, runs some experiments, and show us data to prove your claims.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/04/2018 04:55 pm
You have been a great critic and denier.
Calling me a "denier" is both an insult and a lie. See my previous post for explanation of why it is a lie.

Time now to work out how the EmDrive works and why it does not violate either CofM and CofE.
It is long past time for you to learn what conservation of momentum means. See my previous post.

Think about resonant photons slowly transferring some of their momentum and energy to mass and then watching as their wavelengths slowly lengthen. Think about what that would do to the resonant nature of the photons in the cavity and how the slowly increasing wavelength will alter cavity dynamics.
I discussed photon momentum in my last post, how about you think about what I wrote.

1) Will the VSWR alter during acceleration compared to pre acceleration?
2) Will the coupler impedance alter during acceleration compared to pre acceleration?
3) Will the Q alter during acceleration vs pre acceleration?
No to all, acceleration will have no measurable impact on cavity resonant properties when you consider the speed of light, cavity length and magnitude of acceleration. "pre-acceleration" doesn't even mean anything anyway, since either it produces a force which you can measure when the cavity is being held in place, or it doesn't produce a force and doesn't accelerate.

4) Will the KE gain of the accelerating mass become another per cycle loss on cavity energy?
The relationship between photon energy and momentum is a constant proportionality. Even ignoring that the photons get their momentum from the cavity to begin with, the most momentum they can transfer is E/c, which is just a photon rocket. If you want, you can work through all of the details, including how in a fixed reference frame, if the cavity is moving, reflections from one end transfer momentum and energy from the cavity to the photons, while reflections from the other end do the opposite, and when you include that any changes in the photon momentum in between are from sidewall interactions, everything balances. One of my first posts on this forum went through some of the math if you need a starting point.

5) Will the resonant photons increase their wavelength during acceleration but not pre acceleration?
Pre-acceleration doesn't mean anything. Your so called "wavelength increase" is just the pattern formed from photons effectively bouncing off the sidewalls and travelling at different angles. This mode shape has no dependence on acceleration for the relevant speed, size, and acceleration as I said above.

I could add more but that is enough to hopefully start you thinking down a new pathway.
I answered your questions, though there was nothing new that I haven't thought about or discussed before in them. You have been repeatedly asked multiple questions by me and others that you have refused to answer. You have no business talking about questions for thought and "new pathways" when you refuse to even think about simple questions such as "which direction does something move when you bounce a ball off of it?"
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/05/2018 12:35 am
For years you have been saying you know the EM drive works, but you have not shown any data from your own experiments. As far as anyone can tell, you have never built and tested an EM drive. Blind faith is not how science works. Build your KISS drive, runs some experiments, and show us data to prove your claims.

Did explain why that happened.

I have clearly started the process to build and demo a KISS thruster. At each step of the process photos will be provided plus plans and materials used.

Now that Kenjee's simulation and Roger's / my calculations agree on the resonance freq and mode, the next step is to cut out the Cu sheet and form it into a frustum using the flower pot internal form and 4 hoop rings plus a bit of silver expoy.

You see the big goal is to enable just about anyone to build and test a working EmDrive. The step by step fully exposed / nothing hidden process I have engaged here is part of that pathway.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/05/2018 12:39 am
.......

I did try to open a door way for you.

You might consider you position when you see the KISS thruster going round and round on the KISS rotary test rig. Trust me IT WILL HAPPEN.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: oyzw on 06/05/2018 12:43 am
A more achievable, and more scientific goal is "to clearly demonstrate whether or not the emDrive works." Your goal is unscientific because you are assuming that it works without evidence, and this will just lead you to ignore flaws in your experiments due to confirmation bias.

I know the EmDrive works. I'm building the KISS thruster based on years of experience. When has anyone before shared details about how to design and tune a coupler so to eliminate the need for an external 3 pot tuner? The idea to track freq based on lowest VSWR was mine. I shared it here and to EW. And I will clearly demonstrate to the world that the EmDrive does work as claimed.

What flaws can there be when the battery powered EmDrive rotates round and round? Point the small end CW and it rotates CW. Point the small end CCW and it rotates CCW. Point the small end In or Out and it does not rotate.

You have been a great critic and denier.

Time now to work out how the EmDrive works and why it does not violate either CofM and CofE. Think about resonant photons slowly transferring some of their momentum and energy to mass and then watching as their wavelengths slowly lengthen. Think about what that would do to the resonant nature of the photons in the cavity and how the slowly increasing wavelength will alter cavity dynamics.

A few questions to ask yourself:

1) Will the VSWR alter during acceleration compared to pre acceleration?
2) Will the coupler impedance alter during acceleration compared to pre acceleration?
3) Will the Q alter during acceleration vs pre acceleration?
4) Will the KE gain of the accelerating mass become another per cycle loss on cavity energy?
5) Will the resonant photons increase their wavelength during acceleration but not pre acceleration?

I could add more but that is enough to hopefully start you thinking down a new pathway.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

For years you have been saying you know the EM drive works, but you have not shown any data from your own experiments. As far as anyone can tell, you have never built and tested an EM drive. Blind faith is not how science works. Build your KISS drive, runs some experiments, and show us data to prove your claims.
It may be that he signed a contract with a company and it is not easy to publish his experimental setup and test data.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/05/2018 12:49 am
A more achievable, and more scientific goal is "to clearly demonstrate whether or not the emDrive works." Your goal is unscientific because you are assuming that it works without evidence, and this will just lead you to ignore flaws in your experiments due to confirmation bias.

I know the EmDrive works. I'm building the KISS thruster based on years of experience. When has anyone before shared details about how to design and tune a coupler so to eliminate the need for an external 3 pot tuner? The idea to track freq based on lowest VSWR was mine. I shared it here and to EW. And I will clearly demonstrate to the world that the EmDrive does work as claimed.

What flaws can there be when the battery powered EmDrive rotates round and round? Point the small end CW and it rotates CW. Point the small end CCW and it rotates CCW. Point the small end In or Out and it does not rotate.

You have been a great critic and denier.

Time now to work out how the EmDrive works and why it does not violate either CofM and CofE. Think about resonant photons slowly transferring some of their momentum and energy to mass and then watching as their wavelengths slowly lengthen. Think about what that would do to the resonant nature of the photons in the cavity and how the slowly increasing wavelength will alter cavity dynamics.

A few questions to ask yourself:

1) Will the VSWR alter during acceleration compared to pre acceleration?
2) Will the coupler impedance alter during acceleration compared to pre acceleration?
3) Will the Q alter during acceleration vs pre acceleration?
4) Will the KE gain of the accelerating mass become another per cycle loss on cavity energy?
5) Will the resonant photons increase their wavelength during acceleration but not pre acceleration?

I could add more but that is enough to hopefully start you thinking down a new pathway.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

For years you have been saying you know the EM drive works, but you have not shown any data from your own experiments. As far as anyone can tell, you have never built and tested an EM drive. Blind faith is not how science works. Build your KISS drive, runs some experiments, and show us data to prove your claims.
It may be that he signed a contract with a company and it is not easy to publish his experimental setup and test data.


Hi Oyzw,

Correct.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/05/2018 01:05 am
In regard to 1/4 excitation wave stub antennas, it seems Paul March did use one to excite his cavity. For some reason he did not continue with that antenna design. Suspect he went with the loop to excite TM modes to use the dielectric.

Will be very pleased if my KISS thruster build can achieve the 50K Q that Paul achieved.

Good to see Paul mentioning Roger.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: oyzw on 06/05/2018 02:29 am
In regard to 1/4 excitation wave stub antennas, it seems Paul March did use one to excite his cavity. For some reason he did not continue with that antenna design. Suspect he went with the loop to excite TM modes to use the dielectric.

Will be very pleased if my KISS thruster build can achieve the 50K Q that Paul achieved.

Good to see Paul mentioning Roger.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
I simulated the antenna at this location through HFSS, and the coupling effect is very good. S11 is lower than -25 and TE013 is modal.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/05/2018 02:54 am
In regard to 1/4 excitation wave stub antennas, it seems Paul March did use one to excite his cavity. For some reason he did not continue with that antenna design. Suspect he went with the loop to excite TM modes to use the dielectric.

Will be very pleased if my KISS thruster build can achieve the 50K Q that Paul achieved.

Good to see Paul mentioning Roger.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
I simulated the antenna at this location through HFSS, and the coupling effect is very good. S11 is lower than -25 and TE013 is modal.

Hi Oyzw,

Yes a -25dB rtn loss or a VSWR of 1.1:1 is a very good real world result.

If a Rf amp outputted 100W, 99.77W would be the forward power that would enter the cavity and 0.23W would be reflected. Would accept that any time.

BTW just so everyone is clear, this was a very simple to make stub antenna that delivered a very good real world coupling result. So no need for fancy loop antenna designs to get a really good coupling result. Just use a side wall mounted stub antenna as the KISS thruster will use. More on that later.

However do not put a lot of Rf watts into that antenna as it will probably tune into a match / melted blob at the far end. As both EW and Shell discovered.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/05/2018 03:20 am
.......

I did try to open a door way for you.
And I walked through it to find you insult me, and spew meaningless gibberish. I considered your points to the extent that that they meant anything at all, and found that none of them led to any interesting conclusions.

You might consider you position when you see the KISS thruster going round and round on the KISS rotary test rig. Trust me IT WILL HAPPEN.
No one trusts you anymore because you have been making this same claim for years, and have broken your promise every time. Worse, you are now asking for blind faith, contrary to all of the evidence from all of the other experimenters on this forum and elsewhere who have shown that thrust levels are orders of magnitude below your baseless expectations. Your repeated religious appeal to this blind faith is out of place in this physics forum, and at this point is just an insult to the intelligence of the readers here.

So how about you apply some critical thinking yourself, and actually respond to the content of my post (or the posts of others who have pointed out flaws in your statements), or at least apologize for some of your insults.

In the mean time, stop claiming you know what the results of your experiments will be before you run them. That means no more "Believe me it works !!!11!1" posts until you have some cold, hard data.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/05/2018 03:32 am
.......

I did try to open a door way for you.
And I walked through it to find you insult me, and spew meaningless gibberish. I considered your points to the extent that that they meant anything at all, and found that none of them led to any interesting conclusions.

You might consider you position when you see the KISS thruster going round and round on the KISS rotary test rig. Trust me IT WILL HAPPEN.
No one trusts you anymore because you have been making this same claim for years, and have broken your promise every time. Worse, you are now asking for blind faith, contrary to all of the evidence from all of the other experimenters on this forum and elsewhere who have shown that thrust levels are orders of magnitude below your baseless expectations. Your repeated religious appeal to this blind faith is out of place in this physics forum, and at this point is just an insult to the intelligence of the readers here.

So how about you apply some critical thinking yourself, and actually respond to the content of my post (or the posts of others who have pointed out flaws in your statements), or at least apologize for some of your insults.

In the mean time, stop claiming you know what the results of your experiments will be before you run them. That means no more "Believe me it works !!!11!1" posts until you have some cold, hard data.

The cold hard data is being presented. Step by step. So everybody who cares can be engaged in the process.

And your comment after you see all the openly shared steps and techniques to build the KISS thruster and Rf system as it rotates round and round will be?

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/05/2018 03:53 am
In regard to 1/4 excitation wave stub antennas, it seems Paul March did use one to excite his cavity. For some reason he did not continue with that antenna design. Suspect he went with the loop to excite TM modes to use the dielectric.

Will be very pleased if my KISS thruster build can achieve the 50K Q that Paul achieved.

Good to see Paul mentioning Roger.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
I simulated the antenna at this location through HFSS, and the coupling effect is very good. S11 is lower than -25 and TE013 is modal.

Hi Oyzw,

Please, if you can, do a HFSS simulation for the KISS cavity and share your resonance and Q results.

Bd: 300mm
Sd: 180mm
Len: 280mm
Mode: TE013

Thanks

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 06/05/2018 04:29 am
The discussion keeps squeezing into my mind Alphonse Daudet's short novel, "The Siege of Berlin". I am familiar with it because it was in my middle school literature course (translated version). It's English translation is online, http://www.bartleby.com/313/4/1.html

The question is who is Colonel Jouve. Surely not me, because I am mostly in the "watching" mode. Could it be Mr. Shawyer or Meberbs, theTraveller, or even crackpot_killer?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/05/2018 04:49 am
The discussion keeps squeezing into my mind Alphonse Daudet's short novel, "The Siege of Berlin". I am familiar with it because it was in my middle school literature course (translated version). It's English translation is online, http://www.bartleby.com/313/4/1.html

The question is who is Colonel Jouve. Surely not me, because I am mostly in the "watching" mode. Could it be Mr. Shawyer or Meberbs, theTraveller, or even crackpot_killer?

Hi PM,

Glad to see you. Did you watch the video of Emmett Brown's board and fishing line bridle rotary test rig and observer it is stable?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRLMPHZdVqs

Very clear acceleration even from 0.2g of force. Suggest it will accelerate as well with 0.1g of force.

BTW costs for the KISS thruster project so far are approaching $1,500.

14g of Silver Epoxy
miniVNA tiny+
Yonlit 100W Rf amp
2 x sheets of Cu
Various SMA fittings & coax

are paid for and awaiting delivery.

Not an exercise to be undertaken without a knowledge of success.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 06/05/2018 04:57 am
The discussion keeps squeezing into my mind Alphonse Daudet's short novel, "The Siege of Berlin". I am familiar with it because it was in my middle school literature course (translated version). It's English translation is online, http://www.bartleby.com/313/4/1.html

The question is who is Colonel Jouve. Surely not me, because I am mostly in the "watching" mode. Could it be Mr. Shawyer or Meberbs, theTraveller, or even crackpot_killer?

Hi PM,

Glad to see you. Did you watch the video of Emmett Brown's board and fishing line bridle rotary test rig and observer it is stable?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRLMPHZdVqs

Very clear acceleration even from 0.2g of force. Suggest it will accelerate as well with 0.1g of force.

BTW costs for the KISS thruster project so far are approaching $1,500.

14g of Silver Epoxy
miniVNA tiny+
Yonlit 100W Rf amp
2 x sheets of Cu
Various SMA fittings & coax

are paid for and awaiting delivery.

Not an exercise to be undertaken without a knowledge of success.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Yes, I saw his posts long ago. His balance was stable, and could move if a small force (probably 0.2g) was applied. I remembered that he did not find thrust, though.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/05/2018 05:10 am
Yes, I saw his posts long ago. His balance was stable, and could move if a small force (probably 0.2g) was applied. I remembered that he did not find thrust, though.

Correct Emmett did not measure any force generation.

Trying to drive a high Q cavity with a magnetron is not a good match. In both the Experimental and Demonstrator EmDrives, Roger had a high Q tuned circuit at the small end of the cavity, which no one replicated.

As will be shown, single freq Rf excitation is the only way but the coupler needs to be at a specific distance from the big end plate, a specific length and angle to the side wall.

Like baking a cake, get one element incorrect and the result may not be that expected. Which is why going over each step in the build process and why doing that step that way is important for replicators.

Roger did define some of the build requirements but not as many as I will share:
http://www.emdrive.com/GeneralPrinciples.pdf

To be clear I'm not upset with the critics as they have never had really clear experimental data to base opinion on. That is going to change and is why I'm engaging this process.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/05/2018 06:29 am
The cold hard data is being presented. Step by step. So everybody who cares can be engaged in the process.
No, you have not shown data, you have shown images of an incomplete setup. That is not data.

And your comment after you see all the openly shared steps and techniques to build the KISS thruster and Rf system as it rotates round and round will be?

I will answer that question under 2 conditions:*
1. You answer a question first: What will you say if you turn it on and the drive just sits there, maybe moves slightly, from some effect that could easily be thermal, magnetic, or a random air current? (And no cop-out, don't say "that means it was built wrong," this is after you do everything you are planning on to get a nice clean resonance, with high return loss, etc.)
2. You rephrase the question to use a conditional like "if" rather than insisting that you know the future.

As a bonus, you could try being polite and apologizing for your insults, and for dismissing every fact presented to you as "just an opinion." Hint: saying "I'm not upset with the critics as they have never had really clear experimental data to base opinion on." is an insult to all of the other experimenters in this thread who have provided useful data, as well as the other experimenters out there such as Tajmar. You are saying all of their data is useless. And it is a fact, not opinion, that the data from them indicates that you should not expect 10s of mN worth of force. None of it was clear if there was any force at all except error sources, but it was clear that any force present is smaller than you are expecting. Also, if you "aren't upset" you really should apologize for the insults.

* I am being generous with these conditions, at this point you probably owe me a couple dozen answers, I have lost count how many times you have ignored simple questions from me, and the apology should not be optional.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/05/2018 07:30 am
The hoop rings have arrived.

Very important they are epoxy bounded to the outer sufrace of the frustum before it is removed from the internal flower pot form. They ensure the frustum stays round after the internal form is pulled out and gives the 0.55mm thick frustum side walls additional ridigity and strength.

Idea is from Dave (RfMwGuy). I have found them to work very well.

Not aware of any EmDrive builder, other than Dave and myself, that has used them.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 06/05/2018 01:32 pm
...
Idea is from Dave (RfMwGuy). I have found them to work very well.

Not aware of any EmDrive builder, other than Dave and myself, that has used them.
...

Both Shawyer and NASA used rings.
(http://scinotions.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/EmDrive-impossible-engine-at-Nasa-image-560x416.jpg)
(https://news.nationalgeographic.com/content/dam/news/2016/11/21/01-emdrive.jpg)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/05/2018 01:52 pm
Both Shawyer and NASA used rings.

Hi PN,

They had to cut their rings from a copper sheet. Not easy to manually cut the inner curve, let alone to keep it circular, it is copper after all, and a big waste of expensive copper sheeet. Which is probably why Paul only used 1.

The steel hoop rings are commercially available, easy to fit, strong, come is sizes that allow many to be fitted and ensure a very strong, rigid and round frustum.

As far as I know only Dave and myself have used multiple easy to obtain and fit hoop rings. Plus the hoop rings fit the design and construction of a KISS thruster.

Yet to be revealed is the KISS thruster will NOT have the typical end flanges. Hoop rings will provide the dimension stability that is normally done by the end flanges, which are not really needed, a pain to cut out & fit and get then exactly parallel.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 06/05/2018 03:23 pm
My experiment is ready to go. I purchased LabView and have used the sample code to communicate with the relay board. I need to work on getting the relays on timers in LabView and then I should be able to run multiple identical experiments and average the results.

As for LabView, Jamie; I'm not sure I already posted the following (or maybe you already know it); if that isn't the case, then, since you're at "measuring stuff" :) maybe you'll be interested in a critter called "red pitaya (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/652945597/red-pitaya-open-instruments-for-everyone)", it was born as a kickstarter project but it's now in production (https://www.redpitaya.com) and I suspect it may be useful for your purposes; just check out the details ;-)

[edit]

For further infos, please see this (http://redpitaya.readthedocs.io/en/latest/) too


Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: francesco nicoli on 06/05/2018 03:54 pm
nice picture, no data, and my patience for sawyer's flying cars has long expired.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 06/05/2018 04:00 pm
The hoop rings have arrived.

Very important they are epoxy bounded to the outer sufrace of the frustum before it is removed from the internal flower pot form. They ensure the frustum stays round after the internal form is pulled out and gives the 0.55mm thick frustum side walls additional ridigity and strength.

Idea is from Dave (RfMwGuy). I have found them to work very well.

Not aware of any EmDrive builder, other than Dave and myself, that has used them.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

What material are these “hoop” rings made of? Non conductive I hope!

Though I have no real world experience with microwaves, it would seem that from other real world experience conductive hoop rings around and in contact, with the exterior surface of your very thin copper cone, would alter the electromagnetic potential of the copper in the vicinity of the rings... and add possible resonance complications?... No?

This kind of issue may be one source of the variation in results of the publicly shared experiments, where it seems every build is just a bit different that the orthers. Seemingly small design variations may contribute as much to results as the more obvious...

...... I am personally really interested in seeing Jamie’s results and comparison of the data from his printed frustum and (oyzw’s?) solid copper build. Testing and comparing the data from these two builds, on the test bed Jamie has spent so much time refining, should be interesting. Maybe if the initial data warrants it, testing a printed build that matches the dimensions of the solid copper frustum...

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/05/2018 04:05 pm
nice picture, no data, and my patience for sawyer's flying cars has long expired.

No flying cars from me.

Just a simple to make KISS thruster, test rig and Rf system that will go round & round.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/05/2018 04:14 pm
The hoop rings have arrived.

Very important they are epoxy bounded to the outer sufrace of the frustum before it is removed from the internal flower pot form. They ensure the frustum stays round after the internal form is pulled out and gives the 0.55mm thick frustum side walls additional ridigity and strength.

Idea is from Dave (RfMwGuy). I have found them to work very well.

Not aware of any EmDrive builder, other than Dave and myself, that has used them.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

What material are these “hoop” rings made of? Non conductive I hope!

Though I have no real world experience with microwaves, it would seem that from other real world experience conductive hoop rings around and in contact, with the exterior surface of your very thin copper cone, would alter the electromagnetic potential of the copper in the vicinity of the rings... and add possible resonance complications?... No?

This kind of issue may be one source of the variation in results of the publicly shared experiments, where it seems every build is just a bit different that the orthers. Seemingly small design variations may contribute as much to results as the more obvious...

...... I am personally really interested in seeing Jamie’s results and comparison of the data from his printed frustum and (oyzw’s?) solid copper build. Testing and comparing the data from these two builds, on the test bed Jamie has spent so much time refining, should be interesting. Maybe if the initial data warrants it, testing a printed build that matches the dimensions of the solid copper frustum...

The skin depth of copper at 2.5GHz is around 6um. The copper is 550um thick. The hoop rings should have no effect on whar is happening inside the cavity.

While the hoop rings are steel, the copper they are sitting on is much lower resistance.

I plan on sending Jamie and Tajmar a complete cavity & Rf system to test. So no need for either to replicate.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 06/05/2018 04:38 pm
I'd like to give a bit of perspective from someone who reads this thread but doesn't have the background to make any significant contributions to it...


Generally speaking, this thread is captivating and sparks the imagination of the unknown and unexplained. There are people here who are actually working towards making something happen - or proving the physics simply don't work in the way many hoped. Either way, it's helping inform our understanding of our universe in a general sense, and could potentially revolutionizing propulsion systems and the utility they might provide. It's astounding.


However, this thread is also periodically full of vitriol and negativity. I get it - people are frustrated with talk and no concrete results. But honestly - you have to be bigger than that. Because when people start attacking the person and not the idea then it becomes trite, tedious, and childish.


To be honest, I've read many fairly personal attacks on The Traveller and he's maintained a very professional demeanor throughout. I don't think I would have been so composed.


Whether you agree with people or not - and no matter how impatient or frustrated you get - please read what you write with the eyes of a neutral observer before you post. It's incredibly frustrating to have to slog through all the useless posts to get to the ones that have substance.


As an aside - how long does it take to develop a chemical rocket engine completely from scratch? How long has the BE-4 been in development, and that's based on an existing framework and body of knowledge. How long does it take to design and build adequate test infrastructure? And what is the budget sunk into such things? Bezos is sinking a cool billion dollars into BO every year, and I doubt he even has to build a vacuum chamber. Yes - I know it's not an exact comparison, but the point remains.


So please - on behalf of all the hundreds (thousands?) of people reading this forum, try to work a little harder on being excellent to each other, and raise above - be the bigger person. It'll be a better thread because of it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 06/05/2018 06:07 pm
The hoop rings have arrived.

Very important they are epoxy bounded to the outer sufrace of the frustum before it is removed from the internal flower pot form. They ensure the frustum stays round after the internal form is pulled out and gives the 0.55mm thick frustum side walls additional ridigity and strength.

Idea is from Dave (RfMwGuy). I have found them to work very well.

Not aware of any EmDrive builder, other than Dave and myself, that has used them.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

What material are these “hoop” rings made of? Non conductive I hope!

Though I have no real world experience with microwaves, it would seem that from other real world experience conductive hoop rings around and in contact, with the exterior surface of your very thin copper cone, would alter the electromagnetic potential of the copper in the vicinity of the rings... and add possible resonance complications?... No?

This kind of issue may be one source of the variation in results of the publicly shared experiments, where it seems every build is just a bit different that the orthers. Seemingly small design variations may contribute as much to results as the more obvious...

...... I am personally really interested in seeing Jamie’s results and comparison of the data from his printed frustum and (oyzw’s?) solid copper build. Testing and comparing the data from these two builds, on the test bed Jamie has spent so much time refining, should be interesting. Maybe if the initial data warrants it, testing a printed build that matches the dimensions of the solid copper frustum...

The skin depth of copper at 2.5GHz is around 6um. The copper is 550um thick. The hoop rings should have no effect on whar is happening inside the cavity.

While the hoop rings are steel, the copper they are sitting on is much lower resistance.

I plan on sending Jamie and Tajmar a complete cavity & Rf system to test. So no need for either to replicate.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

My point is made in your response, “The hoop rings should have no effect on whar is happening inside the cavity.“... which reduces the issue to another unknown...

The skin depth is almos always far less than than the actual diameter/thickness of an antenna and yet even bringing a conductive source near an antenna can alter it’s electromagnetic potential. So far from what I have seen in these threads virtually all if not all builds discussed have been different in one or more ways, from materials, dimensions, EM source etc. ... that makes it very difficult to know which if any falls along a “right” track, to confirm or refute any potential to reliably and repeatedly produce useable thrust.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/05/2018 07:03 pm
Here is the latest walk around of my test rig and first high powered "shakedown" test. I've also included the raw data, which I have not had the opportunity to analyse. Test conditions were not ideal as the room was in the process of cooling down, but it gives you an idea how the manual, and eventually automatic, tests will be run.

Volume is very low on the test run, but if you crank it up you can hear it. Sorry, I will have to see what I did wrong with Open Broadcaster.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EOdC6SkRBw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykfM1Eyk3J0
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 06/05/2018 07:44 pm
Here is the latest walk around of my test rig and first high powered "shakedown" test. I've also included the raw data, which I have not had the opportunity to analyse. Test conditions were not ideal as the room was in the process of cooling down, but it gives you an idea how the manual, and eventually automatic, tests will be run.

Volume is very low on the test run, but if you crank it up you can hear it. Sorry, I will have to see what I did wrong with Open Broadcaster.

Super impressive test rig - I've been following along but first time I've seen it in action.
There was a noticeable signal in the laser sensors - can you give us an idea of the scale on that? Max delta looked to be about 0.06mA with about a +0.01mA difference between first and last (though I imagine it may take longer than the recorded file to actually return to the rest position)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: LowerAtmosphere on 06/05/2018 08:12 pm
Congratulations to TT for providing proof of the build and his future cooperations! Stay strong and healthy, it takes nerves of steel to weather all the pedants and move forward with engineering. I am sure forum veterans are just as pleasantly surprised at the past week as I am.

Mr. "Lauwer", would you like someone to visit your lab? Me and my engineer friend who is affiliated with your institution would be glad to visit and vouch for the integrity of your equipment and methodology. The archiving project was cancelled as the imacro chrom extension became commercialized forcing me to either dip my toes in Ruby or VBA, both of which are a pain for those who do not use them.

Cheers and good wishes to the DIY warriors and their theory "enforcers" on the periphery ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/05/2018 08:18 pm
There was a noticeable signal in the laser sensors - can you give us an idea of the scale on that? Max delta looked to be about 0.06mA with about a +0.01mA difference between first and last (though I imagine it may take longer than the recorded file to actually return to the rest position)

~0.06mA is ~6.8uN. It is worth noting that the direction of the movement is with small end of the frustum leading, which is expected for this mode.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: WhatAFeynDay on 06/05/2018 09:18 pm
So please - on behalf of all the hundreds (thousands?) of people reading this forum, try to work a little harder on being excellent to each other, and raise above - be the bigger person. It'll be a better thread because of it.

Let's neutrally observe some comments from the past and see if you might start to understand why so many people doubt TheTraveller's statements.

December, 2015. In the course of several months, TheTraveller claimed to have built and successfully tested an Emdrive which produced 8mN of thrust. However, he conveniently had no camera to take any pictures and destroyed all evidence of the build before showing it to anyone.

Here he is on December 12, 2015 announcing his emdrive build.

"Cutting copper next week. Using a 1.2kW Panasonic maggie, driven by a modified Panasonic maggie inverter power supply. Will be using a 5kv vac switch to remove filament power once the maggie is generating microwaves. Expect 1st Force measurements early Jan 2016."
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1456505#msg1456505

He commented 10 days later, on December 22, 2015, that he was also building a second emdrive, a special one:

"I'm building a special frustum to directly measure the radiation pressure generated on each end plate."
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39004.msg1462922#msg1462922

No evidence of the first or second emdrive ever materialized. No pictures of any materials, no pictures of any work in progress, no pictures of completed devices, nothing.

When he returns in May of 2016 and is asked what the results of his experiment were, he replies:

~8mN, unloaded Q ~16,000, forward Rf power ~95W.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1528818#msg1528818

He then asserts that he has already started building yet another emdrive, one which will produce at least 20mN of force.

"When a reaction force generation level of at least 20mN has been achieved and expected rotation of the rotary test table in a high vac has been achieved the data and video will be presented via YouTube.

Following that successful result, a business entity will be formed and potential customers will be invited to view, inspect & do their own tests on our in house test setup as part of their order process."
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1528335#msg1528335

Again, he returns about 10 days later, this time claiming that he will soon begin commercially offering complete thruster kits for $50,000 each by the end of 2016.

"What do we get for $50,000? Just the frustum? Or will you include the RF source, test rig, and other RF test equipment?"

"Complete ready to go self contained 0.1N S band thruster including all support systems such as 250Wrf, smart freq tracker & install / operational manual. Input power can be stepped up in 250W increments to 2.5kW but at additional cost. Can be run in dumb mode by just switching On & Off external power or controlled by multi access method control port.

Clients can visit & do their own tests.

When this goes commercial, later this year, may talk to Chris about advertising on NSF."
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1534541#msg1534541

He then returns in July of 2016 and claims that he has begun manufacturing spherical endplates for his various emdrive endeavours.

"The 1st 2 spherical end plate, Al machined, multi layer plated thrusters are in manufacture. So far this is all my money on the line."
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39772.msg1557450#msg1557450

TheTraveller then shows up on a different web site in December of 2016, where he makes no mention of any of his previous claims, yet makes a new announcement that he will now be building "replicator drives" based on several other experiments:

"Have bought enough sheet copper to have 4 - 6 frustum designs laser cut at the same time. Plan to build:
1) My EBay $500 KISS copper frustum
2) Paul's copper frustum
3) Prof Yang's copper frustum
4) Dave's copper frustum
5) Michelle's copper frustum
and excite them all with a 100W Rf amp and S11 freq tracker in TE01x mode via a 1/4 wave side wall mounted stub antenna as it is the simplest to build and align.
Will then post videos and photos of the 5 builds and the test results.
Idea is to replicate the 4 above thrusters, plus build the KISS unit and show the static thrust that they generate on my digital scale.
If there is anybody out there that has built a working EmDrive and would like me to replicate it, please PM me to ensure I have your correct dimensions and excited mode.

(link to external web site omitted as I have been previously admonished not to link to particular sites)

By this time, he has apparently abandoned the build he made such grand claims about in May. No mention of the spherical endplates he previously claimed to have manufactured. No mention of his $50,000 commercial emdrive production which was to commence by the end of 2016.

Nobody needs to be admonished to be the bigger person here, we have been giving TheTraveller the benefit of the doubt for literally YEARS. For him to now show up with some pictures of lumber clumsily cobbled together whilst making the same tired claims should test many people's patience, and I cannot fault anyone who doubts the veracity of his assertions.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: rq3 on 06/05/2018 11:17 pm
There was a noticeable signal in the laser sensors - can you give us an idea of the scale on that? Max delta looked to be about 0.06mA with about a +0.01mA difference between first and last (though I imagine it may take longer than the recorded file to actually return to the rest position)

~0.06mA is ~6.8uN. It is worth noting that the direction of the movement is with small end of the frustum leading, which is expected for this mode.

Jaime, this is the most fantastic piece of equipment I've seen since C.L. Stong wrote "The Amateur Scientist" for Scientific American. It certainly qualifies for an honorary doctorate from MIT, whether the results are positive or negative. Your perserverance and attention to detail across disparate levels of physics and engineering are to be commended.

A thought. Years ago I recommended that, since there is no theory as to why the EmDrive might work, experimentors may be chasing the wrong, or perhaps second or even third order, effects. My thought was to create a "force locked loop", rather than a phase locked loop, or even a frequency locked loop. Phase locked loops are common in the radio frequency world (indeed, your signal generator contains one).

From your videos, it appears that you have enough real time date, and the processing power, to have the displacement sensor drive and regulate the synthesizer for maximum torsion pendulum displacement in close to real time. The return loss may go to hell in a handbasket, but absolutely no one knows if Q really has anything to do with thrust.

It just seems to me that you have two parameters in this experiment. An input frequency, and perhaps phase, that you can control, and an expected result, displacement, that should be a direct result of the input. Directly linking the two in a "force locked loop" should give you maximum possible thrust. All of the other measurements would then be "experimental artifacts" that might yield further valuable data, but are not necessarily important as control elements in and of themselves.

In other words, if the displacement were fed back to the signal generator frequency and/or phase to maximize the displacement, you might glean data that is non obvious (dropping temperatures, current oscillations, pulsed feed requirements, who knows?). Just a thought, but it certainly appears your set-up might allow for this kind of "one controlled input vs. one required output feedback loop".

One other thought. I believe you mentioned in your first video that the torsion wire is 14 gauge? Is that the minimum size that will support the weight? The thinner the wire, the more sensitive the pendulum. A 32 gauge steel guitar string (0.009 inches diameter) will support around 30 pounds.

I'm in awe of your dedication, effort, and results.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/05/2018 11:49 pm
In other words, if the displacement were fed back to the signal generator frequency and/or phase to maximize the displacement, you might glean data that is non obvious (dropping temperatures, current oscillations, pulsed feed requirements, who knows?). Just a thought, but it certainly appears your set-up might allow for this kind of "one controlled input vs. one required output feedback loop".

One other thought. I believe you mentioned in your first video that the torsion wire is 14 gauge? Is that the minimum size that will support the weight? The thinner the wire, the more sensitive the pendulum. A 32 gauge steel guitar string (0.009 inches diameter) will support around 30 pounds.

Thank you for the kind words. My understanding is this can all be done using LabView. It requires integrating the relays, signal generator software, and the ADC - though that is no easy task for someone just beginning with the software.   :-[  Fortunately sample LabView virtual instruments are available for my equipment, so it is just a matter of time before I can try things like force locked loops.

I used #14 piano wire, which is 0.033 inches in diameter. Depending on the weight of the pendulum, which in my case tops out around 25 lbs, #14 seemed to be the best fit. I believe my #14 wire can hold 250 lbs, but per Dr. Rodal, the weight at which it becomes elastic is 50 lbs.  You are correct that using either a thinner wire, or increasing the wire length will increase the sensitivity of the rig. However, i'm nearly at the limit of my LDS resolution. Easiest way to upgrade now is to purchase a better LDS. There is one available that will work with my ADC that has double the resolution (1.5nm) of my current LDS (3nm). But it is nearly $400. Any better than that and I will need to get a better ADC.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 06/05/2018 11:54 pm
My thought was to create a "force locked loop", rather than a phase locked loop

The force-loop feedback is a very interesting idea.
Let's suppose the anomalous thrust is real.
Suppose there are also other spurious forces at play (it's not really a supposition as we know this is the case).
Suppose that one of these spurious forces, a thermal effect for example, pushes the frustum small end leading, due to dynamical forces acting upon the frustum and the balance system, not so easy to understand at first.
Suppose this spurious force is quite tiny (Monomorphic has done a great job isolating his test apparatus), but suppose that the genuine thrust is also quite tiny, so these two forces are of the same magnitude, and add up.
Suppose there is about, say, 40-50 % of the main force due to a genuine propellantless thrust, and 50-60% due to a thermal artifact (or even a larger proportion of that).

How would a "force locked loop" react in this kind of situation? Wouldn't it be decoyed and seek something in a wrong direction that would lead to nowhere, the force initially produced eventually vanishing quickly?

Different story if 1) the "real" force does exists, ie. it has no mundane origine, and 2) spurious forces that also exist are kept well below the strength of the genuine one… but how to know? It seems some data is mandatory to evaluate the different forces before that force-loop feedback. Then maybe it could compare with the lowest VSWR solution.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: VAXHeadroom on 06/06/2018 12:11 am
My thought was to create a "force locked loop", rather than a phase locked loop

The force-loop feedback is a very interesting idea.
Let's suppose the anomalous thrust is real.
Suppose there are also other spurious forces at play (it's not really a supposition as we know this is the case).
Suppose that one of these spurious forces, a thermal effect for example, pushes the frustum small end leading, due to dynamical forces acting upon the frustum and the balance system, not so easy to understand at first.
Suppose this spurious force is quite tiny (Monomorphic has done a great job isolating his test apparatus), but suppose that the genuine thrust is also quite tiny, so these two forces are of the same magnitude, and add up.
Suppose there is about, say, 40-50 % of the main force due to a genuine propellantless thrust, and 50-60% due to a thermal artifact (or even a larger proportion of that).

How would a "force locked loop" react in this kind of situation? Wouldn't it be decoyed and seek something in a wrong direction that would lead to nowhere, the force initially produced eventually vanishing quickly?

Different story if 1) the "real" force does exists, ie. it has no mundane origine, and 2) spurious forces that also exist are kept well below the strength of the genuine one… but how to know? It seems some data is mandatory to evaluate the different forces before that force-loop feedback. Then maybe it could compare with the lowest VSWR solution.

Sounds like an ideal job for a genetic algorithm.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 06/06/2018 12:28 am
There is one available that will work with my ADC that has double the resolution (1.5nm) of my current LDS (3nm). But it is nearly $400. Any better than that and I will need to get a better ADC.

I don't remember, is there a reason why you would not want to crowdfund your project at this point?

With the kind of stunning experimental setup you managed to achieve over the months (and yes, this is really really impressive, thank you so much for doing this) and the clean video you recorded to explain this and that on YouTube (you express yourself well, you clearly know what you are talking about – and this is no simple stuff, you explain complicated things with simple words, no show off…) I wouldn't be surprised if you collected many $$$ with crowdfunding (rfmwguy got several thousand dollars with "just" a magnetron soldered on a cavity, a laser pointer, an IR camera and a very long underdamped suspended arm). I am sure that with Kickstarter or Indiegogo, and a proper communication on social medias and science news websites, as well as our active support, you would push the limits to infinity and beyond 8)

Fear to raise too much $$$ with such a campaign? Then let's order a very high Q precisely spun-machined electropolished spherical end plate frustum with no seam built by a professional. But don't be surprised if Drs White and Tajmar knock at your door after that ;)

Whatever, you'll see what you want to do after your first results with your calibrated setup, whether they are positive, null or negative. For now, let's begin with that.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/06/2018 12:44 am
The miniVNA tiny+ has shipped. Should take max 10 days to arrive.

During that time the frustum will be built, internal surfaces highly polished and the stub antenna coupler built.

When it arrives can then do a rtn loss freq sweep, find the TE013 freq, verify the mode is TE013 using an E field probe & then tune the coupler to lowest VSWR.

How the excited mode can be verified has never been discussed here, as far as I know. It will be an interesting discussion. What I will share is a very simple to build and use tool that ensures you have found the freq of the desired mode. Many just assume a freq is an expected mode. However using the technique I'll share, any DIY builder can easily determine the excited mode.

Self resonance of Rf systems is a real effect. Being able to verify the mode that is being excited eliminates concern the rtn loss dip the VNA found is really an internal cavity resonance and not a Rf system resonance.

Many little items / effects need to line up to achieve good force generation. Get one or more wrong and the generated force may be zero or very small.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/06/2018 02:56 am
How excited mode can be verified has never been discussed hete, as far as I know.
It has been discussed more than once. Simplest way which has been put into practice is simply IR images to compare to expected surface currents. Some modes are more difficult to distinguish, and the ability to do so depends on heat conductance and emissivity of the cavity external surfaces, as well as overall power level.

I don't know if it has been suggested here, since I didn't follow the relevant discussion closely, but a general method would involve measuring the fields inside the cavity, through antennas placed in various locations, or otherwise moveable. (Some modes could use sensors in the center of the cavity to verify well.) This obviously is complicated to set up, so I am not sure anyone has done it.

It just seems to me that you have two parameters in this experiment. An input frequency, and perhaps phase, that you can control, and an expected result, displacement, that should be a direct result of the input. Directly linking the two in a "force locked loop" should give you maximum possible thrust. All of the other measurements would then be "experimental artifacts" that might yield further valuable data, but are not necessarily important as control elements in and of themselves.

In other words, if the displacement were fed back to the signal generator frequency and/or phase to maximize the displacement, you might glean data that is non obvious (dropping temperatures, current oscillations, pulsed feed requirements, who knows?). Just a thought, but it certainly appears your set-up might allow for this kind of "one controlled input vs. one required output feedback loop".
A good idea, which can be implemented, but needs some serious consideration to do well.

The biggest difficulty is that for an active control loop, displacement is not equal to force. The spring constant and damping need to be characterized (will be done anyway). The displacement needs to be used to estimate the current velocity, and then both the velocity and the displacement need to be used together to determine the current expected dynamic motion to estimate the actual applied force by the system (really net acceleration, which also has to be estimated from displacement). This is all doable, and probably can be done well with the right algorithms. The difficulty will be that the resulting "current force" estimate may end up with a lot of noise in it, since you will be taking multiple derivatives to get velocity and then acceleration.

To answer flux_capacitor's question above, I don't think error sources that are not correlated with frequency should be a problem. (note that if an amplifier draws variable current with input frequency, and the power wires are generating a magnetic force, this will make that frequency dependent.) Phase locked loop is a technique used to keep 2 things the same. In this case, you actually just have one thing and you want to maximize it. There is some similarity in the algorithm, and the name "force locked loop" seems appropriate, but it should only be sensitive to things that change with frequency. Some time varying signals (or noise in the estimator) could cause a problem sometimes if you get unlucky.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/06/2018 03:05 am
Nobody needs to be admonished to be the bigger person here, we have been giving TheTraveller the benefit of the doubt for literally YEARS. For him to now show up with some pictures of lumber clumsily cobbled together whilst making the same tired claims should test many people's patience, and I cannot fault anyone who doubts the veracity of his assertions.

Have explained I entered into a contract with a mid size EU based aerospace company to develop a TRL 9 thruster for satellite use. That contract required my silence. Our EmDrive based satellite thruster will soon be tested in space and is expected to be commercially released toward the end of 2019. BTW I did sell them 4 of the spherical S Band thrusters.

I always wanted to return to the KISS thruster project and after some discussion, a way to do that was agreed.

The rotary test rig I'm building will work very well as you can see from the Emmett video. You call it clumsily cobbled together. I call it KISS engineering designed for the DIY replicator.

Stay tuned as I roll out each step of the KISS thruster project, explaining how to do it and why doing it the way indicated is important to the final result.

Building and testing an EmDrive is a detailed and somewhat complex process with each step of the process needing to be correct and understood why it neeeds to be done that way.

Many have failed, many have achieved some force generation but none have gone public with good force results. That waste of time and money is now going to stop. Just about everybody with moderate mechanical and electrical skill sets should be able to replicate the KISS thruster, rotary test rig and Rf excitation system and see their effort and funds going round and round on their rotary test rig.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/06/2018 03:24 am
I don't know if it has been suggested here, since I didn't follow the relevant discussion closely, but a general method would involve measuring the fields inside the cavity, through antennas placed in various locations, or otherwise moveable. (Some modes could use sensors in the center of the cavity to verify well.) This obviously is complicated to set up, so I am not sure anyone has done it.

Close.

Drill a small hole into the centre of the big end plate.

Obtain a short section of thin, very stiff and straight GHz rated coax.

Put an SMA male connector on one end.

At the other end expose a small length, say 1mm of the inner wire beyond the shield.

Connect the SMA end of the coax to a 40dB attenuator. May need more or less but start with 40dB.

Connect the other end of the attenuator to a freq scanner.

Excite the cavity at the freq you wish to test for the excited mode. Best to use as low power as possible to avoid overloading the freq scanner input. Which is why you need to use an attenuator on the input to the freq scanner.

Insert the exposed end of the coax E probe in through the small hole in the big end plate.

While moving the probe tip around inside the cavity, use the scanner to record the E field intensity and variations.

Repeating the above, mapping the E field lobes of the excited mode.

For TE013 there should be 3 very defined circular E field lobes as per the TE013 simulations.

Anything else and the excited mode is not TE013.

You do need a freq generator to drive the cavity coupler and another freq scanner to measure the output of the E field probe.

Will soon demonstrate this process.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: mrmittens on 06/06/2018 04:44 am
The archiving project was cancelled as the imacro chrom extension became commercialized forcing me to either dip my toes in Ruby or VBA, both of which are a pain for those who do not use them.

I am well versed in ruby. It is quite an elegant language once you get to know it, with a very friendly community.

What is the archiving project?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/06/2018 11:15 am
The miniVNA tiny+ has shipped. Should take max 10 days to arrive.

I would have gone with the Windfreak SynthNV2. For an extra $120 you get so much more. 18dB of drive vs -6dB. So if you expect to use it or the cheap chinese signal generator (-10dB drive), you will need a pre-amp to get the full 100W from your amplifier - which adds complexity.

Remember that I also own the miniVNA tiny and don't you recall that it would return ridiculous numbers for return loss, like -50 to -60dB?  The only thing is it useful for is the Smith Chart function, IMHO.  The cheaper + version you ordered doesn't seem to have many changes except access to lower bandwidth.

I also hope you purchased the calibration kit because you will need it to get the miniVNA to work.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/06/2018 12:02 pm
Volume fixed in the second video in case anyone had trouble hearing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykfM1Eyk3J0
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: glennfish on 06/06/2018 01:32 pm
Here is the latest walk around of my test rig and first high powered "shakedown" test. I've also included the raw data, which I have not had the opportunity to analyse. Test conditions were not ideal as the room was in the process of cooling down, but it gives you an idea how the manual, and eventually automatic, tests will be run.

Volume is very low on the test run, but if you crank it up you can hear it. Sorry, I will have to see what I did wrong with Open Broadcaster.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EOdC6SkRBw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykfM1Eyk3J0

Data content looks good.  Couple of minor suggestions/questions.  What's the A/D resolution on each channel?  Can you increase the sample rate?  i.e. your ambient RF channel rise & fall times are awfully slow sample speeds.  Don't know if it will ever matter, but transient events or simple power on/off events may have ringing which could matter which can't be seen at your current sample rates.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/06/2018 01:45 pm
Data content looks good.  Couple of minor suggestions/questions.  What's the A/D resolution on each channel?  Can you increase the sample rate?  i.e. your ambient RF channel rise & fall times are awfully slow sample speeds.  Don't know if it will ever matter, but transient events or simple power on/off events may have ringing which could matter which can't be seen at your current sample rates.

With a little processing, it seems I can get some pretty good data. I am having a voltage issue with the amplifier temp skipping, but that can be subtracted easily. Overall, I'm very pleased with the quality of the data collected on the first run.  ;D

Two things I noted is that the pendulum appears a little over-damped. That is easy to fix by lowering the damping fluid reservoir. And second that the 6.8uN of thrust appears to be mostly related to the temperature of the 30W RF output GaAs FET...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 06/06/2018 03:19 pm
Data content looks good.  Couple of minor suggestions/questions.  What's the A/D resolution on each channel?  Can you increase the sample rate?  i.e. your ambient RF channel rise & fall times are awfully slow sample speeds.  Don't know if it will ever matter, but transient events or simple power on/off events may have ringing which could matter which can't be seen at your current sample rates.

With a little processing, it seems I can get some pretty good data. I am having a voltage issue with the amplifier temp skipping, but that can be subtracted easily. Overall, I'm very pleased with the quality of the data collected on the first run.  ;D

Two things I noted is that the pendulum appears a little over-damped. That is easy to fix by lowering the damping fluid reservoir. And second that the 6.8uN of thrust appears to be mostly related to the temperature of the amplifier MOSFET...
Nomenclature suggestion: Push To Talk is a little cryptic, describing an action rather than a source.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/06/2018 03:55 pm
Nomenclature suggestion: Push To Talk is a little cryptic, describing an action rather than a source.

I'm open to suggestions on better wording. It is a logic level enable pin that requires grounding to enable power to the amplifier, which can also be used for a PTT/KEY control. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: chongma on 06/06/2018 10:05 pm
Two things I noted is that the pendulum appears a little over-damped. That is easy to fix by lowering the damping fluid reservoir. And second that the 6.8uN of thrust appears to be mostly related to the temperature of the 30W RF output GaAs FET...

we haven't heard from Rodal in a while.  he usually gives good advice about damping
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: oyzw on 06/07/2018 12:32 am
As for the phenomenon of self-resonance in RF circuits, I have also observed that I have tested my own design of the cavity and peaked at the predetermined TE013 resonance point, but there is a strong peak in the distance not far from the cavity. The resonance mode does not exist in the intrinsic mode. So there is a similar situation in Professor Tajmer's test chart. In short, the coupling of emdrive is difficult
 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/07/2018 01:03 am
The miniVNA tiny+ has shipped. Should take max 10 days to arrive.

I would have gone with the Windfreak SynthNV2. For an extra $120 you get so much more. 18dB of drive vs -6dB. So if you expect to use it or the cheap chinese signal generator (-10dB drive), you will need a pre-amp to get the full 100W from your amplifier - which adds complexity.

Remember that I also own the miniVNA tiny and don't you recall that it would return ridiculous numbers for return loss, like -50 to -60dB?  The only thing is it useful for is the Smith Chart function, IMHO.  The cheaper + version you ordered doesn't seem to have many changes except access to lower bandwidth.

I also hope you purchased the calibration kit because you will need it to get the miniVNA to work.

Jamie,

It is claimed the miniVNA tiny+ is an improved build. Will see. Lower price only on AliExpress. Higher price elsewhere.

As for the output, at 2.5GHz it drops to around -20dBm. Don't plan to use it to drive the Rf amp. It was bought to tune the coupler. Yes I did buy the calibration kit.

Will checkout the Windfreak SynthNV2. Was not aware of that unit. Thanks.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SteveD on 06/07/2018 01:31 am
Interesting.  Dave reported a noticeable force on his last run, where the magnetron was known to be defunct.  The self contained nature of monomorphic's setup seems to negate the hot wire expanding hypothesis.  Heated air would seem a likely cause.  On the other hand, a heat engine also produces an observable force when it gets hot.  I have to wonder if a hot device might be putting out IR photons across a wide enough band that some randomly are the right frequency to be in resonance in the can.  Would help explain why polishing to a mirror finish seems important for what should be microwave resonance.

Just to be clear, a more mundane heat related cause seems likely.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/07/2018 01:50 am
As for the phenomenon of self-resonance in RF circuits, I have also observed that I have tested my own design of the cavity and peaked at the predetermined TE013 resonance point, but there is a strong peak in the distance not far from the cavity. The resonance mode does not exist in the intrinsic mode. So there is a similar situation in Professor Tajmer's test chart. In short, the coupling of emdrive is difficult

Oyzw,

Correct.

Which is why DIYers need to be able to use an E field probe inside the cavity and determine they are exciting a real cavity resonant mode, not some Rf system resonance, and that mode is the one they wish to excite.

Plus the coupler design and position must create opposite direction travelling waves so their superposition creates the resonant lobes they simulate.

Caution is always needed with TE01x modes as the degenerative TM11x mode resonates at the same or very near freq. Coupler design and position is what determines which mode is excited and which mode is suppressed. This is again why an E field probe is very important to ensure you are exciting TE01x mode and not TM11x mode.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/07/2018 02:48 am
2 x 0.55 x 450 x 900mm 110 Cu sheets arrive today.

Next steps after the silver epoxy arrives:

 Remove the protective film on one side of one sheet,

 Tape one sheet to a 900mm x 900mm white melamine covered work board,

 Mirror polish the sheet, NO SCRATCHES ALLOWED!

 Scribe the frustum curves on the sheet. Will describe how to do this later.

 CAREFULLY cut out the frustum shape,

 Clean up the cut edges. Will later describe and show how to grind the big and small diameter edges flat or at right angle to the frustum length axis.

 Cut and apply the protective film to the mold,

 Wrap the cut frustum around the flower pot form with the aid of the hoop rings,

 Fit all 5 hoop rings over the wrapped frustum,

 Carefully align the edges of the cut frustum. This is a critical step to get 100% right.

 Epoxy the hoop rings to the frustum. No need to use silver epoxy here. Don't use 5 minute epoxy.

 Wait 24 hours for the epoxy to cure,

 Apply silver epoxy on outside of the butt join seam,

 Apply 5 shaped reinforcing pieces of silver epoxy lined copper sheets between the hoop rings to add strength to the butt joint,

 Wrap scrap wire over the copper pieces to hold them in place during silver epoxy curing,

 Wait 24 hours for the silver epoxy to cure,

 Remove the securing wire,

 Pull the frustum away from the flower pot mold,

 Remove the protective film,

 Using a sharp pointed tooth pick carefully fill in any gaps in the butt joint inside the frustum with silver epoxy,

 Wait 24 hours for the epoxy to cure,

 Repolish the epoxied butt joint area if required,

BTW wear thin white cotton gloves at all times. Change them quite often. They protect your fingers and hands from copper cuts and protect the copper from your finger prints. Always wear a new pair when touching the inside highly polished surface of the frustum.

Any comments?

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: kubajed on 06/07/2018 06:10 am
Hi,
my name is Jakub Jędrzejewski, also known as a “polish team”. Previously I was working with my friend, but we decided to split up, so now I am working on my own.
I would like to introduce my work: two cavities, two test stands and results obtained. The microwave generating system I used in first and second tests is the same so I would like to describe it at first. It is quite similar as James’s. To power it batteries are used. Communication in the first test was done via WiFi, in the second using radio. Maximum output power is about 25 W.
My first cavity have been demonstrated there already, it was shaped like a cone with a cylinder where a piston was used to match the impedance. I use aluminum casting, then it was turned to the desired dimensions. The first test stand acts like a teeter totter. The main disadvantage of this test stand is that it is built using steel, which is ferromagnetic material.
The second test stand is similar to the James’s one, but I use 1,5 um LDS, batteries to power, and radio communication. I changed dimensions of the first cavity and now it hasn’t got cylindrical part, additionally it is polished internally. Material used to manufacture whole test stand is aluminum. I have also built bidirectional power meter. Calibration have been done with a coil and a ferromagnetic screw, at first I measured force on the 0,1 mg scale, then I moved everything onto test stand. The results on the torsion pendulum are the first ones, so future test will be performed. Maybe cavity during testing wasn't properly impedance matched.
Photographs are available here:
First test stand: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1o0C5tsZ3T_HzWdI5NNC8U0IjVX5cRnKX
Second test stand: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1WueFLUnx3Afe0Tsx6qekSZhmVwDfyMrN

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ThatOtherGuy on 06/07/2018 08:34 am
using either a thinner wire, or increasing the wire length will increase the sensitivity of the rig
However, i'm nearly at the limit of my LDS resolution.

Aside from the resolution issue; if you want to increase the wire length, you may place a (plastic) pipe of appropriate diameter (and length btw) on the top of the test rig box, at that point, the high end of the wire will be anchored at the upper end of the pipe; the idea is to use the pipe to shield the wire from air movement, although, I suspect that such a setup may/will induce a "chimney" effect and I'm not sure if/how it will impact the measurements

Anyhow, you're doing a really IMPRESSIVE job !

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/07/2018 10:00 am
Hi,
my name is Jakub Jędrzejewski, also known as a “polish team”. Previously I was working with my friend, but we decided to split up, so now I am working on my own.
I would like to introduce my work: two cavities, two test stands and results obtained. The microwave generating system I used in first and second tests is the same so I would like to describe it at first. It is quite similar as James’s. To power it batteries are used. Communication in the first test was done via WiFi, in the second using radio. Maximum output power is about 25 W.
My first cavity have been demonstrated there already, it was shaped like a cone with a cylinder where a piston was used to match the impedance. I use aluminum casting, then it was turned to the desired dimensions. The first test stand acts like a teeter totter. The main disadvantage of this test stand is that it is built using steel, which is ferromagnetic material.
The second test stand is similar to the James’s one, but I use 1,5 um LDS, batteries to power, and radio communication. I changed dimensions of the first cavity and now it hasn’t got cylindrical part, additionally it is polished internally. Material used to manufacture whole test stand is aluminum. I have also built bidirectional power meter. Calibration have been done with a coil and a ferromagnetic screw, at first I measured force on the 0,1 mg scale, then I moved everything onto test stand. The results on the torsion pendulum are the first ones, so future test will be performed. Maybe cavity during testing wasn't properly impedance matched.
Photographs are available here:
First test stand: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1o0C5tsZ3T_HzWdI5NNC8U0IjVX5cRnKX
Second test stand: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1WueFLUnx3Afe0Tsx6qekSZhmVwDfyMrN

Jakub,

Both of your experimental results I suggest are the result of thermal expansion. The force plots are not the force plots produced by an EmDrive generating force.

Your frustum is cutoff as shown by the intensity of the small end plate eddy current ring being lower than the small end side wall eddy current ring.

Stay tuned for how to build a KISS thruster, coupler, Rf system and rotary test rig that will generate enough force to rotate the rotary test rig round and round.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows and For EmDrive DIYers To Stop Wasting Time and Money On Builds That Will Not Generate Significate Force
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/07/2018 11:26 am
There is not a nice way to say this. The EmDrive NEEDS TO BE FREE to accelerate. Any test rig that does not allow the EmDrive to freely accelerate is a waste of time, no matter how well it is built. F = m * a. No a or acceleration and no F or force. Understand?

The EmDrive IS NOT A ROCKET engine. There is NO force generation if the EmDrive is not free to accelerate. I will not argue this point. It is a FACT as I will show.

Building a FREE TO ACCELERATE rotary test rig is how to do this. Stay tuned and see it in action. Plus learn all the other tricks and techniques you need to add to the recipe to make this work.

Or continue to follow failed examples, waste your time and money and achieve nothing. Your choice.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows and For EmDrive DIYers To Stop Wasting Time and Money On Builds and Test Rigs That Will Not Generate Significate Force

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/07/2018 11:45 am
There is not a nice way to say this. The EmDrive NEEDS TO BE FREE to accelerate. Any test rig that does not allow the EmDrive to freely accelerate is a waste of time, no matter how well it is built. F = m * a. No a or acceleration and no F or force. Understand?

You do realize a torsional pendulum is no different from your rotary test rig? Torsional pendulums are free to accelerate, as evidenced by the thermal effects seen here lately. If the Emdrive needs to accelerate to work, then why didn't the effect kick in when it began accelerating from the thermal effects?

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/07/2018 12:37 pm
There is not a nice way to say this. The EmDrive NEEDS TO BE FREE to accelerate. Any test rig that does not allow the EmDrive to freely accelerate is a waste of time, no matter how well it is built. F = m * a. No a or acceleration and no F or force. Understand?

You do realize a torsional pendulum is no different from your rotary test rig? Torsional pendulums are free to accelerate, as evidenced by the thermal effects seen here lately. If the Emdrive needs to accelerate to work, then why didn't the effect kick in when it began accelerating from the thermal effects?

Jamie,

Any EmDrive thruster needs to be excited in a E probe verified TE01x mode, have a good side wall coupler design that generates bi directional travelling waves plus needs to have a small end that is not in cutoff.

The Jakub results are thermal and their frustum was a bad build. It operated in cutoff, coupler design and placement can't generate bidirectional travelling waves, those that designed and built it ignored the TE01x 0.82 cutoff rule and visual data that showed it was cutoff.

As I stated I'll not argue the point. My results will reveal reality.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows and For EmDrive DIYers To Stop Wasting Time and Money On Builds and Test Rigs That Will Not Generate Significate Force
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/07/2018 01:07 pm
Any EmDrive thruster needs to be excited in a E probe verified TE01x mode, have a good side wall coupler design that generates bi directional travelling waves plus needs to have a small end that is not in cutoff.
Phil,
Are you saying that the infrared camera technique is not sufficient to verify modes?

I am more than willing to verify the mode using an e-probe. It shouldn't take long since I already have an e-probe I can modify handy. 

As for a sidewall coupler, that will be tested in time, likely with Oyzw's spun copper frustum.

Both my 3D printed frustum and Oyzw's frustum are confirmed to have small ends that are not in cutoff.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/07/2018 01:31 pm
Any EmDrive thruster needs to be excited in a E probe verified TE01x mode, have a good side wall coupler design that generates bi directional travelling waves plus needs to have a small end that is not in cutoff.
Phil,
Are you saying that the infrared camera technique is not sufficient to verify modes?

I am more than willing to verify the mode using an e-probe. It shouldn't take long since I already have an e-probe I can modify handy. 

As for a sidewall coupler, that will be tested in time, likely with Oyzw's spun copper frustum.

Both my 3D printed frustum and Oyzw's frustum are confirmed to have small ends that are not in cutoff.

Jamie,

I believe those are EW thermal images and not your cavities? E field probe results are superior to thermal plots and are much quicker and lower cost to obtain than thermal plots. Please note the EW copper PCB end plates are 35um or 0.0014 inches thick, 1 oz copper, and as such do not easily distribute heat sideways plus the heat needs to transit the fibreglass backing material to be imaged. Bit harder to do thermal images of the side walls as they are 20x thicker.

Please post the Feko mode plots showing the end plate and small end side wall eddy current plots to confirm the cavities are not in cutoff.

Next goal is to use a side wall mounted stub antenna / coupler and to use a VNA / Smith Charts to tune the distance from the big end plate, antenna length and angle to the side wall for best impedance match and lowest VSWR when it is exciting an E probe verified TE013 mode and not TM113 or some other close mode.

Only trying to be helpful and to help you to measure significant force generatiion.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows and For EmDrive DIYers To Stop Wasting Time and Money On Builds and Test Rigs That WILL NOT Generate Significate Force
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 06/07/2018 01:31 pm

Phil,
Are you saying that the infrared camera technique is not sufficient to verify modes?

I am more than willing to verify the mode using an e-probe. It shouldn't take long since I already have an e-probe I can modify handy. 

As for a sidewall coupler, that will be tested in time, likely with Oyzw's spun copper frustum.

Both my 3D printed frustum and Oyzw's frustum are confirmed to have small ends that are not in cutoff.

Monomorphic, your E probe looks like a loop antenna, thus a B probe. I think an E probe is small enough to probe the internal of a cavity through small holes drilled on the walls. That is also what I read from TheTraveller's description.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/07/2018 01:38 pm

Phil,
Are you saying that the infrared camera technique is not sufficient to verify modes?

I am more than willing to verify the mode using an e-probe. It shouldn't take long since I already have an e-probe I can modify handy. 

As for a sidewall coupler, that will be tested in time, likely with Oyzw's spun copper frustum.

Both my 3D printed frustum and Oyzw's frustum are confirmed to have small ends that are not in cutoff.

Monomorphic, your E probe looks like a loop antenna, thus a B probe. I think an E probe is small enough to probe the internal of a cavity through small holes drilled on the walls. That is also what I read from TheTraveller's description.

PN,

Drill the small diameter E probe access hole in the centre of the big end plate. Should be no E field there, if excited in TE01x mode as it should be a 1/2 guide wave null zone, and min / no reduction in Q. If there is a strong E field as the E field probe is inserted in the small hole in the centre of the big end plate, well this is not TE01x mode.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows and For EmDrive DIYers To Stop Wasting Time and Money On Builds and Test Rigs That WILL NOT Generate Significate Force
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/07/2018 01:44 pm
Monomorphic, your E probe looks like a loop antenna, thus a B probe. I think an E probe is small enough to probe the internal of a cavity through small holes drilled on the walls. That is also what I read from TheTraveller's description.

I understood that as well. The image I used is of the B-probe that I use to sniff around. I'll remove that and replace it with an e-probe, which is basically a very thin coax inserted through a hole. I will drill a hole in the small end and insert there likely. 
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/07/2018 01:46 pm
Drill the small diameter E probe access hole in the centre of the big end plate. Should be no E field there, if excited in TE01x mode as it should be a 1/2 guide wave null zone, and min / no reduction in Q. If there is a strong E field as the E field probe is inserted in the small hole in the centre of the big end plate, well this is not TE01x mode.

I am going to go down through the small end about half radius out. If I insert the probe all the way down, I should be able to detect three distinct lobes. I don't want to scar up the large end-plate as it is harder to replace.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/07/2018 01:49 pm
Drill the small diameter E probe access hole in the centre of the big end plate. Should be no E field there, if excited in TE01x mode as it should be a 1/2 guide wave null zone, and min / no reduction in Q. If there is a strong E field as the E field probe is inserted in the small hole in the centre of the big end plate, well this is not TE01x mode.

I am going to go down through the small end about half radius out. If I insert the probe all the way down, I should be able to detect three distinct lobes. I don't want to scar up the large end-plate as it is harder to replace.

Jamie,

Here is how to make an E field probe:


Drill a small hole into the centre of the big end plate.

Obtain a short section of thin, very stiff and straight GHz rated coax.

Put an SMA male connector on one end.

At the other end expose a small length, say 1mm of the inner wire beyond the shield.

Connect the SMA end of the coax to a 40dB attenuator. May need more or less but start with 40dB.

Connect the other end of the attenuator to a freq scanner.

Excite the cavity at the freq you wish to test for the excited mode. Best to use as low power as possible to avoid overloading the freq scanner input. Which is why you need to use an attenuator on the input to the freq scanner.

Insert the exposed end of the coax E probe in through the small hole in the big end plate.

While moving the probe tip around inside the cavity, use the scanner to record the E field intensity and variations.

Repeating the above, mapping the E field lobes of the excited mode.

For TE013 there should be 3 very defined circular E field lobes as per the TE013 simulations.

Anything else and the excited mode is not TE013.

You do need a freq generator to drive the cavity coupler and another freq scanner to measure the output of the E field probe.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows and For EmDrive DIYers To Stop Wasting Time and Money On Builds and Test Rigs That WILL NOT Generate Significate Force
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/07/2018 01:56 pm
You do need a freq generator to drive the cavity coupler and another freq scanner to measure the output of the E field probe.

Yes, I know how it is done and have everything I need to do it. Of course, once I go through the trouble and verify that it is indeed TE013, as the simulations show, I'm sure you'll find another goal post for me and others to jump over...     ::)

Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/07/2018 02:08 pm
Please post the Feko mode plots showing the end plate and small end side wall eddy current plots to confirm the cavities are not in cutoff.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Jim Davis on 06/07/2018 02:11 pm
The EmDrive NEEDS TO BE FREE to accelerate.

This doesn't make much sense. Even if an EmDrive is bolted down it is "free" to accelerate the entire planet to some extent. The a will be very small and the m will be very large but the F should be the same. How would an EmDrive know whether it is "free" or not?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/07/2018 02:16 pm
You do need a freq generator to drive the cavity coupler and another freq scanner to measure the output of the E field probe.

Yes, I know how it is done and have everything I need to do it. Of course, once I go through the trouble and verify that it is indeed TE013, as the simulations show, I'm sure you'll find another goal post for me and others to jump over...     ::)

Jamie,

Thanks for that. The plots look fine. But as I have learned not to trust plots when exciting real world cavities, please do the E field probe work to confirm you are exciting TE01x and not the same freq degenerative TM11x mode or some other mode. NEVER assume the mode you are exciting is the one you desire. CONFIRM it.

BTW as Roger advises a good cavity design is one in which the undesired modes have been designed to be as far away from the desired mode as possible. Yes that is possible using the Excel spreadsheet model Roger developed and I copied. I can very quickly calc the resonate freq for over 96 possible modes in less than 1 minute. Try that with Feko or COMSOL or HFSS.

Then you need to address being able to excite dual travelling waves so their superposition produces the standing waves the plots show.

Like any complex recipe, there are many ways to get the bake wrong and the cake is not what is desired.

These steps are not hoops you need to jump over. They are real world engineering build steps that need to be achieved to bake the cake your desire.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows and For EmDrive DIYers To Stop Wasting Time and Money On Builds and Test Rigs That WILL NOT Generate Significate Force
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/07/2018 02:26 pm
The EmDrive NEEDS TO BE FREE to accelerate.

This doesn't make much sense. Even if an EmDrive is bolted down it is "free" to accelerate the entire planet to some extent. The a will be very small and the m will be very large but the F should be the same. How would an EmDrive know whether it is "free" or not?

Hi Jim,

Successful acceleration of an EmDrive and associated mass causes differental doppler freq shifts at each end of the cavity. There is a min required acceleration rate to lock in what Roger calls "Motor Mode". Trying to acceleate the mass of the planet with a satellite rated EmDrive thruster will not achieve it.

So yes there is a max mass vs EmDrive force that will trigger "Motor Mode".

Think of an electric motor trying to rotate the mass of the Earth. All that will happen in reality is the motor will get VERY HOT.

So an EmDrive force generating capability needs to be in an acceptable range so the EmDrive can xfer cavity Joules of stored energy into accelerative KE Joules of energy. In doing so the cavity Q drops as the KE Joule xfer adds to the cavity eddy current and coupler loss per cycle.

EmDrives that do not accelerate mass, ei Work done on the mass = zero, such as those that levitate mass get very hot as ALL the cavity stored energy exits as eddy current generated thermal heating.

Either way CofE is conserved.

I will come back to this discussion but now is not the time to engage it.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows and For EmDrive DIYers To Stop Wasting Time and Money On Builds and Test Rigs That WILL NOT Generate Significate Force
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/07/2018 02:35 pm
Successful acceleration of an EmDrive and associated mass causes differental doppler freq shits at each end of the cavity. There is a min required acceleration rate to lock in what Roger calls "Motor Mode". Trying to acceleate the mass of the planet with a satellite rated EmDrive thruster will not achieve it.

Perhaps you meant freq "shifts" and not "shits?"  :o

What is the minimum required acceleration to lock in the "motor mode?"  It should be easy enough to generate that acceleration with the calibration coil. But how do you expect to generate the correct acceleration?  Just let it flap in the wind and hope?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/07/2018 02:49 pm
Successful acceleration of an EmDrive and associated mass causes differental doppler freq shits at each end of the cavity. There is a min required acceleration rate to lock in what Roger calls "Motor Mode". Trying to acceleate the mass of the planet with a satellite rated EmDrive thruster will not achieve it.

Perhaps you meant freq "shifts" and not "shits?"  :o

What is the minimum required acceleration to lock in the "motor mode?"  It should be easy enough to generate that acceleration with the calibration coil. But how do you expect to generate the correct acceleration?  Just let it flap in the wind and hope?

Jamie,

Oops. Edited. Thanks.

The effect will clearly be demonstrated as will both CofE and CofM.

EmDrive needs no new physics. Just the application of a microwave effect discovered by Cullen in 1950 that generates asymmetric forces in a tapered resonant cavitity. With that effect, resonant photons can be harvested for their momentum and energy. As a result their wavelenegth increase as they transfer momentum and Joules of energy to accelerating mass.

Those that knee jerk rejected Roger's work will soon learn their mistake.

Those that respected Roger's work and replicated his invention will soon be rewarded with a open door to much better replications and force generation.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows and For EmDrive DIYers To Stop Wasting Time and Money On Builds and Test Rigs That WILL NOT Generate Significate Force
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/07/2018 02:54 pm
Those that respected Roger's work and replicated his invention will soon be rewarded with a open door to much better replications and force generation.

As I wrote, it should be easy enough to generate a range of accelerations using the calibration coil. Do you know what the minimum required acceleration is to lock in the "motor mode" as stated by Roger Shawyer?  If that is so critical, then we need a range to test at.  It would be helpful if we had some idea of the magnitude of acceleration required.   
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/07/2018 03:10 pm
EmDrives that do not accelerate mass, ei Work done on the mass = zero, such as those that levitate mass get very hot as ALL the cavity stored energy exits as eddy current generated thermal heating.

Either way CofE is conserved.
No. You have been shown the math multiple times. Kinetic energy change is dependent on the reference frame you measure it from. Thermal and electrical energy are not.* They can never, ever add up in all reference frames at the same time, unless there is another object you are exchanging momentum and energy with. (Photons trapped in the cavity are part of the system and not "another object.")

*Some relativistic effects exist near the speed of light, but those same effects make the kinetic energy change even faster.

Anyway, see the question above about what is this "minimum acceleration." You have never given a number so 1*10^-100 m/s^2 seems a reasonable guess for now.

EmDrive needs no new physics. Just the application of a microwave effect discovered by Cullen in 1950 that generates asymmetric forces in a tapered resonant cavitity. With that effect, resonant photons can be harvested for their momentum and energy. As a result their wavelenegth increase as they transfer momentum and Joules of energy to accelerating mass.
No. Cullen did not "discover" the effect. Cullen experimentally demonstrated the effect, which is derived directly from Maxwell's equations. Those same equations that Cullen verified say that the emDrive produces no net force.

Those that knee jerk rejected Roger's work will soon learn their mistake.
No, even if you build a flying car out of an emDrive, Shawyer's work is still wrong. His math is simply self-inconsistent. He doesn't even predict the direction of force correctly, and flips the sign randomly to get the result he wants.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 06/07/2018 03:19 pm
Nomenclature suggestion: Push To Talk is a little cryptic, describing an action rather than a source.

I'm open to suggestions on better wording. It is a logic level enable pin that requires grounding to enable power to the amplifier, which can also be used for a PTT/KEY control.
AmpPwr?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 06/07/2018 08:54 pm
Off topic but NASA Mars Curiosity reported more organic molecules on Mars along with a repeatable seasonable variation in methane coinciding with Martian summer.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nasa-mars-announcement-curiosity-rover-organic-matter-building-blocks-possible-life-today/ (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nasa-mars-announcement-curiosity-rover-organic-matter-building-blocks-possible-life-today/)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: rq3 on 06/07/2018 09:09 pm
Nomenclature suggestion: Push To Talk is a little cryptic, describing an action rather than a source.

I'm open to suggestions on better wording. It is a logic level enable pin that requires grounding to enable power to the amplifier, which can also be used for a PTT/KEY control.

How about "Engage"? Think of Jean-Luc Picard on the Enterprise.

Seriously, though. Many devices and integrated circuits have enable pins. If the logic is "positive" (logic high makes the device do something), they are almost universally called "Enable"; sometimes followed with a clarifier like "EnableCLK" for enable clock (as an example). If the logic is "negative" (like yours, or a standard PTT switch, where logic low [ground] makes the device do something), they are almost universally called "Enable Bar", or "Enable NOT", usually labeled with the word "Enable" with a line, or "bar" OVER it, signifying negation.

Me, I prefer "Engage". Patrick Stewart seems to be a fun loving guy. He may even be willing to make an MP3 for you with him saying "Engage".
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 06/08/2018 03:10 am
There is not a nice way to say this. The EmDrive NEEDS TO BE FREE to accelerate. Any test rig that does not allow the EmDrive to freely accelerate is a waste of time, no matter how well it is built. F = m * a. No a or acceleration and no F or force. Understand?

You do realize a torsional pendulum is no different from your rotary test rig? Torsional pendulums are free to accelerate, as evidenced by the thermal effects seen here lately. If the Emdrive needs to accelerate to work, then why didn't the effect kick in when it began accelerating from the thermal effects?

Jamie,

Any EmDrive thruster needs to be excited in a E probe verified TE01x mode, have a good side wall coupler design that generates bi directional travelling waves plus needs to have a small end that is not in cutoff.

The Jakub results are thermal and their frustum was a bad build. It operated in cutoff, coupler design and placement can't generate bidirectional travelling waves, those that designed and built it ignored the TE01x 0.82 cutoff rule and visual data that showed it was cutoff.

As I stated I'll not argue the point. My results will reveal reality.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows and For EmDrive DIYers To Stop Wasting Time and Money On Builds and Test Rigs That Will Not Generate Significate Force
TT,
I say again, we are in a gravitational field so it is accelerating.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 06/08/2018 04:00 am

.....

Successful acceleration of an EmDrive and associated mass causes differental doppler freq shifts at each end of the cavity. There is a min required acceleration rate to lock in what Roger calls "Motor Mode". Trying to acceleate the mass of the planet with a satellite rated EmDrive thruster will not achieve it.
.....

“Motor mode”, unless I am mistaken.., is a reference to a constant or continuous acceleration. You are never going to enter “motor mode” on any test stand being discussed. If the drive does work, the drive might enter “motor mode” for a short period in a “KISS thruster” design..., at least until the tension on the wire/fishing line equals the thrust. But then the test bed design of the KISS thruster would not easily provide the same kind of data that Jamie’s test bed should.

The point is “motor mode” is a reference to conditions required for a drive to produce continuous acceleration. Jamie’s test bed is designed to determine if an EmDrive or Mach effect thruster for that matter, will produce any clearly useable thrust, at all.

If the “motor mode” model is correct, Jamie’s tests should return data indicating an initial acceleration, but not a continuous thrust against the balance.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/08/2018 07:04 am
It will be interesting reading the comments after everybody sees the KISS thruster going round and round on the KISS rotary test rig.

Until then no more comments on theory from me. Time now to get ready to fabricate the frustum. Lots of photos will be posted of the process.

Frustum fab is currently on hold awaiting the delivery of the Silver Epoxy and the 2 Cu sheets.

Next in the delivery Q is the miniVNA tiny+ that is needed to tune the coupler.

Then need the delivery of the 100W Rf amp and 22650 Lithium Ion rechargeable batteries and battery holders.

After which the demo system can be put together and it gets interesting.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows and For EmDrive DIYers To Stop Wasting Time and Money On Builds and Test Rigs That WILL NOT Generate Significate Force
Title: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star One on 06/08/2018 07:09 am
Two things I noted is that the pendulum appears a little over-damped. That is easy to fix by lowering the damping fluid reservoir. And second that the 6.8uN of thrust appears to be mostly related to the temperature of the 30W RF output GaAs FET...

we haven't heard from Rodal in a while.  he usually gives good advice about damping

When did he last post on here, it was this year wasn’t it?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/08/2018 09:09 am
2 sheets of 0.55mm x 450mm x 900mm 110 Cu have arrived.

When the buffing compounds and polishing wheels arrive, the mirror polishing of one sheet and both end plates will start.

Goal is to obtain a mirror like polish with no visible scratches.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows and For EmDrive DIYers To Stop Wasting Time and Money On Builds and Test Rigs That WILL NOT Generate Significate Force
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/08/2018 10:43 am
When did he last post on here, it was this year wasn’t it?

I saw Rodal like someone's comment a week ago, so i'm pretty sure he's lurking.   ;)
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Monomorphic on 06/08/2018 10:45 am
Until then no more comments on theory from me. Time now to get ready to fabricate the frustum. Lots of photos will be posted of the process.

Phil,
Before you stop commenting on theory, please address my question about the acceleration required. Do you know what the minimum required acceleration is to lock in the "motor mode" as stated by Roger Shawyer?
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/08/2018 01:07 pm
Until then no more comments on theory from me. Time now to get ready to fabricate the frustum. Lots of photos will be posted of the process.

Phil,
Before you stop commenting on theory, please address my question about the acceleration required. Do you know what the minimum required acceleration is to lock in the "motor mode" as stated by Roger Shawyer?

Depends on the phase distortion introduced by the cavity and on the phase distortion introduced by freq instability of the Rf feed vs freq of the stored photons.

Doppler shift needs to get outside what I call the Wobble Zone as per the attached. Operation inside the Wobble Zone may produce inconsistent and strange results.

EW did record results showing thrust reversal during various runs that otherwise showed small end forward thrust (when the small end dielectric was fitted) and a not 100% reliability to observe force generation despite the last and next Rf pulses showing force generation.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/08/2018 03:05 pm
Depends on the phase distortion introduced by the cavity and on the phase distortion introduced by freq instability of the Rf feed vs freq of the stored photons.

Doppler shift needs to get outside what I call the Wobble Zone as per the attached. Operation inside the Wobble Zone may produce inconsistent and strange results.
Attached graph is not helpful. You just have an arbitrary thickness line on an arbitrarily scaled graph. You can just zoom in and there will be no difficulty seeing the separation of the curvea. The axes and shape of the graph do not involve "phase distortion."

Also, to be useful, you need to provide equations that produce the graph. It is not clear what assumptions went into it.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 06/08/2018 04:14 pm
EmDrives that do not accelerate mass, ei Work done on the mass = zero, such as those that levitate mass get very hot as ALL the cavity stored energy exits as eddy current generated thermal heating.

There is not a nice way to say this. The EmDrive NEEDS TO BE FREE to accelerate. Any test rig that does not allow the EmDrive to freely accelerate is a waste of time, no matter how well it is built. F = m * a. No a or acceleration and no F or force. Understand?


You do realize a torsional pendulum is no different from your rotary test rig? Torsional pendulums are free to accelerate, as evidenced by the thermal effects seen here lately. If the Emdrive needs to accelerate to work, then why didn't the effect kick in when it began accelerating from the thermal effects?

Jamie,

Any EmDrive thruster needs to be excited in a E probe verified TE01x mode, have a good side wall coupler design that generates bi directional travelling waves plus needs to have a small end that is not in cutoff.

The Jakub results are thermal and their frustum was a bad build. It operated in cutoff, coupler design and placement can't generate bidirectional travelling waves, those that designed and built it ignored the TE01x 0.82 cutoff rule and visual data that showed it was cutoff.

As I stated I'll not argue the point. My results will reveal reality.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows and For EmDrive DIYers To Stop Wasting Time and Money On Builds and Test Rigs That Will Not Generate Significate Force
TT,
I say again, we are in a gravitational field so it is accelerating.

As per Einstein's equivalence principle, it is indeed impossible to distinguish the effect of gravity (for example, the 1-gee gravitational field of the Earth that we all experience) from a spaceship in deep space with no window, in which we would accelerate constantly at 9.8 m/s².

So if some object, whose total mass in 1 kg, hovers (levitates) without moving in front of us in the ambient air, it needs to undergo a constant upward force of 9.8 N.

If this object floats in the air and is not laying on the floor, it implies that some energy comes from somewhere.

TT states that a standing hovering EmDrive would produce no work and would get hotter than an EmDrive accelerating away from the ground or in deep space. So if the EmDrive acts differently when accelerating wrt to the ground, than standing still in the Earth gravitational field, congratulations: you have disproven the EEP and found a way to measure the discrepancy!
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Augmentor on 06/08/2018 04:41 pm
flux-capacitor said

"As per Einstein's equivalence principle, it is indeed impossible to distinguish the effect of gravity (for example, the 1-gee gravitational field of the Earth that we all experience) from a spaceship in deep space with no window, in which we would accelerate constantly at 9.8 m/s²."

Arthur C. Clarke's First Law
"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

Indeed, a gedanken with human senses as instruments is not all that reliable in terms of repeatability, accuracy and precision. A good understanding of the gravitational effects and better instruments to discern the subtleties is required.

Another way to view EEP issues is to define the difference between gravitational particle, wave and field. A planet may have graviton particles assisting; a spacecraft in deep space may have the Machian universe fields. Also, gravitational waves are frequency dependent.

Now, the challenge is how to reduce the planetary size LIGO  down to the size of a breadbox to fit in the gedanken elevator.

D
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/08/2018 05:01 pm
As per Einstein's equivalence principle, it is indeed impossible to distinguish the effect of gravity (for example, the 1-gee gravitational field of the Earth that we all experience) from a spaceship in deep space with no window, in which we would accelerate constantly at 9.8 m/s².

So if some object, whose total mass in 1 kg, hovers (levitates) without moving in front of us in the ambient air, it needs to undergo a constant upward force of 9.8 N.

If this object floats in the air and is not laying on the floor, it implies that some energy comes from somewhere.

TT states that a standing hovering EmDrive would produce no work and would get hotter than an EmDrive accelerating away from the ground or in deep space. So if the EmDrive acts differently when accelerating wrt to the ground, than standing still in the Earth gravitational field, congratulations: you have disproven the EEP and found a way to measure the discrepancy!

FC,

Creating a Force of say 9.8N, as example, does not mean the Force does Work on a hovering Mass as for that to happen the Force must cause the Mass to move a Distance.

Work = Force * Distance.

Hovering a Mass does not require Work to be done on it as it does not move a Distance. Also means the hovering Mass has no Velocity change and thus no momentum or KE change.

In an EmDrive, or in an accelerator cavity, energy loss per cycle comes in 3 forms:

1) eddy current heating loss Qu
2) coupler loss Ql
3) external loss via cavity generated Force doing Work on Mass Qext

Qext = stored energy / (eddy current loss + coupler loss + ext Work loss)

If there is no ext Work loss then more cavity energy is turned into eddy current loss. Likewise the more cavity energy that is lost as ext Work energy, the lower the eddy current loss and the cavity operating temp drop.

Sort of like an unloaded solar panel of 1m^2 with 1kw^m2 of solar energy applied. The unloaded panel gets very hot as it needs to radiate away 1kw of waste energy. Now connect up a 250W electrical load to the panel and export 250W of energy. Radiated waste energy reduces to 750W and the solar panel operating temp drops.

No more theory until the KISS thruster is rotating round and round.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: jay343 on 06/08/2018 05:11 pm
As per Einstein's equivalence principle, it is indeed impossible to distinguish the effect of gravity (for example, the 1-gee gravitational field of the Earth that we all experience) from a spaceship in deep space with no window, in which we would accelerate constantly at 9.8 m/s².

So if some object, whose total mass in 1 kg, hovers (levitates) without moving in front of us in the ambient air, it needs to undergo a constant upward force of 9.8 N.

If this object floats in the air and is not laying on the floor, it implies that some energy comes from somewhere.

TT states that a standing hovering EmDrive would produce no work and would get hotter than an EmDrive accelerating away from the ground or in deep space. So if the EmDrive acts differently when accelerating wrt to the ground, than standing still in the Earth gravitational field, congratulations: you have disproven the EEP and found a way to measure the discrepancy!

Has anyone performed a good test of the EMDrive with a vertical alignment? If the "free-to-move" hypothesis is correct, it seems like there should be a big difference between the performance of the device on a horizontal torsion-type mount as opposed to a vertical test rig. There should be an even bigger difference between up and down orientation...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 06/09/2018 03:00 am
(...)

Another way to view EEP issues is to define the difference between gravitational particle, wave and field. A planet may have graviton particles assisting; a spacecraft in deep space may have the Machian universe fields. Also, gravitational waves are frequency dependent.

(...)
D
Augmentor, are you suggesting that the gravitational field should be quantized?  :o
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: spupeng7 on 06/09/2018 03:05 am
(...)

Has anyone performed a good test of the EMDrive with a vertical alignment? If the "free-to-move" hypothesis is correct, it seems like there should be a big difference between the performance of the device on a horizontal torsion-type mount as opposed to a vertical test rig. There should be an even bigger difference between up and down orientation...
jay343,
    Shawyers 2006 report gives results for vertical tests, but they are harder to measure than horizontal tests, maybe too hard at mN output.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/09/2018 07:50 am
Once the rotary test series are completed, there will be a series of "up and down static" tests on an electronic scale.

Goal is to drmonstrate and quantify the operational characterists of the KISS thruster over a wide range of potential use situations.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/09/2018 07:59 am
(...)

Has anyone performed a good test of the EMDrive with a vertical alignment? If the "free-to-move" hypothesis is correct, it seems like there should be a big difference between the performance of the device on a horizontal torsion-type mount as opposed to a vertical test rig. There should be an even bigger difference between up and down orientation...
jay343,
    Shawyers 2006 report gives results for vertical tests, but they are harder to measure than horizontal tests, maybe too hard at mN output.

The Experimental, Demonstrator and Flight Thruster were all tested in Up and Down situations. Almost all the released test data is from static vertical testing.

As far as I know, the Demonstrator was the only unit tested on a rotary test rig. There are horizontal static and accelerative test data released for the Demonstrator.

As the Flight Thruster was developed under contract for Boeing, very little test data has been released.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 06/09/2018 10:12 am
flux-capacitor said

"As per Einstein's equivalence principle, it is indeed impossible to distinguish the effect of gravity (for example, the 1-gee gravitational field of the Earth that we all experience) from a spaceship in deep space with no window, in which we would accelerate constantly at 9.8 m/s²."

Arthur C. Clarke's First Law
"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

Indeed, a gedanken with human senses as instruments is not all that reliable in terms of repeatability, accuracy and precision. A good understanding of the gravitational effects and better instruments to discern the subtleties is required.

Another way to view EEP issues is to define the difference between gravitational particle, wave and field. A planet may have graviton particles assisting; a spacecraft in deep space may have the Machian universe fields. Also, gravitational waves are frequency dependent.

Now, the challenge is how to reduce the planetary size LIGO  down to the size of a breadbox to fit in the gedanken elevator.

D

Gravity and quantum mechanics are incompatible, yet people keep talking about "quantum gravity".
Therefore the graviton is a hypothetical particle, a spin-2 particle, still AWOL in physics.
Repeating things doesn't make them exist.
Spacetime itself is the field in Einstein's general relativity.
There is no spacetime in the absence  of gravity.
The EEP is the basis of the principle of relativity.

About the EEP, an analysis from Woodward of Carl Brans' 1962 paper "Mach's Principle and the Locally Measured Gravitational Constant in General Relativity" (attached below):

Brans' argument figures prominently in getting GR right.  It's as important as Galileo's identification of the principle of relativity for inertial systems in motion with constant relative velocity and Einstein's extension of the principle of relativity to accelerating systems and gravitational fields in his version of the Equivalence Principle.  Brans noted in Einstein's 1921 comments on Mach and inertia (in lectures at Princeton, published in The Meaning of Relativity) that the piling up of "spectator" matter in the vicinity of a test mass should change the mass of the test body by changing its gravitational energy.  This is wrong.  As Brans pointed out, were this true, one could change the charge to mass ratios of elementary particles simply by putting them in a gravitational field.  So, one would be able to tell the difference between rocket sitting on Earth and one accelerating at one gee in deep outer space just by measuring the charge to mass ratio (with an electric field) of a test body in the cabin without having to look out  port hole. This is a violation of the Equivalence Principle.

In order to avoid violating the Equivalence Principe, Brans argued that one had to accept the "locally measured invariance of the gravitational constant".  Actually, you have to do more than that.  You have to accept the "locally measured invariance" of the total scalar gravitational potential -- so that the gravitational potential energies of test bodies are not affected by "spectator" matter.  In spatially flat, critical cosmic matter density FRW cosmologies like ours, this translates to the total scalar gravitational potential (yes, ϕ) is equal to c².  We all know why this is important.  It means that the coefficient of the acceleration in the equation of motion -- ϕ/c² -- is everywhere and everywhen equal to one.  Brans' argument locks the gravitational origin of inertia into GR and shows that any other assumption will lead to violations of the Equivalence Principle. That is, violations of the principle of relativity.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 06/09/2018 05:50 pm
flux-capacitor said

"As per Einstein's equivalence principle, it is indeed impossible to distinguish the effect of gravity (for example, the 1-gee gravitational field of the Earth that we all experience) from a spaceship in deep space with no window, in which we would accelerate constantly at 9.8 m/s²."

Arthur C. Clarke's First Law
"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

Indeed, a gedanken with human senses as instruments is not all that reliable in terms of repeatability, accuracy and precision. A good understanding of the gravitational effects and better instruments to discern the subtleties is required.

Another way to view EEP issues is to define the difference between gravitational particle, wave and field. A planet may have graviton particles assisting; a spacecraft in deep space may have the Machian universe fields. Also, gravitational waves are frequency dependent.

Now, the challenge is how to reduce the planetary size LIGO  down to the size of a breadbox to fit in the gedanken elevator.

D

Gravity and quantum mechanics are incompatible, yet people keep talking about "quantum gravity".
Therefore the graviton is a hypothetical particle, a spin-2 particle, still AWOL in physics.
Repeating things doesn't make them exist.
Spacetime itself is the field in Einstein's general relativity.
There is no spacetime in the absence  of gravity.
The EEP is the basis of the principle of relativity.

About the EEP, an analysis from Woodward of Carl Brans' 1962 paper "Mach's Principle and the Locally Measured Gravitational Constant in General Relativity" (attached below):

Brans' argument figures prominently in getting GR right.  It's as important as Galileo's identification of the principle of relativity for inertial systems in motion with constant relative velocity and Einstein's extension of the principle of relativity to accelerating systems and gravitational fields in his version of the Equivalence Principle.  Brans noted in Einstein's 1921 comments on Mach and inertia (in lectures at Princeton, published in The Meaning of Relativity) that the piling up of "spectator" matter in the vicinity of a test mass should change the mass of the test body by changing its gravitational energy.  This is wrong.  As Brans pointed out, were this true, one could change the charge to mass ratios of elementary particles simply by putting them in a gravitational field.  So, one would be able to tell the difference between rocket sitting on Earth and one accelerating at one gee in deep outer space just by measuring the charge to mass ratio (with an electric field) of a test body in the cabin without having to look out  port hole. This is a violation of the Equivalence Principle.

In order to avoid violating the Equivalence Principe, Brans argued that one had to accept the "locally measured invariance of the gravitational constant".  Actually, you have to do more than that.  You have to accept the "locally measured invariance" of the total scalar gravitational potential -- so that the gravitational potential energies of test bodies are not affected by "spectator" matter.  In spatially flat, critical cosmic matter density FRW cosmologies like ours, this translates to the total scalar gravitational potential (yes, ϕ) is equal to c².  We all know why this is important.  It means that the coefficient of the acceleration in the equation of motion -- ϕ/c² -- is everywhere and everywhen equal to one.  Brans' argument locks the gravitational origin of inertia into GR and shows that any other assumption will lead to violations of the Equivalence Principle. That is, violations of the principle of relativity.

There seems a fundamental error in the following statement, ”Gravity and quantum mechanics are incompatible, ...”…, which then affects the whole of how the rest of the post might be understood/interpreted.

Quantum mechanics is a theoretical model, where gravity is a directly observable aspect of reality. The statement would be more accurate if it were phrased as, “General relativity and quantum mechanics are incompatible...”, or “Our current understanding of gravity and quantum mechanics are incompatible...”.

The reality is that both gravitation/gravity and quantum phenomenon exist and are observable (within the limits of our current technologies).., and since they both are real (observables), they are in fact compatible.., we just don't currently know with any certainty, how they fit together. We don’t even know with certainty that the underlying theories, “general relativity and quantum mechanics”, represent the last would on what our future understanding of gravitation and quantum phenomena might be.

This said,

The discussion seems to be straying from its earlier connection to an EmDrive and requirements needed for acceleration, or as TheTraveler says for the drive to enter “motor mode”... To that.., the EEP aside, I don’t believe that just being in a gravitational field qualifies as acceleration, or meets the requirement of “free to accelerate”.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: zen-in on 06/09/2018 06:21 pm
As per Einstein's equivalence principle, it is indeed impossible to distinguish the effect of gravity (for example, the 1-gee gravitational field of the Earth that we all experience) from a spaceship in deep space with no window, in which we would accelerate constantly at 9.8 m/s².

So if some object, whose total mass in 1 kg, hovers (levitates) without moving in front of us in the ambient air, it needs to undergo a constant upward force of 9.8 N.

If this object floats in the air and is not laying on the floor, it implies that some energy comes from somewhere.

TT states that a standing hovering EmDrive would produce no work and would get hotter than an EmDrive accelerating away from the ground or in deep space. So if the EmDrive acts differently when accelerating wrt to the ground, than standing still in the Earth gravitational field, congratulations: you have disproven the EEP and found a way to measure the discrepancy!

FC,

Creating a Force of say 9.8N, as example, does not mean the Force does Work on a hovering Mass as for that to happen the Force must cause the Mass to move a Distance.

Work = Force * Distance.

Hovering a Mass does not require Work to be done on it as it does not move a Distance. Also means the hovering Mass has no Velocity change and thus no momentum or KE change.

In an EmDrive, or in an accelerator cavity, energy loss per cycle comes in 3 forms:

1) eddy current heating loss Qu
2) coupler loss Ql
3) external loss via cavity generated Force doing Work on Mass Qext

Qext = stored energy / (eddy current loss + coupler loss + ext Work loss)

If there is no ext Work loss then more cavity energy is turned into eddy current loss. Likewise the more cavity energy that is lost as ext Work energy, the lower the eddy current loss and the cavity operating temp drop.

Sort of like an unloaded solar panel of 1m^2 with 1kw^m2 of solar energy applied. The unloaded panel gets very hot as it needs to radiate away 1kw of waste energy. Now connect up a 250W electrical load to the panel and export 250W of energy. Radiated waste energy reduces to 750W and the solar panel operating temp drops.

There are 2 situations to consider wrt to something that is "hovering" :
A: It is sitting on a shelf or otherwise supported.   In this case no work is required to keep it hovering.

B: A rocket, propeller, or other thruster is applying a force of 1 G that counteracts gravity.  In this case mass is being pushed- air in the case of a prop or hot gas from a rocket.   Any device that produces thrust has to transfer momentum.   If the EM-Drive is creating thrust in a horizontal position there would be no difference in its operation if it was turned vertical.  Whatever it is transferring momentum to will still see a time-wise increase in momentum.  There should be no preferred direction for the EM-Drive to work.  It either works in all directions or it works in none.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/09/2018 07:00 pm
There are 2 situations to consider wrt to something that is "hovering" :
A: It is sitting on a shelf or otherwise supported.   In this case no work is required to keep it hovering.

B: A rocket, propeller, or other thruster is applying a force of 1 G that counteracts gravity.  In this case mass is being pushed- air in the case of a prop or hot gas from a rocket.   Any device that produces thrust has to transfer momentum.   If the EM-Drive is creating thrust in a horizontal position there would be no difference in its operation if it was turned vertical.  Whatever it is transferring momentum to will still see a time-wise increase in momentum.  There should be no preferred direction for the EM-Drive to work.  It either works in all directions or it works in none.

Gravity is a downward Force. Applying an upward Force will hover a Mass if the upward generated Force equals the downward gravity Force.

Creating an upward Force does not involve doing Work on a hoveing Mass. If the Mass does not Move a Distance, ie no Velocity change, there is no Momentum nor KE gain of the hovering mass. Therefore no Work has been done on the hovering Mass and no Momentum nor KE Joules of energy has been transferred to the hovering Mass.

The EmDrive is not a rocket engine. It does not need to repel mass to create a Force. Folks need to stop thinking along rockey engine lines of thought.

Later I will explain how and from where, during the acceleration of mass, the mass gained momentum and KE comes from, plus will show how, in an EmDrive, CofE and CofM are conserved.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: flux_capacitor on 06/09/2018 08:20 pm
Therefore no Work has been done on the hovering Mass and no Momentum nor KE Joules of energy has been transferred to the hovering Mass.

The EmDrive is not a rocket engine. It does not need to repel mass to create a Force. Folks need to stop thinking along rockey engine lines of thought.

The fact there is no work done (since work is force × distance, and the levitating EmDrive would not move across a distance when it hovers) does not mean there is no energy transferred to it to accomplish this exploit.

A hovering helicopter pushes some air downward and it's pushed in the other direction, upward, as a reaction. It is the mass of moved air that accounts for the work done by the rotor.

But for a hypothetical levitating EmDrive (not standing on a shelf, obviously) the thruster would not push any reaction mass to react with. That's why it is so counterintuitive.

So the example of the helicopter (or the rocket engine) is not a good one to compare with, you're right.

Let's rather take instead the example of something well proven, that can silently hover in the air without moving any reaction mass downward. Such a thing does exist! It is a copper disk put above a big electromagnet. A rapidly varying electric current circulates inside the coil. It produces an axial high frequency varying magnetic field. The varying magnetic field induces strong eddy currents in the electrically conductive material of the disc. Due to Lenz's law, these currents counterbalance the effect of the ambient variable magnetic field, so the induced magnetic field produced by the disc opposes the magnetic field produced by the electromagnet, and the disc electromagnetically levitates in the air.

Same principle for first Maglev trains BTW, even if superconducting materials levitating with the Meissner effect are now preferred.

The levitating disc is a very fun and impressive experiment I saw once at the Palais de la Découverte in Paris (the "Discovery Palace", a French museum dedicated to science), and I've just found a video of it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txmKr69jGBk

This is the effect, on a 1kg aluminum disc, of an alternating current of 800 amperes (!!!) in a coil at a frequency of 900 Hz.

Whatever, if you wait enough time while the experiment is running, the initial wobble will decay and eventually stop and the disc will perfectly stand still in the air, with no reaction mass pushed downward).

The fact that "the work done is zero" does not mean the disc doesn't consume energy to achieve the sustentation. Indeed several kilowatts of power are transferred to the disc by the electromagnetic field to produce the eddies and the opposite magnetic field that creates the upward force.

Some anecdote. This reminds me of a joke the experimenter made at us that day.

The man was holding that little bottle with a clear liquid in it you see at the end of the video, fitted with a spray vaporizer instead of a standard lid. He said to the compact audience all around him, while we were looking at the stunning levitating disc:
"Sorry guys, I still have with me this little bottle of highly concentrated hydrochloric acid from another experiment, do you want to see how strong the acid is?"
As everyone was replying with a cheerful "Yes!" he sprayed a little amount of the liquid on the top of the flying disc:
*** PSCHHHHHhhhhhh ***
The liquid instantly made a large churn of whitish vapor in the air.
"Oooooooohhhh" -- the audience was impressed.
"Very dangerous acid, it is" the experimenter said.
And he pressed the trigger once again, but this time the acid shot straight in the air above our heads, and started to fall back down toward us in a parabolic trajectory…
"AAAAAAaahhh!!!" yelled scared people looking at the spurt of acid aiming at their heads.

But the "acid" was in fact just some demineralized water…

The churn of vapor on the disc was not due to some acidic decomposition, it was simply due to the water instantly vaporizing when it was touching the extremely hot disc. The heat was caused by the very strong eddies in the metal. with 800 amperes and the high efficiency of EM induction, the disc was hot as hell.

Funny moment to remember.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: ppnl on 06/09/2018 09:19 pm
EmDrives that do not accelerate mass, ei Work done on the mass = zero, such as those that levitate mass get very hot as ALL the cavity stored energy exits as eddy current generated thermal heating.

There is not a nice way to say this. The EmDrive NEEDS TO BE FREE to accelerate. Any test rig that does not allow the EmDrive to freely accelerate is a waste of time, no matter how well it is built. F = m * a. No a or acceleration and no F or force. Understand?


You do realize a torsional pendulum is no different from your rotary test rig? Torsional pendulums are free to accelerate, as evidenced by the thermal effects seen here lately. If the Emdrive needs to accelerate to work, then why didn't the effect kick in when it began accelerating from the thermal effects?

Jamie,

Any EmDrive thruster needs to be excited in a E probe verified TE01x mode, have a good side wall coupler design that generates bi directional travelling waves plus needs to have a small end that is not in cutoff.

The Jakub results are thermal and their frustum was a bad build. It operated in cutoff, coupler design and placement can't generate bidirectional travelling waves, those that designed and built it ignored the TE01x 0.82 cutoff rule and visual data that showed it was cutoff.

As I stated I'll not argue the point. My results will reveal reality.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows and For EmDrive DIYers To Stop Wasting Time and Money On Builds and Test Rigs That Will Not Generate Significate Force
TT,
I say again, we are in a gravitational field so it is accelerating.

As per Einstein's equivalence principle, it is indeed impossible to distinguish the effect of gravity (for example, the 1-gee gravitational field of the Earth that we all experience) from a spaceship in deep space with no window, in which we would accelerate constantly at 9.8 m/s².

So if some object, whose total mass in 1 kg, hovers (levitates) without moving in front of us in the ambient air, it needs to undergo a constant upward force of 9.8 N.

If this object floats in the air and is not laying on the floor, it implies that some energy comes from somewhere.

TT states that a standing hovering EmDrive would produce no work and would get hotter than an EmDrive accelerating away from the ground or in deep space. So if the EmDrive acts differently when accelerating wrt to the ground, than standing still in the Earth gravitational field, congratulations: you have disproven the EEP and found a way to measure the discrepancy!

Actually if the EmDrive is hovering without pushing against the earth then it is doing work. It is pulling the earth out of its orbit. The acceleration is infinitesimal even by EmDrive standards. But the mass of the earth is huge so the work is substantial.

Google gravity tractor.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/09/2018 10:58 pm
Actually if the EmDrive is hovering without pushing against the earth then it is doing work. It is pulling the earth out of its orbit. The acceleration is infinitesimal even by EmDrive standards. But the mass of the earth is huge so the work is substantial.

Google gravity tractor.
There was something simple I was forgetting about this situation and this is it.

It is not the mass of the Earth that makes the work significant though.  That is actually irrelevant. Force times distance is the correct equation as TT said, (force times velocity gives power) but since we are moving the Earth, we need to use the reference frame of the sun to get an inertial frame. The Earth is moving at 30km/s so to get best effect, point it straight up at dawn (near the equator, but best latitude is a function of time of year.) 10 mN would be power of 300W. Added to the Earth.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/10/2018 12:47 am
Funny moment to remember.

Hi FC,

All the Rf input energy to the hovering EmDrive exits as waste heat due to eddy currents in the end plates and side walls. So energy is consumed but no Work is done on the hovering mass as it does not move.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/10/2018 01:04 am
Actually if the EmDrive is hovering without pushing against the earth then it is doing work. It is pulling the earth out of its orbit. The acceleration is infinitesimal even by EmDrive standards. But the mass of the earth is huge so the work is substantial.

Google gravity tractor.

Hi ppnl,

Correct.

If you do the math, the momentum & KE gain of the Earth is very very very small.

As our reference frame is the mass the EmDrive is accelerating, the Earth, this equation makes it simple.

Work = (N^2 * t^2) / (2 * m)
N = Newtons being 9.8,
t = seconds of acceleration,
m = kg of accelerated mass being ~5.9 x 10^24 kg.

So the KE increase of the Earth will be very much smaller than the eddy current loss.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: SteveD on 06/10/2018 04:27 am
Let me summarize the last couple of pages:

Tajmar is reporting a directional force based on the orientation of a piece of electronics in a self contained setup.  Might not be in resonance in the can.  He also reports similar findings on a MAGA drive that was not predicted to produce a force within the resolving power of his equipment.

The Polish researcher found actual downward force (against rising hot air) on a vertical setup.  There is additional data that is hard to interpret as data about the horizontal setup has been mixed.  I think he is claim about 10 uN horizontal deflection with both the device in a null configuration and a dummy load.  It's hard to tell looking at these graphs but I think he is claiming something like a 27 uN horizontal deflection with the device operational.

Jamie is claiming a potential 8uN horizontal deflection (what was the power level of this).  This seems to be related to the heating of a piece of electronics.

TT wants to make sure Jamie is in resonance and is concerned about this motor mode stuff he has been going on about for years.

Lots of yelling.

So: 1. The EMDrive surrounded by a plastic insulator might not be working.

2. Tajmar's student fabricated device might not be in resonance.

3.  We need to better characterize the approximately 10 uN force that both Jamie and the Polish team are reporting.  Let's make sure this we have not detected an anomalous force effect in the wire.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: PotomacNeuron on 06/10/2018 05:12 am
Let me summarize the last couple of pages:

Tajmar is reporting a directional force based on the orientation of a piece of electronics in a self contained setup.  Might not be in resonance in the can.  He also reports similar findings on a MAGA drive that was not predicted to produce a force within the resolving power of his equipment.

The Polish researcher found actual downward force (against rising hot air) on a vertical setup.  There is additional data that is hard to interpret as data about the horizontal setup has been mixed.  I think he is claim about 10 uN horizontal deflection with both the device in a null configuration and a dummy load.  It's hard to tell looking at these graphs but I think he is claiming something like a 27 uN horizontal deflection with the device operational.

Jamie is claiming a potential 8uN horizontal deflection (what was the power level of this).  This seems to be related to the heating of a piece of electronics.

TT wants to make sure Jamie is in resonance and is concerned about this motor mode stuff he has been going on about for years.

Lots of yelling.

So: 1. The EMDrive surrounded by a plastic insulator might not be working.

2. Tajmar's student fabricated device might not be in resonance.

3.  We need to better characterize the approximately 10 uN force that both Jamie and the Polish team are reporting.  Let's make sure this we have not detected an anomalous force effect in the wire.

Thank you for summarizing. I have some comments here. I am biased the opposite way as you so it is useful to counter balance with yours.

First, TT suspected there might not be resonance in Tajmar's cavity, probably because there was no thrust. I think the same kind of suspicion  should be cast on the Polish cavity too, because there was also no definite evidence that there was resonance.

Second, Monomorphic's experiment I think was a power on test; there was no microwave involved. 

Third, you said "1. The EMDrive surrounded by a plastic insulator might not be working." This is a strange conclusion, as strange as Shawyer's belief that there must be acceleration for the EmDrive to enter "motor" mode. It is not far from saying that  the EMDrive made by people younger than 50 might not be working. After all, this statement has some support because Shawyer, TT, Paul claimed thrust but Tajmar, the California PhD students and monomorphic didn't.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Star-Drive on 06/10/2018 02:00 pm
Actually if the EmDrive is hovering without pushing against the earth then it is doing work. It is pulling the earth out of its orbit. The acceleration is infinitesimal even by EmDrive standards. But the mass of the earth is huge so the work is substantial.

Google gravity tractor.
There was something simple I was forgetting about this situation and this is it.

It is not the mass of the Earth that makes the work significant though.  That is actually irrelevant. Force times distance is the correct equation as TT said, (force times velocity gives power) but since we are moving the Earth, we need to use the reference frame of the sun to get an inertial frame. The Earth is moving at 30km/s so to get best effect, point it straight up at dawn (near the equator, but best latitude is a function of time of year.) 10 mN would be power of 300W. Added to the Earth.

MEBERBS:

As you've probably already noticed, your previous observation on the EMdrive accelerating Earth leads one to recall Archimedes comment of "Give me the place to stand, and I shall move the earth." 

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Archimedes

If we can make any of these gravity/inertia or (G/I) drives work, we can accelerate (or decelerate) our planet's orbital velocity with respect to the sun, given enough time and resources.  This capability will then allow humanity to control global climate change "just" by changing the Earth's orbital distance from the sun, thus decreasing or increasing the solar energy it receives from the sun.  Neat solution to a lot of climatic problems if doable.

Best, Paul M.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/10/2018 02:23 pm
Actually if the EmDrive is hovering without pushing against the earth then it is doing work. It is pulling the earth out of its orbit. The acceleration is infinitesimal even by EmDrive standards. But the mass of the earth is huge so the work is substantial.

Google gravity tractor.

Hi ppnl,

Correct.

If you do the math, the momentum & KE gain of the Earth is very very very small.

As our reference frame is the mass the EmDrive is accelerating, the Earth, this equation makes it simple.
No. The Earth is accelerating, so it is not an inertial frame. The simplest and most obvious choice for an inertial frame (or closen enough to one for our needs) is the sun. I did the math. Your equation is simply wrong unless everything is at rest in the frame you choose.

Anyway, what happened to "no more theory" from you until you finish your experiment? If you are going to respond to anything like this at the least you could give an actually meaningful answer to how much acceleration is needed for motor mode.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/10/2018 03:10 pm
Actually if the EmDrive is hovering without pushing against the earth then it is doing work. It is pulling the earth out of its orbit. The acceleration is infinitesimal even by EmDrive standards. But the mass of the earth is huge so the work is substantial.

Google gravity tractor.

Hi ppnl,

Correct.

If you do the math, the momentum & KE gain of the Earth is very very very small.

As our reference frame is the mass the EmDrive is accelerating, the Earth, this equation makes it simple.
No. The Earth is accelerating, so it is not an inertial frame. The simplest and most obvious choice for an inertial frame (or closen enough to one for our needs) is the sun. I did the math. Your equation is simply wrong unless everything is at rest in the frame you choose.

Anyway, what happened to "no more theory" from you until you finish your experiment? If you are going to respond to anything like this at the least you could give an actually meaningful answer to how much acceleration is needed for motor mode.

With an EmDrive there is only one frame that is of any interest and that is the frame of the EmDrive.

Mass knows it's inertia. but it does not know it's velocity, momentum nor KE. Those are constructs based on what some other frames sees. The Work, in Joules, needed to be done by a EmDrive to accelerate a Mass for a period of acceleration of t seconds, using a force of N Newtons is given by

Work = (N^2 * t^2) / (2 * m)

A 100 sec burst of acceleration will require 100x the Joules of Work to be done on the mass as will a 10 sec burst of acceleration. When that 100 sec burst of acceleration stops and some time later another 100 sec burst of acceleration occurs, it will take the same amount of Work to be done as did the 1st 100 sec burst of acceleration. Why? Because mass has no knowledge of it's velocity, a construct that needs another frame of reference.

Time to think of the mass as it's own reference frame. BTW if in any other reference frame the dV that occurred during each 100 sec burst of acceleration was recorded, it would have resulted in the same dKE change because the same dV occurred.

dKE = (m * dV^2) / 2
dp = m * dV

Try to understand that here we have a accelerative Force source that accelerate with the mass and there is no mass exhaust, so the accelerative mass stays constant as does the accelerative Force. Plus the accelerated mass does not know it's velocity, only knows it's inertial mass and the property of inertial mass given to it by the universe. Ie it resists being accelerated. Well maybe not always constant Force but that is a story for another day.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: wicoe on 06/10/2018 03:14 pm
With an EmDrive there is only one frame that is of any interest and that is the frame of the EmDrive.

Do you realize that this means that it is always "attached" to an inertial reference frame and therefore cannot accelerate?  Otherwise its reference frame would be of very little interest (the "easy" equations work only in inertial reference frames).
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Bob Woods on 06/10/2018 03:23 pm
If we can make any of these gravity/inertia or (G/I) drives work, we can accelerate (or decelerate) our planet's orbital velocity with respect to the sun, given enough time and resources.  This capability will then allow humanity to control global climate change "just" by changing the Earth's orbital distance from the sun, thus decreasing or increasing the solar energy it receives from the sun.  Neat solution to a lot of climatic problems if doable.

Best, Paul M.
OK, but who gets to drive?  :D

"Shotgun!"
"But Debbie got to drive yesterday."
"Paul, slow down! You're going to hit an asteroid..."
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/10/2018 03:28 pm
With an EmDrive there is only one frame that is of any interest and that is the frame of the EmDrive.

Do you realize that this means that it is always "attached" to an inertial reference frame and therefore cannot accelerate?  Otherwise its reference frame would be of very little interest (the "easy" equations work only in inertial reference frames).

What I meant was mass does not know it's velocity, so making Work calculations based on some other reference frame's observed velocity of the mass is not the reality of the Work done by the EmDrive generated Force to Move a Mass a Distance.

If you wish use the inertial frame what existed just before acceleration started as the initial velocity (Vs), being zero and the inertial frame that is created just as acceleration stops as the final velocity (Vf).

Then KE = (m * (Vf - Vs)^2) / 2 works as does dKE = (m * dV^2) / 2

Or use my equation and avoid using velocity from some external frame. Both methods will generate the same value of Work done and KE Joule gain.

Work = (N^2 * t^2) / 2 * m) then KE Joules = W Joules.

It works and does generate the actual work value that is required to be done to achieve the P-P acceleration of mass.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: OnlyMe on 06/10/2018 05:45 pm
Actually if the EmDrive is hovering without pushing against the earth then it is doing work. It is pulling the earth out of its orbit. The acceleration is infinitesimal even by EmDrive standards. But the mass of the earth is huge so the work is substantial.

Google gravity tractor.

Hi ppnl,

Correct.

If you do the math, the momentum & KE gain of the Earth is very very very small.

As our reference frame is the mass the EmDrive is accelerating, the Earth, this equation makes it simple.
No. The Earth is accelerating, so it is not an inertial frame. The simplest and most obvious choice for an inertial frame (or closen enough to one for our needs) is the sun. I did the math. Your equation is simply wrong unless everything is at rest in the frame you choose.

Anyway, what happened to "no more theory" from you until you finish your experiment? If you are going to respond to anything like this at the least you could give an actually meaningful answer to how much acceleration is needed for motor mode.

With an EmDrive there is only one frame that is of any interest and that is the frame of the EmDrive.

Mass knows it's inertia. but it does not know it's velocity, momentum nor KE. Those are constructs based on what some other frames sees. The Work, in Joules, needed to be done by a EmDrive to accelerate a Mass for a period of acceleration of t seconds, using a force of N Newtons is given by

Work = (N^2 * t^2) / (2 * m)

A 100 sec burst of acceleration will require 100x the Joules of Work to be done on the mass as will a 10 sec burst of acceleration. When that 100 sec burst of acceleration stops and some time later another 100 sec burst of acceleration occurs, it will take the same amount of Work to be done as did the 1st 100 sec burst of acceleration. Why? Because mass has no knowledge of it's velocity, a construct that needs another frame of reference.

Time to think of the mass as it's own reference frame. BTW if in any other reference frame the dV that occurred during each 100 sec burst of acceleration was recorded, it would have resulted in the same dKE change because the same dV occurred.

dKE = (m * dV^2) / 2
dp = m * dV

Try to understand that here we have a accelerative Force source that accelerate with the mass and there is no mass exhaust, so the accelerative mass stays constant as does the accelerative Force. Plus the accelerated mass does not know it's velocity, only knows it's inertial mass and the property of inertial mass given to it by the universe. Ie it resists being accelerated. Well maybe not always constant Force but that is a story for another day.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows

TT, the argument above, assumes a completely flat spacetime, that the vacuum or space, or even operation in the earth’s atmosphere, and “empty”... That there is nothing resisting the EmDrive’s acceleration from each inertial frame associated with each drive off/on cycle.

In reality any space we might operate in in the near future is not empty and an object’s velocity relative to the dynamics of the contents of that space, must be considered when attempting to calculate the force required to accelerate an object. When dealing with conventional propulsion technologies this is not as important because the initial force a rocket provides and the lasting inertia of the projectile (satellite or spaceship), is far greater than the resistance the rarefied contents of the vacuum/space is moves through.

And none of this begins to take into consideration the affect of acceleration and/or possibly relativistic velocities through a quantum vacuum with potentially even partially Machian characteristics......

Theoretically all inertial frames are equivalent. Practically all we know is that within our ability to experimentally verify all inertial frames are equal within the limitation of classical velocities. Even our understanding of acceleration outside of particle accelerators is limited to classical limitations.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/10/2018 10:54 pm
dKE = (m * dV^2) / 2
This equation is wrong. The correct equation is dKe =0.5*m*(v2^2 - v1^2)

Your equation happens to get the right answer for only the case that v1 is equal to 0. That other equation you have posted also has that same restriction in addition to assuming a constant force. That equation you derived using the initial rest frame, and it is not applicable to the accelerating frame of the drive like you claim.

Kinetic energy is different in every frame. Any equation that tries to calculate an "absolute" value for the work done on the drive is wrong, because by definition the work done is equal to the change in kinetic energy.  The v^2 part of the equation keeps the differences from being equal in different frames.

There are ways to handle energy when dealing with an accelerating frame, but those are complicated, and your attempts to use them are ignoring all of the complications.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: daveklingler on 06/10/2018 11:43 pm
Actually if the EmDrive is hovering without pushing against the earth then it is doing work. It is pulling the earth out of its orbit. The acceleration is infinitesimal even by EmDrive standards. But the mass of the earth is huge so the work is substantial.

Google gravity tractor.
There was something simple I was forgetting about this situation and this is it.

It is not the mass of the Earth that makes the work significant though.  That is actually irrelevant. Force times distance is the correct equation as TT said, (force times velocity gives power) but since we are moving the Earth, we need to use the reference frame of the sun to get an inertial frame. The Earth is moving at 30km/s so to get best effect, point it straight up at dawn (near the equator, but best latitude is a function of time of year.) 10 mN would be power of 300W. Added to the Earth.

MEBERBS:

As you've probably already noticed, your previous observation on the EMdrive accelerating Earth leads one to recall Archimedes comment of "Give me the place to stand, and I shall move the earth." 

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Archimedes

If we can make any of these gravity/inertia or (G/I) drives work, we can accelerate (or decelerate) our planet's orbital velocity with respect to the sun, given enough time and resources.  This capability will then allow humanity to control global climate change "just" by changing the Earth's orbital distance from the sun, thus decreasing or increasing the solar energy it receives from the sun.  Neat solution to a lot of climatic problems if doable.

Best, Paul M.

As a fan of "neat" solutions, I can't help thinking that there are much more elegant, i.e. simpler, ways to solve said problems.  :)

But it remains to be seen whether the assumption that "these gravity/inertia or (G/I) drives" exist is a safe one. For my own part, I would not be so confident yet, and even if a drive can be demonstrated to work consistently, it may be decades before the physics catches up.

I can even imagine a nightmare scenario in which physics acts differently depending on time and/or location because it's dependent on a factor we haven't yet learned to quantify. Perhaps one day a drive will work, and the next day it won't, or it works in Texas but not in New Jersey because the Earth is floating through a clump of something that doesn't interact with normal matter...
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/11/2018 02:40 am
dKE = (m * dV^2) / 2
This equation is wrong. The correct equation is dKe =0.5*m*(v2^2 - v1^2)

Your equation happens to get the right answer for only the case that v1 is equal to 0. That other equation you have posted also has that same restriction in addition to assuming a constant force. That equation you derived using the initial rest frame, and it is not applicable to the accelerating frame of the drive like you claim.

Kinetic energy is different in every frame. Any equation that tries to calculate an "absolute" value for the work done on the drive is wrong, because by definition the work done is equal to the change in kinetic energy.  The v^2 part of the equation keeps the differences from being equal in different frames.

There are ways to handle energy when dealing with an accelerating frame, but those are complicated, and your attempts to use them are ignoring all of the complications.

Not interested in frame variant equations that produce a different answer in different frames.

The Work done by an EmDrive accelerating a fixed mass over a time t is always the same value. It is based on the velocity change and not on some arituary initial and final velocity frame varient numbers. It does not vary because some observer in a different frame measures the start and final velocity and then used your frame varient equation to incorrectly calc the KE gain of the accelerated mass.

Time to move away from frame varient thinking.

The frame invarient equation, Work Joules = (N^2 * t^2) / (2 * m) works perfectly well and does not need to know anything about frame varient start and final velocity.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: meberbs on 06/11/2018 01:57 pm
Not interested in frame variant equations that produce a different answer in different frames.
Velocity, momentum and kinetic energy are all variant between frames. There is no such thing as frame invariant expressions for them by definition.
The Work done by an EmDrive accelerating a fixed mass over a time t is always the same value. It is based on the velocity change and not on some arituary initial and final velocity frame varient numbers. It does not vary because some observer in a different frame measures the start and final velocity and then used your frame varient equation to incorrectly calc the KE gain of the accelerated mass.

Time to move away from frame varient thinking.

The frame invarient equation, Work Joules = (N^2 * t^2) / (2 * m) works perfectly well and does not need to know anything about frame varient start and final velocity.
No. Your equation obviously doesn't work. A 1 kg object moving at 10m/s has 50 J of kinetic energy. Moving at 20 m/s it has 200 J of kinetic energy. Your equation predicts 50J given a force of 1N and 10 seconds of acceleration. This is obviously different than the difference between these numbers. Since the definition of the work done is the change in energy and only the kinetic energy changed, your equation does not give the work done.
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: TheTraveller on 06/11/2018 02:42 pm
Not interested in frame variant equations that produce a different answer in different frames.
Velocity, momentum and kinetic energy are all variant between frames. There is no such thing as frame invariant expressions for them by definition.
The Work done by an EmDrive accelerating a fixed mass over a time t is always the same value. It is based on the velocity change and not on some arituary initial and final velocity frame varient numbers. It does not vary because some observer in a different frame measures the start and final velocity and then used your frame varient equation to incorrectly calc the KE gain of the accelerated mass.

Time to move away from frame varient thinking.

The frame invarient equation, Work Joules = (N^2 * t^2) / (2 * m) works perfectly well and does not need to know anything about frame varient start and final velocity.
No. Your equation obviously doesn't work. A 1 kg object moving at 10m/s has 50 J of kinetic energy. Moving at 20 m/s it has 200 J of kinetic energy. Your equation predicts 50J given a force of 1N and 10 seconds of acceleration. This is obviously different than the difference between these numbers. Since the definition of the work done is the change in energy and only the kinetic energy changed, your equation does not give the work done.

Quote
Velocity, momentum and kinetic energy are all variant between frames. There is no such thing as frame invariant expressions for them by definition.

Mass does not know it's velocity as it is a measurement made vs another frame. The initial (Vs) and final (Vf) velocity of the accelerated mass as measured vs that other frame has no effect on the Work done to accelerate the mass.

Work = (N^2 * t^2) / (2 * m) is frame invarient.
dKE = (m * (Vf - Vs)^2) / 2 is frame invarient.
dp = (m * (Vf - Vs) is frame invarient.

Try this:

60,000kg ship somewhere between Earth and Mars. Has the ability to generate a P-P Force of 60kN. The crew power the drive unit for 100 sec of acceleration.

What is the Work done by the P-P drive accelerating the 60t ships Mass, for 100 seconds, using a Force of 60kN?

Some time later the crew do another 100 sec of acceleration.

What is the Work done by the P-P drive accelerating the 60t ships Mass, for the 2nd 100 seconds, using a Force of 60kN?

BTW the answers have nothing to do with the ship's velocity as measured vs the Earth or Mars or the Sun, etc.

It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Shadows
Title: Re: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 10
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/11/2018 05:50 pm
Time for a new thread.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45824.0

Traveller, no more of your spammy "Time to come out of the shadows" in every post. It's not a cult (well, it probably is with this EM Drive stuff :D) Change your signature to that if you want, then it's less in people's faces.


NOTE. I WILL BE KEEPING THIS THREAD UNLOCKED FOR A FEW DAYS TO ALLOW FOR POSTS IN THIS THREAD TO BE QUOTED IN THE NEW THREAD, BUT NO MORE POSTS IN THIS THREAD OR THEY'LL BE REMOVED! :o