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.
Uh... not the windfreak synthnv ? Why?
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/
Uh... not the windfreak synthnv ? Why?
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. ...
According to the referenced website, production of this unit ended in December 2014 and no new products seem to be available from the company.
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/
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.
Magnetic monopolesI 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.
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
Magnetic monopolesThat is another article based on the same research that started the recent discussions.
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
"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."
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.
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
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.
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 ;)
Thanks.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) ?
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
Thanks for asking, sorry guys I promised I'd post more but sometimes I get very busy for a old lady. ;)
What if spacetime was quantized?
(...) 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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
Shells -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.
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?
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
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
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.
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.
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.”
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:
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.
Boy, be busy and you miss the fun. What about "Paul's Texas Quantum Bar and Boson BBQ"
All: "Apprentice Sorcerer Gravity Appliances Reaction Devices (ASGARD) works for me! :) I just hope Thor doesn't mind...
(...)The problem with magical references is that they undermine credibility, which is not really what we need right now!
I'm thinking about calling either the Gravity Reaction Lab or The Sorcerer's Apprentice Lab.
(...)
...
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.
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 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!
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"
All: "Apprentice Sorcerer Gravity Appliances Reaction Devices (ASGARD) works for me! :) I just hope Thor doesn't mind...
I've started calling my lab "High Frontier Labs"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.
Shell, please don't take offense, I was just kidding !I was calling my lab this for quite some time... no offense. OK?
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....
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 :-)
Hi Shell,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.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.
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 :-)
My Best,
Shell
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
Maybe I'm totally off target but ... what if one modulates the signal injected into the cavity? I mean ... using different waveformsNot 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
Was this already experimented?
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.
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.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
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
[...]
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
[...]
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!
Thankyou mh,All: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.
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.
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
<puts on experimenter cap>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.
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
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 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).
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 :-)
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.
Dr. Rodal,Maybe I'm totally off target but ... what if one modulates the signal injected into the cavity? I mean ... using different waveformsNot 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
Was this already experimented?
(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)
Shell,I'll take the 250Kw one right behind me at the SSC. :o
You could always go to a klystron.
D
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?)
Boy, be busy and you miss the fun. What about "Paul's Texas Quantum Bar and Boson BBQ"
All: "Apprentice Sorcerer Gravity Appliances Reaction Devices (ASGARD) works for me! :) I just hope Thor doesn't mind...
I think that the "Boson BBQ" may be more appropriate for Shells since, apparently, she likes roasting antennas ;D ;D
That's why my was cooled.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.
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
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).
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.
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
(...)Shell,
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
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
Considering I cut my teeth on an old 555 dual trace. :) It's good to know they do good work in Guernsey C. I.(...)Shell,
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
that O-scope may have been built in Guernsey C.I. off the coast of France (where I grew up!) :)
@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.
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.
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.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
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.
@dustinthewind - Well, in a standing wave the phase velocity is 0, too. :)
...
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.
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.
FYI: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.03118.pdfThank 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.
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.
...
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).
Re: Ricci tensor & Einstein tensor. Having finally located my notes, one can quickly show that Rμν=0 ⇔ Gμν=0Yes, 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 .
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...
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.
Note: It is the existence of recurring "orbits" in "free energy" arguments that gives me reason to dismiss them out of hand.
...
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).
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.
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)QuoteLight 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.
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)QuoteLight 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!
It's good to know they do good work in Guernsey C. I.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...
(http://www.barrytech.com/tektronix/vintage/tek555.jpg)
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.
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!
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.
...
That is the current status of the experiments. They are ongoing. It is premature to try to consign the effect to the dustbin.
...
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?
Everyone needs a playpen. ;DIt's good to know they do good work in Guernsey C. I.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...
(http://www.barrytech.com/tektronix/vintage/tek555.jpg)
must confess to some workshop envy :)
:J
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)QuoteWe 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!
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.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.
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.
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.
I don't know what this is and a google search is not helpful.
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?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.
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.
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?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.
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 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.
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 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
You see why you cant make analogies like that?No. But I've said my piece and I'll bow out.
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.
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.
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.QuoteI 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.QuoteYou see why you cant make analogies like that?No. But I've said my piece and I'll bow out.
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. ....
@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 ;)
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.
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.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.
I will get these builds right, much is at stake, on that we can agree on.
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.
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 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?
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.
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 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?
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
monomorphic is still refining his testing
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.
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,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.
[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]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.
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 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.
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...
Harbin Institute of Technology has applied for two emdrive patents.
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 ...
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 ...
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.
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.
CN105775171A Propelling system assisting in reducing weight of propelling system and changing degree and direction of thrust
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.
...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.
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.
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....
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.
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.
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)."
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.
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)QuoteWe 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.
In 2014, Professor Yang Juan conducted emdrive experiments at the Harbin Institute of Technology Laboratory.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)."
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'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?
*facepalm* Sorry I knew that...that's what I get for trying to do imperial to metric in my head...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.
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).
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
How is it logically untrue? Have you not heard of Bayesian statistics? https://xkcd.com/1132/
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.
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.
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.
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.How is it logically untrue? Have you not heard of Bayesian statistics? https://xkcd.com/1132/
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.
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.QuoteAnd 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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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".
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...
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.
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
I'm very familiar about the issues with air bearings. We extensively used air bearings in our equipment we designed for the semiconductor industry.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 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.
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.
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)
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.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.
"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.
.....
.... 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 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.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.
"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).
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.
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.
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?
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,
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,
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.
With the very limited data we got from this test it's almost impossible to draw any conclusions.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.
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 toc=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)
With the very limited data we got from this test it's almost impossible to draw any conclusions.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.
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
With the very limited data we got from this test it's almost impossible to draw any conclusions.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.
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?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:
With the very limited data we got from this test it's almost impossible to draw any conclusions.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.
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?
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.
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.
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...
Paul,With the very limited data we got from this test it's almost impossible to draw any conclusions.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.
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.
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.
Hi Shell,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.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.
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 :-)
My Best,
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?
Thankyou mh,All: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.
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.
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
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 :)
Thankyou mh,All: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.
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.
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
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 mh,All: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.
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.
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
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
Thankyou mh,All: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.
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.
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
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 mh,All: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.
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.
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
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,
...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:
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,
Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve.
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 :)
...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:
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,Quote from: WheelerSpacetime 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)
....
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: WheelerSpacetime 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).
...Wheeler wrote that
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...
...
Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve
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.
...Wheeler wrote that
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...
...Quote from: WheelerSpacetime 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.
...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. :)
".... 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.
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
There is another issue that just occurred to me that makes Wheeler's statement...Wheeler wrote that
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...
...Quote from: WheelerSpacetime 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.
Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve
...
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).
...
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)...
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.
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,
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,
….
There is another issue that just occurred to me that makes Wheeler's statementQuote from: WheelerSpacetime 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).
….
... The very notion that spacetime is more than a mathematical convenience, seems to me to be absurd.
….
...Since you still disagree with Wheeler's statement
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.
...
Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve.
"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.
Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve.
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.
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.
...One of the most enduring works in physics, with the pithy statements that convey so much, so accurately.
What Wheeler is talking about when he wrote:QuoteSpacetime 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.
Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve.
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.
Fantastic, Jamie! I will come back to this later.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.
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.
Fantastic, Jamie! I will come back to this later.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.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.
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.
Guys,
Email from Roger Shawyer and Power Point presentation as received.
Please circulate as per Roger's request.
Enjoy,
Phil
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?
Shawyer should have given you and NasaSpaceFlight.com forum credit for using your image !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
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...
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)
I also noticed one of my renderings made it into Roger's presentation on slide 13! ;D
There is a particle associated with the magnetic force. It is called the photon.
There are no physical, empirically detectable graviton particles,
for the same reason that there are no magneton particles
of the magnetic field.
Well, it is simply impossible to unify electromagnetism,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.)
or quantum mechanics, with gravity,
when gravity is not properly understood.
Fantastic, Jamie! I will come back to this later.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.
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.
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)
...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':
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':
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.
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 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 toc=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)
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':
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.
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,
Now, if only TT would throw in some video of his "amazing results", a lot of us would be happy campers, no?
....Also, what would be the reason to make the big end out of copper, if the rest of the construction is silver coated?
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...
...
(...)
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.
(...)
(...)
Working to increase that by 10x with an ultimate goal of 100-200N/kW (10-20kgf/kW) without using cryo cooling or superconducting cavities.
(...)
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?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.
Dr.Rodal -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:
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🙂 !
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 purpose was to
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
deliberately produce more electrical asymmetry,
only 6% difference in conductivity
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....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
Are you sure you did not make any magnitude error there?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.
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...
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.
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?
HOWEVER Q and number of transits, end plate adsorb and emit events, are not directly related.
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 ?)
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...
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.
Achieved 5N/kW with 50g thrust using 100W rf. Non cryo and non superconducting.
Believe TE011 mode is the way to go as it increases the number of end plate adsorb & emit events.
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.
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
Funny Business at the ArXiv (http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.fr/2017/06/bias-at-arxiv.html)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.
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.
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.
Funny Business at the ArXiv (http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.fr/2017/06/bias-at-arxiv.html)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.
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.
...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". :)
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.
...
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". :)
...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". :)
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.
...
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.
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.
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?
Some notes on my progress towards construction: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).
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
...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". :)
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.
...
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.
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.
... Place the clock time as real time (stuff) into the equations.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.
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,
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?
... 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,
... 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,
Some notes on my progress towards construction: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).
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
mh
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.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.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.
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,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.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.
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.
Thanks for the reminder that some people interpret million and billion differently. Yours are the ones I use.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.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.
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?
...it's simply magnetism and the associated field control.
No, not that simple as a pushing or local fields....it's simply magnetism and the associated field control.
Pushing against other, local magnetic fields?
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.
No, not that simple as a pushing or local fields....it's simply magnetism and the associated field control.
Pushing against other, local magnetic fields?
Shell
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.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.
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.
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.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.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?
You missed the entire point of my posts, as your "main point" has nothing to do with my post.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.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?
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.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.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?
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.
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.
No, not that simple as a pushing or local fields....it's simply magnetism and the associated field control.
Pushing against other, local magnetic fields?
Shell
meberbs,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.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.
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.
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
That was dustinthewind I think.meberbs,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.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.
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.
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.
No, not that simple as a pushing or local fields....it's simply magnetism and the associated field control.
Pushing against other, local magnetic fields?
Shell
... snip ...
;D
...And what about Fetta?...
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.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.
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.
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.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.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.
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.
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.
That was dustinthewind I think.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36911.msg1338339.msg#1338339
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.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?
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) ?
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.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.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?
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+v_2}+\frac{2\,c^3&space;\frac{f\,h}{c^2}}{m_2&space;{{\left(&space;c+v_2\right)&space;}^{3}}}-\frac{4\,c^5&space;\frac{f^{2}\,h^{2}}{c^4}}{m_2^{2}\left(c+v_2\right)^{5}}+...\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?
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.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 .... :'(
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.
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. :)
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.
" 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.
meberbs,
(...)
You can't just ignore the existence of spatial dimensions. They obviously exist,
(...)
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.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.
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.
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.meberbs,
(...)
You can't just ignore the existence of spatial dimensions. They obviously exist,
(...)
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.
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.
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**)
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.
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.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.
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.
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?
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.
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.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.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.
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.
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.
Thanks meberbs,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.meberbs,
(...)
You can't just ignore the existence of spatial dimensions. They obviously exist,
(...)
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.
With fully automated navigation for collision avoidance and law abidance, I see no reason why 'flying cars' should not have complete freedom of movement.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.
(...)meberbs,
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.
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.
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/
With fully automated navigation for collision avoidance and law abidance, I see no reason why 'flying cars' should not have complete freedom of movement.
Thanks ThereIWas3,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...
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.
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.
Thanks meberbs,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.
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?
Interesting thought although.QuoteThere 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?
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]
Thanks meberbs,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.
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 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.
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
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 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.
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
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 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.
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
Thanks meberbs,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.
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 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 toa 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.
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).
...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:
Q: is the reference https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.28.2960 available without a paywall anywhere?
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
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."
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..
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.
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.
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/1705.09548QuoteAt 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:QuoteWe 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.
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
https://phys.org/news/2017-06-year-old-physics-problem.html (https://phys.org/news/2017-06-year-old-physics-problem.html)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?
......
and from the article in Science magazine:QuoteWe 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.
(...)Yes, I should explain myself if I can...
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 toa 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.
(...)
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.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.
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'.
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?
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.
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.
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
Even a definitive final confirmation/verification within the micronewton regime would be a revolution! :o ;)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!
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?
Even a definitive final confirmation/verification within the micronewton regime would be a revolution! :o ;)
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?
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
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.
"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"
Even a definitive final confirmation/verification within the micronewton regime would be a revolution! :o ;)
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.
Hold on, I used kV/m when it should be kV/cm. Let me redo that.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peek%27s_law
30 kV/cm is 3000 kV/m.
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
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?
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".
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
https://phys.org/news/2017-06-atomic-mass-photon-momentum-paradox.htmlQuoteIn 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
https://phys.org/news/2017-06-atomic-mass-photon-momentum-paradox.htmlQuoteIn 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
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 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.
(...)
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,
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 ?
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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 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))
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 ?
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.
https://phys.org/news/2017-06-atomic-mass-photon-momentum-paradox.htmlQuoteIn 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
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.
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.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).
https://phys.org/news/2017-06-atomic-mass-photon-momentum-paradox.htmlQuoteIn 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.
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 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.
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.
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.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).
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 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.
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?
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.
Thanks for the complements, I try.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.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).
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?
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.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).
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
...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...
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.
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?
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
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.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).
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.
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 for the complements, although I don't believe I have the best setup in the world....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.
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
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
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.
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.
In solid form and as finished objects, beryllium copper presents no known health hazard.
The Flexure bearing design follows many of the industry guidelines for thruster testing and gives me the wide range of measurements I need.
I started using C-Flex bearings almost 14 years ago in my business. I have the F-10 bearings.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.
Sorry monomorphic I do not recall the price we paid 10 years ago.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
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.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!
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.
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)
Interesting reading...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...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.
http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=105280
No you didn't miss much. You never do.Interesting reading...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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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/
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?
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
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
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.
...
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.
Monomorphic,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
ThinkerX,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.
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.
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
Maybe offtopic but AIAA Propulsion and Energy 2017 just started their livestream over three days.
https://livestream.com/AIAAvideo/PropEnergy2017
This is from their web site: http://propulsionenergy.aiaa.org/DetailedProgram/ (http://propulsionenergy.aiaa.org/DetailedProgram/)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?
No you didn't miss much. You never do.Interesting reading...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.
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?
Shell
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.
This is from their web site: http://propulsionenergy.aiaa.org/DetailedProgram/ (http://propulsionenergy.aiaa.org/DetailedProgram/)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/)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?
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
...
@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.
...
Ukrainian scientists conduct a private investigation of the EM-Drive propeller for space use.
...
...
Conservation of angular momentum at the molecular, atomic and elementary level may also need to be taken into account.
David M
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)
...
@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.
1 - I live in Ukraine
"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.
...
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 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.
With out explicit elucidation on how one might readily pushing against the vacuum and my lack of experimental evidence I am reduced to speculation.
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.
THE EM DRIVE and CBS' show "Salvation" Season 1 2017
Thank you for posting this. We have no means to verify your claims but you are not the first to come forward.
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?
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.
...But you won't, isn't it?
Are you ready to offer a design with a force of 100 Newton?
... but I can ....
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?
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.
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. ;DThe 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.
Makes you wonder what a optically transparent Quartz tube through the center would see...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. ;DThe 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.
(...)
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..
Perhaps that's "arc deposition/sputtering" instead? Happens with magnetrons. For plasma, need to form a quasi-neutral domain with specific gas (ion).
Makes you wonder what a optically transparent Quartz tube through the center would see...
I think I'll make it so next run.
Shell
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.
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
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)
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.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.
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
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.
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?
Shell
(http://i.imgur.com/KdbCTEu.jpg)
No, it was just to show the E-Field locations of a TE013 mode, nothing else.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?
Shell
(http://i.imgur.com/KdbCTEu.jpg)
emdrive.com is down?? anyone else having troubles?It is not just you. The server is not responding.
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 13/7/2017emdrive.com is down?? anyone else having troubles?It is not just you. The server is not responding.
Thanks Marcel,(...)
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
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
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.
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.
[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.
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.
I tested a simple sphere with 2mm in diameter and a eps_r=70 beyond 10GHz (~30mm wavelength ;) ) with FEKO and found similar results.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.
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.
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
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....
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/
It is not wishful thinking:
http://www.emdrive.com/ShrivenhampresentationV.3.pdf
Bottom of slide 15 as attached:
How is Momentum Conserved? EmDrive obeys Newton’s LawsThis might impress a drill-sergeant... but that's hardly the public inhere that is interested in science, no?
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.
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.
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:QuoteHow is Momentum Conserved? EmDrive obeys Newton’s LawsThis might impress a drill-sergeant... but that's hardly the public inhere that is interested in science, no?
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.
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 communication style doesn't bother me and I've enjoyed some degree of science education.You're absolutely right...
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.
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...
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:QuoteHow is Momentum Conserved? EmDrive obeys Newton’s LawsThis might impress a drill-sergeant... but that's hardly the public inhere that is interested in science, no?
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.
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: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.
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'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_equationsAll I'm really interested in is this: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.
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.
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?
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.
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:QuoteHow is Momentum Conserved? EmDrive obeys Newton’s LawsThis might impress a drill-sergeant... but that's hardly the public inhere that is interested in science, no?
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.
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.
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_equationsAll I'm really interested in is this: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.
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.
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?
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
This was discussed during the past threads from the beginning on. We talk about much more thrust than generated by a photon rocket.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_equationsAll I'm really interested in is this: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.
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.
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?
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.
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
This was discussed during the past threads from the beginning on. We talk about much more thrust than generated by a photon rocket.--All I'm really interested in is this: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.
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.
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.QuoteThe 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.
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_equationsAll I'm really interested in is this: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.
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.
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?
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.
A micromechanical proof-of-principle experiment for measuring the gravitational force of milligram massesQuoteThis 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
A micromechanical proof-of-principle experiment for measuring the gravitational force of milligram massesQuoteThis 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.
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.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
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.
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 .
Wrong. Eq. 3d has unit of m2 as I proved previously.No, it doesn't. 3c has units of m2 but 3d has units of m2/s.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
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:Wrong. Eq. 3d has unit of m2 as I proved previously.No, it doesn't. 3c has units of m2 but 3d has units of m2/s.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
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 ::)
...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.
This was discussed during the past threads from the beginning on. We talk about much more thrust than generated by a photon rocket.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_equationsAll I'm really interested in is this: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.
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.
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?
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.QuoteThe 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.
Their Eq. (2) is also correct dimensionally. The text calls the Appendix, where the origin of this equation is fully explained....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.
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.
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.
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.Wish I had a "love" button on here instead of a "like". Very sweet monomorphic!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saOVV9tYwjM
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?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.
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...
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?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.
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...
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?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.
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...
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)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?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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
...
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.
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?
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.Monomorphic,
Below is a progress shot of the second print, and the finished product.
How long before you think your "pie" will be done?
And how are you securing your "EM-Pie-Plate" together?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
New breakthrough discovery-every quantum particle travels backwards. physics.org, 7-18John,
What is this about?????
FYI: Pions & Gravitons?
https://goo.gl/m7RhtP (https://goo.gl/m7RhtP)
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.
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.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.
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.
...
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.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 ;)
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
... and this shows the immense value that this forum provides to the world. "Old dog shares old tricks." (No offense intended X-Ray :) )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
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.
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?
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?
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."
....
....
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
We were told that2015,2016, 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?
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.
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.
....
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
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 :)Dynamite. I'm planning on attending the NIAC Symposium. I hope to see you and others there.
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 guess I could follow Freeman Dyson and go nuclear. ;)Dynamite.
Look, I'm just layman, but I REALLY don't think that's a good idea :)
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.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).
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:
Dynamite. I'm planning on attending the NIAC Symposium. I hope to see you and others there.
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: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.
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.
Do you think you will someday build a Cannae type device also? Anyone else here working on Cannae devices?
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 :)
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.
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?
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.
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.
(...) Do you think you will someday build a Cannae type device also? Anyone else here working on Cannae devices?
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?
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.
(...) 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?
Are you not worried the heat generated by the frustum warping the PLA scaffold?
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. ...
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.
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?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.
Depends on how conservative an analysis you want to do. Since we are looking at failure modes it might be better to ignore thrust.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?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.
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.
http://emdrive.com/ (http://emdrive.com/)is worth a look today :-)Thanks for the link. But let's wait until real details and data is provided before we fire up the barbie.
Plans for 3G Demonstrator developing...
http://emdrive.com/ (http://emdrive.com/)is worth a look today :-)Thanks for the link. But let's wait until real details and data is provided before we fire up the barbie.
Plans for 3G Demonstrator developing...
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..
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"...
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.
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.
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
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
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?
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??
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.
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?
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?
Barring an additional unknown mechanism, one probably can't actually say that it avoids local over-unity.
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?
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.
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.
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/TransistorQuoteA 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
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.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.
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/TransistorQuoteA 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
...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).Sciama did not write about action at a distance, or about retarded and advanced waves or about absorber theory applied to gravitation.
"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).
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.
OK Bob,http://emdrive.com/ (http://emdrive.com/)is worth a look today :-)Thanks for the link. But let's wait until real details and data is provided before we fire up the barbie.
Plans for 3G Demonstrator developing...
http://emdrives.com stopped working :(
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! :DOK Bob,http://emdrive.com/ (http://emdrive.com/)is worth a look today :-)Thanks for the link. But let's wait until real details and data is provided before we fire up the barbie.
Plans for 3G Demonstrator developing...
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)
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.
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.
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
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."
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 !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 Sciama2. 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)....
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.
http://emdrives.com stopped working :(
You have wrong address.
It is http://emdrive.com/ and not with (s)
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.
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.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.
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.
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'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.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.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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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"...
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.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.
...
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).
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.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 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.
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.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.
...
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).
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.
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.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.
...
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).
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.
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.
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.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.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.
...
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).
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.
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.
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
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.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.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.
...
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).
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.
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.
I quite explicitly gave you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you need to re-read my post.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.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.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.
...
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).
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.
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. 😀
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."I quite explicitly gave you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you need to re-read my post.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.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.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.
...
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).
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.
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.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.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.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.
...
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).
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.
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. 😀
@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.
Good idea. Here's what Chris Bergin did to a guy last week.... ;)
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.
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.
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.
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}
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).
Or in a clearer way...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.>>
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.
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.
...Did you mean to type WEC instead NEC? (Weak Energy Condition).
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).
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.
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?
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.
...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.
NEC. I'd better quote directly the passage from Barceló and Visser in their 2000 paper (https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0003025.pdf):
...
....Thanks for this! This really crystallized something for me.
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.
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.
....
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!)
Or in a clearer way...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.>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSKzgpt4HBU
Anyone seen the new TV show Salvation? They are actually planning on using an EmDrive to save earth from an asteroid impact ;D
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.
This show is freely available on Amazon Prime.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)
....Thanks for this! This really crystallized something for me.
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.
....
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.
Typical 3G thruster efficiencies are between 20% and 70%, in order to optimise the flight envelope for each application
Dr. Rodal,This show is freely available on Amazon Prime.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)
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.
...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.
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?
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 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.
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?
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...
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?
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?
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 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.
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?
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...
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.
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?
Because I thought the point was adequately made.QuoteThen 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?
Why stop there?
Because I thought the point was adequately made.QuoteThen 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.
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,
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
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
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,
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.)
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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...
Turned Roger's presentation into a spreadsheet as attached.
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?
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.
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?
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?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.
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.
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.)
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).
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.
(...)
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:QuoteSo 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No OU in sight.Are you blind?
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.
If it really were about NDA restriction, I would understand that perfectly...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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. :-\
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.
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.
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. :-\
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.
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. It's so simple yet you either fail to grasp it or just don't want to address it. :-[
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.
p.s. The peer reviewers should have made Mr. Shawyer address that point in the paper in my opinion.
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.)
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,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.
Pluto mission graphic and spreadsheet ver 9 attached.
Hi Meberbs,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.
Pluto mission graphic and spreadsheet ver 9 attached.
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.
My response is unchanged. You did not address a single thing I said.Hi Meberbs,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.
Pluto mission graphic and spreadsheet ver 9 attached.
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.Hi Meberbs,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.
Pluto mission graphic and spreadsheet ver 9 attached.
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 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.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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
... 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...
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?
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.
Specifically, a Rotating Wave (RW) is formed by a photon brought into rotation by someThere 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.
kind of binding energy, creating an electron and positron.
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...
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.
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.
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)
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
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.
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 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?
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?
(...) 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.
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
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'?
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_stateBased 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 limitQuote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_energyCasimir 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.
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_stateBased 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 limitQuote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_energyCasimir 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.
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.
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_stateBased 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 limitQuote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_energyCasimir 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.
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.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)
Also shows that using short pulsed Rf will reduce KE energy draw down and maintain high Fd.
... 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...
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_stateBased 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 limitQuote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_energyCasimir 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.
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.
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
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.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)
Also shows that using short pulsed Rf will reduce KE energy draw down and maintain high Fd.
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.
is there a reason for extending the conductive surface so far from the inside of the frustum? Could this contribute to I2R losses?
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.
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)
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?
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
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?
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.
gargoyle99,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.
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.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.
gargoyle99,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.)
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.
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
gargoyle99,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.
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.
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.
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....
To be crystal clear, the issue is if the EMDrive works as Shawyer claims, not if the EMDrive works.
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.
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.
"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?
"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.
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.
Or if there was no announcement at all. So, based on these three criteria, I'd say the test was a resounding success!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!
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....
To be crystal clear, the issue is if the EMDrive works as Shawyer claims, not if the EMDrive works.
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....
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.
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.
W = (N^2 * sec^2) / (2 * kg) is an interesting equation.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:
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.
W = (N^2 * sec^2) / (2 * kg) is an interesting equation.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:
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.
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.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.It is not valid unless the initial velocity in the frame you are using is zero. I clearly just demonstrated this.
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.
"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"
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!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?
After that, next step is to get the 30W amplifier working.
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.gargoyle99,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.)
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.
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.
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.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.gargoyle99,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.)
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Please do the maths and show the answer.I assume this is directed at me.
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.
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.gargoyle99,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.)
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.
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.
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.It is not valid unless the initial velocity in the frame you are using is zero. I clearly just demonstrated this.
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.
Actually there are a full uncountably infinite number to choose from, and they all work equally well.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.It is not valid unless the initial velocity in the frame you are using is zero. I clearly just demonstrated this.
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.
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.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,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.
Glad to see you accept my Work during acceleration equation is not rubbish.
Actually there are a full uncountably infinite number to choose from, and they all work equally well.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.It is not valid unless the initial velocity in the frame you are using is zero. I clearly just demonstrated this.
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.
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.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,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.
Glad to see you accept my Work during acceleration equation is not rubbish.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What about the sentence "Newton's laws of motion do not apply in an accelerating frame." did you not understand?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.
You are the one who needs to do some math.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.
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)
50000^2*1/(2*4000) = 312500 J (312.5 kJ)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.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.
50000^2*1/(2*4000) = 312500 J (312.5 kJ)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.
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.
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.
QuoteAs 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.QuoteBTW 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?
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.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.
Why is this so hard to accept?
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)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.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.
Why is this so hard to accept?
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.
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.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.
Why is this so hard to accept?
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.
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."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.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.
Why is this so hard to accept?
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.
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?
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)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.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.
Why is this so hard to accept?
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)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.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.
Why is this so hard to accept?
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 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.
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)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.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.
Why is this so hard to accept?
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 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.
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.
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
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."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.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.
Why is this so hard to accept?
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.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?
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.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."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.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.
Can we imagine that the EMdrive is an electric rocket with an invisible, inexhaustible reaction mass (which it finds along the way)?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.>>.
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.
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.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.
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...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.
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.
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)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.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.
Why is this so hard to accept?
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 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.
….
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.
…
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.
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.
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)?"?
...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.
Momentum is conserved and Energy is conserved.
Now send an emdrive on the same trajectory with the same proper acceleration, and an INVISIBLE exhaust. How
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.
New EmDrive patent application
...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.
Momentum is conserved and Energy is conserved.
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.
New EmDrive patent application
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.
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"?
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.
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.
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....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.
Momentum is conserved and Energy is conserved.
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?
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.
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.
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.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 you mean what they said at 6:30, then by that point in the video everything they were saying was basically incoherent gibberish.
say the right wall has mass m/4, the wall will be moving at speed 4*v
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.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.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?
The momentum in the ball (assuming m = 1kg) is 100000 kg*m/s, which is sufficiently not relativistic that relativity can be ignored.
Try reading my post I said the ball is not relativistic.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.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?
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.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.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?
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?
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.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.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.
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.
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.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.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.
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.
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.
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...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.
Relativity doesn't work the way you applied it.
So, when your argument was proven fallacious, you changed your argument to personal attack...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.
Relativity doesn't work the way you applied it.
Stating that you have demonstrated that you don't understand what you are talking about isn't a personal attack, it is a fact.
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.
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 toI missed that question among all of the nonsense you posted.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.tchernik,
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.tchernik,
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.
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.
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 toI missed that question among all of the nonsense you posted.
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.
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.
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.
Traveler, enough of this:
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 ofIt 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?
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.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
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.
Your explanations have consistently been wrong and contradictory, and basically everyone here can recognize this.Traveler, enough of this:
Enough of what?
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.
wicoe,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?
Thingiverse post is up. Anyone with a 3D printer can now download and print the parts for a 2.404GHz TE013 EmDrive.Put into the global commons. Simplification and repetition.
https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2505612 (https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2505612)
Thingiverse post is up. Anyone with a 3D printer can now download and print the parts for a 2.404GHz TE013 EmDrive.Put into the global commons. Simplification and repetition.
https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2505612 (https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2505612)
Jamie, you have what it takes. And then some...
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
...Please include the warning about building and testing the EmDrive too as we all know it is very dangerous...
Thingiverse post is up. Anyone with a 3D printer can now download and print the parts for a 2.404GHz TE013 EmDrive.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...
https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2505612
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?
Thingiverse post is up. Anyone with a 3D printer can now download and print the parts for a 2.404GHz TE013 EmDrive.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...
https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2505612
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...
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
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 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.
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.
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,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.
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, 2012OK Bob012345,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.
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, 2012OK Bob012345,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.
must confess I was just assuming that a Faraday cage blocked em radiation by containing both electric and magnetic fields. Can someone confirm this?
electromagnetism - Does Faraday cage block magnetic field ...
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/.../does-faraday-cage-block-magnetic-field
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.
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.
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.
If you read conclusions of the paper you referenced: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.
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.
If you read conclusions of the paper you referenced: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.QuoteStill 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.
The problem with that demonstration is that it can have many reasons to why it turns : ...
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.Do you like countering your own points?
...
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
I believe they indirectly argue the field momentum is much larger than a photon rocket equivalentI do not see them claiming this.
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.Do you like countering your own points?
...
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 conservationI believe they indirectly argue the field momentum is much larger than a photon rocket equivalentI do not see them claiming this.
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.
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.
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. ;DNewton's third law is not being violated. The balancing part of the force is felt by the fields (photons)
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?
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 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.Do you like countering your own points?
...
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 conservationI believe they indirectly argue the field momentum is much larger than a photon rocket equivalentI 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 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.Do you like countering your own points?
...
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 conservationI believe they indirectly argue the field momentum is much larger than a photon rocket equivalentI 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 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.
Thanks.
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.
(...)Bob012345,
If you read the paper I referenced, you will see it's not as simple as assuming the usual assumptions.
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. ;DNewton's third law is not being violated. The balancing part of the force is felt by the fields (photons)QuoteIn 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?
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.
We conclude that in general Newton’s third law is not satisfied
The forces between two moving charges are not always equal and opposite. It appears that “action” is not equal to “reaction.”
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
(...)Bob012345,
If you read the paper I referenced, you will see it's not as simple as assuming the usual assumptions.
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!
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).Note the use of the word "appears". It is not true, it only appears to be true because you are ignoring the fields.QuoteThe forces between two moving charges are not always equal and opposite. It appears that “action” is not equal to “reaction.”
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.
....
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!
....
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.Do you like countering your own points?
...
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 conservationI believe they indirectly argue the field momentum is much larger than a photon rocket equivalentI 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).
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).Note the use of the word "appears". It is not true, it only appears to be true because you are ignoring the fields.QuoteThe 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.
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.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.
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, what do you think they are really trying to say with these papers?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.
Can you realistically imagine proposing gigawatt levels of power in meter sized coils carrying 100 amps of current? Wouldn't they just melt?
...
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.
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)?
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?
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).
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.
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.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.
Why is this so hard to accept?
...
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.
...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.
Momentum is conserved and Energy is conserved.
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.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.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.
Why is this so hard to accept?
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.
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....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.
Momentum is conserved and Energy is conserved.
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.
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.
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?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.
Can you realistically imagine proposing gigawatt levels of power in meter sized coils carrying 100 amps of current? Wouldn't they just melt?
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 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
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.
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.
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
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.Fine!
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
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
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.
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.
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 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 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?
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.Do you like countering your own points?
...
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 conservationI believe they indirectly argue the field momentum is much larger than a photon rocket equivalentI 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.
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.
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?
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?
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
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).
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).
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.
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.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.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.
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).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.
...
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.
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.
The current in the wire will depend on the time duration the voltage is applied.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).
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.QuoteI 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.
The current in the wire will depend on the time duration the voltage is applied.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).
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.QuoteI 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.
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; ...
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).
The current in the wire will depend on the time duration the voltage is applied.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).
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.QuoteI 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)QuoteThe 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; ...
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)
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.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'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.
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.
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!
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.Marcel,
Food for thought,
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.pdfBy 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.
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.
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).
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?
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?
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!
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 HeinAsuming 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.
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 HeinAsuming 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.
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.
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.
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.
This also seems connected to the ideas presented in Jean-Philippe Montillet's Estes Park paper.
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?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.
Can you realistically imagine proposing gigawatt levels of power in meter sized coils carrying 100 amps of current? Wouldn't they just melt?
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.
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.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?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.
Can you realistically imagine proposing gigawatt levels of power in meter sized coils carrying 100 amps of current? Wouldn't they just melt?
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.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?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.
Can you realistically imagine proposing gigawatt levels of power in meter sized coils carrying 100 amps of current? Wouldn't they just melt?
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.
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#msg1719074Difference 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.
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.
flux_capacitor & dustinthewindIt 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 HeinAsuming 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.
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.RERT,
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).
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#msg1719074Difference 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.
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.
flux_capacitor & dustinthewindIt 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 HeinAsuming 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.
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 :)
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
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.
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 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.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?
To get reasonable forces you would need to use the proper dielectricNo, to get reasonable forces you would need to use an alternate theory of electrodynamics.
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.
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.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?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.
Can you realistically imagine proposing gigawatt levels of power in meter sized coils carrying 100 amps of current? Wouldn't they just melt?
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.
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.
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.
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;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.
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.
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 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;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.
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.
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.
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?
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)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.
"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?
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.
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)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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
Same critic is used againts Mr. Shawyer. It is only fair same approach will be used now to question objectivity of the critics.
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.
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.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.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.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.
Same critic is used againts Mr. Shawyer. It is only fair same approach will be used now to question objectivity of the critics.
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.
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,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.
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.
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,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.
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.
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
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.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.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.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.
Same critic is used againts Mr. Shawyer. It is only fair same approach will be used now to question objectivity of the critics.
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.QuoteWe 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.
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)
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.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.
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.
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.QuoteWe 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.
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
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.QuoteWe 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.
This experimental effort focuses on the cavity point design of White et. al from NASA JSCAlso, "own design" would say "Shawyer provided design" if he was providing the design, as it stands evidence remains that he is not involved.
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.
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/
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.QuoteWe 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.
... 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 . . .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.
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/
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
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....
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.
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.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?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.
Can you realistically imagine proposing gigawatt levels of power in meter sized coils carrying 100 amps of current? Wouldn't they just melt?
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.
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.
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/
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.
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.
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. "
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 can not stop thinking of preemptive defense. But it could only be me.
....
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.
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?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.
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.
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.....
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.
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.
...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.
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.
If you mean move to one side and stay there that would be unambiguous, but torsion pendulums should be even more sensitive.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.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.
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.
If you mean move to one side and stay there that would be unambiguous, but torsion pendulums should be even more sensitive.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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.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.
Welcome back Dave. You have been missed. NIAC Symposium in Denver at the end of the month. A few of us will be there.
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
...Quote from: Hauke HeinAsuming 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.
...Quote from: Hauke HeinAsuming 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)"
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...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:
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?
Thank you Dr. Rodal for the link! Late night reading is called for!
Shell...Quote from: Hauke HeinAsuming 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 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).
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.
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:I've been reading the paper and could not find anything more then a "letter of intend" to replicate the Eaglework experiment.
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.
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.
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 2017.2) 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 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.Quote3) Mike McDonald's group at the USNAVY:I've been reading the paper and could not find anything more then a "letter of intend" to replicate the Eaglework experiment.
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.
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...
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?
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.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 :)
(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.)
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.
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.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 :)
Antimatter interferometry for gravity measurementshttp://matterwave.physics.berkeley.edu/publications/
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.
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.
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.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.
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?
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.
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....
I admit I'm in great distress here, when trying to make sense of the tsunami wave of formula's...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:
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?
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.
4) surface polish and smoothness should be to professional astronomical standards, with no pits nor scratches,
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/
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.
Yes, of course.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?
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/
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/
:) :) This is my new cavityAlso 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
Interesting indeed, but I'm surprised to notice the cylindrical shape of Dr. Chen Yue's EMdrive...
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
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/
:) :) This is my new cavityAlso 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
Interesting indeed, but I'm surprised to notice the cylindrical shape of Dr. Chen Yue's EMdrive...
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?
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 ;)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.
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。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?
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.
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?
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)
Jose':The problems with that explanation are as follows:
"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.
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.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.
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?
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.
JR,Jose':The problems with that explanation are as follows:
"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.
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
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.
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。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?
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:QuoteThis 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:QuoteConfirmed 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):QuoteLooks 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)
...Excellent post! Thank you for clarifying this. Monomorphic and X_Ray:
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.
[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.
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.
...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)?
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)?
These cavities with internal diaphragms, different than frustums, have beee developped with one purpose in mind: To stack them. Many of them.
If not, can you give us your best estimate from your understanding?
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.
...We are making good progress on our TRL 9 qualification program.
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.
...
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.
...
We are making good progress on our TRL 9 qualification program.Quote9. 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.
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.)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.
.
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?
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.)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.
.
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.
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.
The EmDrive works.Therefore momentum is not conserved.
Nothing leaves the cavity.
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).
Maybe this?
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.
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.
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 ;)
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.
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 intranslationreturning 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).
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.
And here I am happily retired and you remind me of my LeanSixSigma days. No fair! ::)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 ;)
The EmDrive works.Therefore momentum is not conserved.
Nothing leaves the cavity.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).
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. :(
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.
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?It is apparently difficult for you to understand. What do you think "open system" means?
This is not difficult to understand.
The EmDrive works.Therefore momentum is not conserved.
Nothing leaves the cavity.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.
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 intranslationreturning 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
[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.
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.
...
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
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.
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?It is apparently difficult for you to understand. What do you think "open system" means?
This is not difficult to understand.
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.
When that technique is applied in space, interesting things happen as a new inertial rest frame is created between each short burst of acceleration.
You can't equate the way light works to basketballs in simple classical reference frames. So TT is partly correct.
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?It is apparently difficult for you to understand. What do you think "open system" means?
This is not difficult to understand.
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.
To be VERY CLEAR. A non accelerating cavity, relative to the trapped photons, WILL NOT GENERATE ANY FORCE NOR WILL IT INITIATE ACCELERATION.
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.
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?It is apparently difficult for you to understand. What do you think "open system" means?
This is not difficult to understand.
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.
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.
That complicates things and I doubt that. Otherwise you would need some auxiliary device to get it started in space.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?It is apparently difficult for you to understand. What do you think "open system" means?
This is not difficult to understand.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?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?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.
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.
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.
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?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?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.
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.
...
As for Open Systems this works for me:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_and_closed_systems_in_social_science
...
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.
The open systems are systems that allow interactions between their internal elements and the environment.
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: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.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_and_closed_systems_in_social_science
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
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.
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?It is apparently difficult for you to understand. What do you think "open system" means?
This is not difficult to understand.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.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
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.
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.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
...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.
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.
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.
{…}
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)
Hi Michelle,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
[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.Hi Michelle,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
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; ^
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
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
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?
...
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 regimeBold added for emphasis
(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].
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:QuoteThe 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 regimeBold added for emphasis
(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].
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
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Rodal,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/iiiiuuuuQuoteGoogle 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/
....Beating the USA ?
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.
Rodal,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.
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.
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.
QuoteFrom 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?
The Great Leap Forward the Americans were behind on was Sputnik/ Gagarin.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
...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.
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.
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 ;)
<<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)....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.
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.
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)....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.
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.
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.
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.
...
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 ;)
<<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)....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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.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.
Shell
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.
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.
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.
<<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)....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.
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.
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.
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.
....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.
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.
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. ;)....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.
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.
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" ::)
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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..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.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)
QuoteAs 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?
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.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.
We measure Q dropping as acceleration progressively increases velocity and KE.
There is no OU in EmDrive cavitiesPer 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?
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.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.
We measure Q dropping as acceleration progressively increases velocity and KE.There is no OU in EmDrive cavitiesPer 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.You have repeatedly demonstrated you lack of understanding of basic physics, that is a fact, not an insult.
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.
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.
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
Guys,
This is Roger's take on theory, which I agree with:QuoteThere 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.
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.
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 make20182019 a very interesting year.
Guys,
This is Roger's take on theory, which I agree with:QuoteThere 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.
Guys,
This is Roger's take on theory, which I agree with:QuoteThere 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.
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.
Guys,
This is Roger's take on theory, which I agree with:QuoteThere 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.
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.
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.
There are ample examples of working EmDrives developing thrust.
So no need to wait for me to become a believer.
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.
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.Guys,
This is Roger's take on theory, which I agree with:QuoteThere 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.
...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.
I am not sure what you mean by clues and recipes converging, since really they are just all copying what Shawyer originally did.
Thus there is still urgent need for a public demonstrator rotary test rig, with precise data. Seems you won't provide it.
...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?
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?
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.
Why is there an urgent need for a public demonstration? Who will benefit? Who may not benefit?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
...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?
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.
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 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?
...
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?
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.
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.
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.
people can simultaneously say that gravity isn't a force (it isn't)
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
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 exactly is the insult? TT has repeatedly gotten basic physics wrong.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.
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
...
What exactly is the insult? TT has repeatedly gotten basic physics wrong.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.
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.
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.
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."
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.Quotepeople 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.
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).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.
...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.
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).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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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:
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!'?
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.
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.
The EmDrive works.Therefore momentum is not conserved.
Nothing leaves the cavity.
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.
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
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
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.
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?
while you consistently prepend your responses to him with personal attacks:Context matters.Do you even know the definition of the phrase "open system"?
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.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.
...
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.
Finally, you (meberbs) continuously get bogged down arguing back and forth with TT about CoM from a current physics point of view:Depends, can you get TT to stop proclaiming contradictory statements?The EmDrive works.Therefore momentum is not conserved.
Nothing leaves the cavity.
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.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:Yet he continues to insist on design rules following a theory that is inconsistent with itself, which of course leads to inconsistent rules.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.
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.
.........
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.
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?
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.Quotepeople 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.
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:Context matters.Do you even know the definition of the phrase "open system"?
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.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.
...
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.Finally, you (meberbs) continuously get bogged down arguing back and forth with TT about CoM from a current physics point of view:Depends, can you get TT to stop proclaiming contradictory statements?The EmDrive works.Therefore momentum is not conserved.
Nothing leaves the cavity.
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.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:Yet he continues to insist on design rules following a theory that is inconsistent with itself, which of course leads to inconsistent rules.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.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.
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.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.
Meberbs,I cannot speak for Meberbs, but I'll share my view on this since I think I understand where he's coming from...
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.
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.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.
Chinese design reminiscent of Cannae slots?No, different electromagnetic field distribution. Different mode shapes. Very different scale and distribution.
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.
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.
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.
;)
...The question I answered was concerning gravitational waves and not about gravitational effects in general.
Jose':
For locally derived gravitational effects I concur that E&M generated gravitational effects are extremely small in magnitude. ...
Does a gravity wave/space-time ripple transfer momentum?
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.
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.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?
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)
Actually a relevant question.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.
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.
Furthermore, the radiation energy is proportional to the square of the amplitude of the associated gravitational wave
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.QuoteFurthermore, the radiation energy is proportional to the square of the amplitude of the associated gravitational wave
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.QuoteFurthermore, 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] ;)
...Herman,
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
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
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.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.
clearly shows the "stop acceleratingis in the eye of the beholder and willingness to look for other explanations, unless this is verified by other independent means.
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.
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.
So the clarity ofQuoteclearly shows the "stop acceleratingis in the eye of the beholder unless this is verified by other independent means.
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.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.
So the clarity ofQuoteclearly shows the "stop acceleratingis in the eye of the beholder and willingness to look for other explanations, unless this is verified by other independent means.
...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....
...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...
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.
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.
So the clarity ofQuoteclearly shows the "stop acceleratingis 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!
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.
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.
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.
Does a gravity wave/space-time ripple transfer momentum?
(...)moreno7798,
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.
??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 ;)
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.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.
So the clarity ofQuoteclearly shows the "stop acceleratingis 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.
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.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.
So the clarity ofQuoteclearly shows the "stop acceleratingis 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.
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.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.
So the clarity ofQuoteclearly shows the "stop acceleratingis 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.
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.
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.
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.
Doc,??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?
(...)
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.
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.
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)
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?
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.
;DIt 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?
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.
;DIt 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.
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..... ;)
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.
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.
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.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"?
Remember 1st post in each thread:QuoteChris 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
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.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.
How can this (emphasis mine):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.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?
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)
How can this (emphasis mine):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.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?
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.
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.
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.
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"?
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)
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?
"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.
According to this, general relativity is all we need even for the black hole. No quantum mechanics.Mind that for certain dimensions, Cherns Simons works (or doesn't).
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)
...The problem with the view that
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 black hole is under this view a bridge of limited spatial extension with no central singularity, linking two Minkowski spacesis
The problem with the view thatQuotethe black hole is under this view a bridge of limited spatial extension with no central singularity, linking two Minkowski spacesis
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)
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).The problem with the view thatQuotethe black hole is under this view a bridge of limited spatial extension with no central singularity, linking two Minkowski spacesis
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.
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
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 varyMy 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.
@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) :)
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).The problem with the view thatQuotethe black hole is under this view a bridge of limited spatial extension with no central singularity, linking two Minkowski spacesis
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.
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 .
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 varyMy 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 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:
I can accept the (M) theory of strings as little as I can accept the existence of gravitons
{…}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.
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.
...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 MachI 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. :-\
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 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).
...BTW, we are way off topic.At least we are discussing issues that pertain to space science ;)
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.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.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 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.)
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.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 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.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.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 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.
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.
...
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).
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).The problem with the view thatQuotethe black hole is under this view a bridge of limited spatial extension with no central singularity, linking two Minkowski spacesis
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.
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 .
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.
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.
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 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.
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:Except that is simply not true as shown by this more recent paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302273
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)
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.
...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 MachI 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.
...This is more of a reason why not to treat people like Mach as experts on everything they opined about.
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.
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 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.
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:Except that is simply not true as shown by this more recent paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0302273
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)QuoteThe 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.
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).The problem with the view thatQuotethe black hole is under this view a bridge of limited spatial extension with no central singularity, linking two Minkowski spacesis
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.
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. . . )
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.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.
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!
Anyway, the whole point of this conversation was simply that, in the frame of a distant observer outside the gravitational fields being observed,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.
cK = c/K
GK = G/K4
Where, c and G are "constants". Happy?
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)
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 !
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.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.
...
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.
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.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.
...
...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.
...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.
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.
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. ...
Maybe he's talking about the existence (or not) of the hard event horizon?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
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/hawking-meant-black-holes/
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.
Maybe he's talking about the existence (or not) of the hard event horizon?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
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/hawking-meant-black-holes/QuoteHawking 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/
...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 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...
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 :)
For those readers who are struggling how the Mach Principle works here is a quick video on youtube that's easy to understand.Thank you for the interesting video. Please note:
Shell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPEwkMHRjZU
...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.
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-
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. ...
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
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.
Some of the popular science descriptions of black holes are bad.
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...
This is cool. Look at equation 5.
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View/6775
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? ???
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
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?
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).
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).
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?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.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).
This very old idea, that G is a constant, also needs to be challenged.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.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=65063
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)
For those readers who are struggling how the Mach Principle works here is a quick video on youtube that's easy to understand.Thank you for the interesting video. Please note:
Shell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPEwkMHRjZU
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)
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 :)
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.
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 :)
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)
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.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.
Well, there's a sure fire way to check.-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.
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.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.
...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.
For those readers who are struggling how the Mach Principle works here is a quick video on youtube that's easy to understand.Thank you for the interesting video. Please note:
Shell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPEwkMHRjZU
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.
(...)
...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,
...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,
...Not a precise statement of Einstein's assumption. Instead Einstein assumed the equivalence principle.
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.
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.
"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)
...Not a precise statement of Einstein's assumption. Instead Einstein assumed the equivalence principle.
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.
"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.
....
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.
...
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. ...
...
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
.......
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
The most important factor is doing so is finding the correct period of oscillation.
Nothing is instantaneous besides weird quantum tunneling stuff and the like and even then constraints have been put on that by experiment.
...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.
...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.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....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."
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.
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?
[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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.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....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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
...
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
...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.
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?
-snips-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.
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.
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.
...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.
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.-snips-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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.I don't understand why compare this to the EM Drive based on thrust per input energy.
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?
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!
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.I don't understand why compare this to the EM Drive based on thrust per input energy.
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?
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:QuoteReaching 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/
...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.
...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
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.
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 temperaturesJones, 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.
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
was not advocating to use diesel fuel (*), it was just there in the viscosity vs temperature chart for sunflower oil ;)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.
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.
...
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.
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.......
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.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.
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)
Someone finally translated Dr Chen Yue's recent interview on CCTV in English. Not perfect but much better than Google's automaticgibberishtranslation.
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
...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.
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.
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.
- what you posted ... is just nonsensical:I'm struggling to understand what you don't about my comment and thus declared as 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...
- Any information travelling faster than light would allow for sending messages to the past.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.
- 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.
- 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.
Someone finally translated Dr Chen Yue's recent interview on CCTV in English. Not perfect but much better than Google's automaticgibberishtranslation.
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.
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;
...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,
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.
...
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?
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.- what you posted ... is just nonsensical:I'm struggling to understand what you don't about my comment and thus declared as 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...
This is basic stuff, known as the electromagnetic field, divergence and the thermionic effect.
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- Any information travelling faster than light would allow for sending messages to the past.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.
- 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.
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.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.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.
This test rig will prove CofE and CofM is not violatedHow exactly are you going to show that conservation of momentum is not violated?
This test rig will prove CofE and CofM is not violatedHow 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.
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.This test rig will prove CofE and CofM is not violatedHow 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.
...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,
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.
...
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)
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.This test rig will prove CofE and CofM is not violatedHow 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.
…
Do I know why the EmDrive does what it does? No. However using SPR theory to drive design does seem to work.
...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,
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.
...
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)
This test rig will prove CofE and CofM is not violatedHow 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.
This test rig will prove CofE and CofM is not violatedHow 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.
momentum is conserved in a working EMDrive, a position professor Woodward appeared to hold until recently
A lot of your posts are about you seeing mocking where there is no mocking....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,
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.
...
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.
The post you are commenting on readsQuoteAnd 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.
This test rig will prove CofE and CofM is not violatedHow 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 thatQuotemomentum 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.
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.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.
Mods have been patient with us so far, but let's not over-stress that good disposition. :-\
..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 ;)
..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.
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.
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.
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. ;DWhat is the rationale to conduct the test with damping high enough such that it is critically damped?
Here is a dual calibration pulse to see how repeatable they are. Eyeballing it, I would say the pendulum is now critically damped.
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 in order to amplify the
amplitude of the stand oscillation and achieve sub-micronewton
sensitivity
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
. Thrust stands used in
impulse measurements are typically underdamped pendulums that
are allowed to oscillate at their natural frequency after an impulse
perturbation
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.
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.
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 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).
Back then I calculated the damping ratios based on your previous runs.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.
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 in order to amplify the
amplitude of the stand oscillation and achieve sub-micronewton
sensitivity
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
Do you recall what damping ratio did I previously calculate you had at that time (when you were using SeeShell's antifreeze)?Dr. Rodal,
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
4) Time is a property of matter and the space it exists within is a human (animal) construct which depends upon a point perspective.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.
...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,
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.
...
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)
...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. :)
...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. :)
.. 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.* it is well-known that Einstein recognized Mach as one of his main sources of inspiration
I also seem to remember you being involved with some sort of NASA side (?) program involving Woodward/Mach Drive or effect.
.. 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.* it is well-known that Einstein recognized Mach as one of his main sources of inspiration
I also seem to remember you being involved with some sort of NASA side (?) program involving Woodward/Mach Drive or effect.
* 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
.. 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.* it is well-known that Einstein recognized Mach as one of his main sources of inspiration
I also seem to remember you being involved with some sort of NASA side (?) program involving Woodward/Mach Drive or effect.
* 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?
Just read this: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).
https://phys.org/news/2017-09-gravitational-oscillate-neutrinos.html
Could bigravity help to explain the EM drive observations so far?
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
(http://spiritwalkministry.com/yahoo_site_admin2/assets/images/Metaphysical_Maps.11932743_std.jpg)"Why are you here?"
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!
(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 ;)
(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.
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.
Space or time or Spacetime? Better to look at setting some basic parameters. I like the answers given here.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 :)
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.
.. 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.* it is well-known that Einstein recognized Mach as one of his main sources of inspiration
I also seem to remember you being involved with some sort of NASA side (?) program involving Woodward/Mach Drive or effect.
* 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.
(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,
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.
9) doing end plate radiation calcs pressure shows less pressure on the small end plate vs the big end plate.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.
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.
.. 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.* it is well-known that Einstein recognized Mach as one of his main sources of inspiration
I also seem to remember you being involved with some sort of NASA side (?) program involving Woodward/Mach Drive or effect.
* 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.
...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.)
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.
(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.
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 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.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.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.
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.
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?
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 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.
(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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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... ;)
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....Not a precise statement of Einstein's assumption. Instead Einstein assumed the equivalence principle.
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.
"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: Please cite experimental evidence for your assertion above that "Gravitation is apparently instantaneous"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....Not a precise statement of Einstein's assumption. Instead Einstein assumed the equivalence principle.
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.
"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)
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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
It's apparently instantaneous at static field. The experimentalist Kopeikin: https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0507001A correction: Please cite experimental evidence for your assertion above that "Gravitation is apparently instantaneous"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....Not a precise statement of Einstein's assumption. Instead Einstein assumed the equivalence principle.
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.
"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)
...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
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.
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/
True. Considering gravitational force equivalent with centripetal force at orbit the tidal effects i.e. mass distribution changes travelling speed c are negligible....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
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.
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/277/1264/59.short). Only point particles follow geodesics.
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.True. Considering gravitational force equivalent with centripetal force at orbit the tidal effects i.e. mass distribution changes travelling speed c are negligible....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
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.
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/277/1264/59.short). Only point particles follow geodesics.
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:
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.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.
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.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.True. Considering gravitational force equivalent with centripetal force at orbit the tidal effects i.e. mass distribution changes travelling speed c are negligible....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
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.
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/277/1264/59.short). Only point particles follow geodesics.
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
...OK that gets us here:
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.
To date, Bell tests have found that the hypothesis of local hidden variables is inconsistent with the way that physical systems behave.
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).
A(particle/meter) 0 1 - 1 0 - 0 1 - ......OK that gets us here:
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experimentsQuoteTo 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
Good concept to understand.
https://gizmodo.com/scientists-resolve-mysterious-violation-to-einsteins-re-1818655617
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
Would appreciate knowing how do you go from Milonni Appendix B to the conclusion thatGood 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.
It vanishes when the spectral energy density, ρ(ω) ~ ω3
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.
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).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
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 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.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.
As a side note, I really like my current job, and would have no interest in moving to EW.
How in the world did you get that take away (value of peer review) from my post?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.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.
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?
Would appreciate knowing how do you go from Milonni Appendix B to the conclusion thatGood 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.QuoteIt 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
How in the world did you get that take away (value of peer review) from my post?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.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.
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?
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.)
...Thank you for taking your time to thoroughly answer
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.
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.True. Considering gravitational force equivalent with centripetal force at orbit the tidal effects i.e. mass distribution changes travelling speed c are negligible....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
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.
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/277/1264/59.short). Only point particles follow geodesics.
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
(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.
Comment on the paper by Kopeikin:It's apparently instantaneous at static field. The experimentalist Kopeikin: https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0507001A correction: Please cite experimental evidence for your assertion above that "Gravitation is apparently instantaneous"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....Not a precise statement of Einstein's assumption. Instead Einstein assumed the equivalence principle.
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.
"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)
That's because of no changes propagates - bodies just follow geodesics of spacetime.
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.
I agree. But this is not about my knowledge or experience. This is about yours, Mr. Sawyer and Dr. White.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.
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).
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.
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?
Comment on the paper by Kopeikin:It's apparently instantaneous at static field. The experimentalist Kopeikin: https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0507001A correction: Please cite experimental evidence for your assertion above that "Gravitation is apparently instantaneous"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....Not a precise statement of Einstein's assumption. Instead Einstein assumed the equivalence principle.
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.
"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)
That's because of no changes propagates - bodies just follow geodesics of spacetime.
1.) There also was Tom van Flandern and the "speed of gravity" Jupiter experiment.
van Flandern:
http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Speed_of_Gravity.htm
...
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.
(...)
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
(...)
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?
We do not know what gravity actually is yet.
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
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.
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.
Mono... did you see these ?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.
http://relaypros.com/Relay/Relay/USB_Relay_Controller
...
...
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.
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).
OnlyMe,
(...)
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.
Entanglement is weirder and more complicated than most people realize.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?
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
OnlyMe,
(...)
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.
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.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?
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.)
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.… (I think it may be entangled with the measuring device in a way though).
I am less sure of this last qualification.
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....
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.).
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.… (I think it may be entangled with the measuring device in a way though).
I am less sure of this last qualification.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....
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.).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments
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.
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.… (I think it may be entangled with the measuring device in a way though).
I am less sure of this last qualification.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....
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.).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experiments
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
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.
`Entanglement is weirder and more complicated than most people realize.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?
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.)
Bouncing photons
http://www.sciencealert.com/light-continues-to-behave-really-weirdly-in-the-large-hadron-colliderQuoteOne 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 ?
Marcel, mon ami,`Entanglement is weirder and more complicated than most people realize.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?
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?
Great work Jamie! Looking forward to the end of test characterization and full power tests.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.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.
Bouncing photons
http://www.sciencealert.com/light-continues-to-behave-really-weirdly-in-the-large-hadron-colliderQuoteOne 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.
Bouncing photons
http://www.sciencealert.com/light-continues-to-behave-really-weirdly-in-the-large-hadron-colliderQuoteOne 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.
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)
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)
Is there a board that goes into the MEGA drive? I would like a better understanding of the theory behind it.
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
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
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
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)
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
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
Bouncing photons
http://www.sciencealert.com/light-continues-to-behave-really-weirdly-in-the-large-hadron-colliderQuoteOne 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
Just a question; do you have a schedule (you can share) about your next series of cavity tests ?
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):...OK that gets us here:
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test_experimentsQuoteTo 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
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.
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:
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!
...
Graybeardsyseng can help you on a written protocol. ;-)
....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 :)
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.
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.
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
...
Graybeardsyseng can help you on a written protocol. ;-)....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 :)
Herman
graybeardsyseng
EDITED - include approximate time of presentation.
Sorry that Michelle could not make it.
...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. :)
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
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.
Hi guys.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.
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 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.
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.Hi guys.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.
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,
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.Hi guys.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.
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,
Try reading his post again, paying extra attention to the parts I bolded. You have completely misunderstood his statements.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.Hi guys.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.
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,
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.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.Hi guys.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.
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,
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.
....http://users.physik.fu-berlin.de/~kleinert/b6/psfiles/Chapter-7-conslaw.pdf
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
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,
Also see Chapter 17 of the classic Feynman Lectures for a nice application to quantum mechanics:
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_17.html
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.....http://users.physik.fu-berlin.de/~kleinert/b6/psfiles/Chapter-7-conslaw.pdf
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,
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,
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.Hi guys.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.
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,
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.Hi guys.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.
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,
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.
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 :)
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.
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) ?
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:
Hi
You mean like this?
qraal
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.
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/
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).Hi
You mean like this?
qraal
Interesting, page 4:Quote from: Martin TajmarWe 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?Hi
You mean like this?
qraal
Interesting, page 4:Quote from: Martin TajmarWe 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.
...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>>.
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).
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
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.
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 :)
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.
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
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.
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
You mean like this?
qraal
Interesting, page 4:Quote from: Martin TajmarWe 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
You mean like this?
qraal
Interesting, page 4:Quote from: Martin TajmarWe 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
You mean like this?
qraal
Interesting, page 4:Quote from: Martin TajmarWe 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
You mean like this?
qraal
Interesting, page 4:Quote from: Martin TajmarWe 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
You mean like this?
qraal
Interesting, page 4:Quote from: Martin TajmarWe 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.
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.
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 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
You mean like this?
qraal
Interesting, page 4:Quote from: Martin TajmarWe 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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.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
You mean like this?
qraal
Interesting, page 4:Quote from: Martin TajmarWe 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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.Hi guys.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.
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,
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.
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.
...
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.
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,
sanman,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,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?
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.
So if there's an external field involved here, what is it? (And please don't tell me it's a "field of dreams" ;) )sanman,
Is it the Quantum Foam (aka. Dynamic Vacuum) ?
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?
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?)).
...
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.
...
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.
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.
could not make out your time stamp but the signal looks similar to a cell phone presence signal which would also be intermittant.
....
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.
…
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
...
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.
....
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.
....
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.
...
....
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.
…
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
....
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.
(...)
photons are said to be mediators between charge interactions.
Bob,sanman,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?
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.
Isn't the accretion of mass more due to acceleration at relativistic speeds, or boson interactions enabling energy conversion to mass?
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
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.
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 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.
Then your comments on "weight" were what you intended. Unfortunately they are a meaningless portion of your comment, not adding anything of import.Bob,sanman,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?
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.
Isn't the accretion of mass more due to acceleration at relativistic speeds, or boson interactions enabling energy conversion to mass?
mass is conserved. Weight is dependent upon the local acceleration due to gravity, non?
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."
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.
From the article:QuoteIf 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?
Hey Monomorphic, TheTraveler, or whoever - is it possible to run this shape through your analytical software and produce a graphical render from it?
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.
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.
From the article:QuoteIf 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 :
Here are all the sims on bell curve.
"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)"
If you could draw a sketch I`ll try to sim. I don`t understand what`s inverted from what.
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#msg1655717Quote"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)"
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
Frustum resonance measurementsHi Peter,
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).
... 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.
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
...
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.
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).
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 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.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 :)
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.
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.
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).
From http://www.krynaglobal.com/product/eprop.html :
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42978.0;attach=1451560;image)
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
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.
Bob,Then your comments on "weight" were what you intended. Unfortunately they are a meaningless portion of your comment, not adding anything of import.Bob,sanman,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?
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.
Isn't the accretion of mass more due to acceleration at relativistic speeds, or boson interactions enabling energy conversion to mass?
mass is conserved. Weight is dependent upon the local acceleration due to gravity, non?
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."
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_opticsQuoteIntegrated 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 :)
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 :)
...
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.
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?
...
BTW judging from the pictures, your side wall sheet is very shiny & smooth. Good sheet choice.
From the article:QuoteIf 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?
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?
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.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 :)
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)
(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.
...
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. :)
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 :) !
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.
...
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 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.
TT, where do you see an eddy current ring in that picture?
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.
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.
I`m going back in shadow and play with simulation of shapes and rainbow elastic balls. If someone find it interesting. Cool :)
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.
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.
...
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.
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...?
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.
Here's some quick answers Sanman:QuoteWhen 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.
QuoteAnd 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.
QuoteDoes 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
INPUT:
SD=122mm; BD=202mm; LN=165mm (Theta=13,6270°)
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.
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:QuoteWhen 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)QuoteQuoteAnd 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.QuoteQuoteDoes 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).
... 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 :)
...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.
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.
...
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.?
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,
Sorry to be asking dumb questions again - but how are these plots indicative of any propulsive capability?sanman,
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?
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. ::)
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.
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.
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?
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.
Same for Bell
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 think the spherical ends of his frustum has common curvature center point outside...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) ?
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.
Natural Metaphysics for Dummies
(for entertainment purposes only)
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...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...
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 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,
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.
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/
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.
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.
Here, we introduce the slow-light effect in a MIM plasmonic waveguide with quasi-period stub structures, asI 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.
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].
please be careful not to open a leak by playing with it while the frustum contains a nasty dose of RF energy.
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.
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?
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.
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.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?
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 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?
...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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
I think that you were looking for this. Sorry for delay.
Bell with inversed big end.
...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That's why I can't understand the rationale behind Chen Yue's cylindrical cavities. The geometry of the cavity may be relevant.
Rodal,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.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.
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.
tchernik,
(...)
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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).
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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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'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'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?
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.
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?
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
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.
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 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.
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.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.
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)
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.
...
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.
...
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.
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.).
The passage of time is independent of entropy. entropy cannot measure the passage of time, only the direction.
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.
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.
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.).
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.
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"
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.
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).
…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'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.
Central air heating/conditioning coming on a regular cycle? What in your area would generate noise at 30-60 second intervals?
...
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?
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?
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.
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.
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
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?
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
Is 3 uN really a "significant" noise source.
...
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'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'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
(https://www.uark.edu/_resources/img/logo-on-red.png) | (http://ayuba.fr/images/emdrive/Joshua-Pennington.jpg) |
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.
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.
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...
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
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.
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.
...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.
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.
...
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....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.
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.
...
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).
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.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).
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.
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.
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.
Rayleigh waves
period is typically ~ 20s, with wavelength of ~100km
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).
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).
Rayleigh waves
period is typically ~ 20s, with wavelength of ~100km
Time is gravity?Almost Kenjee,
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.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?
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.
placing some marble "bricks" under the supports
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.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?
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).
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 accelerationsGravity 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.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?
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.
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.
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 accelerationsGravity 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.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?
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.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.
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.
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.)
QuoteThis 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)QuoteCompletely 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)
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.
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.
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.
All natural processes occur in such a way that the total entropy of the universe increases.
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).
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! :) )
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.
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.
This sure looks like an acceleration to me. A constantly changing acceleration.How is this in any way relevant?
...
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.
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 accelerationsGravity 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.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?
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.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 componentAre you trying to describe the universe we live in, or some other fictional universe?
This sure looks like an acceleration to me. A constantly changing acceleration.How is this in any way relevant?
...
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.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.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.
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.To start with the answer your last question, yes. The physics concept of "acceleration" simply only applies to massive particles.
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?
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.
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."
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."
...quantum mechanical ...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.
It's turning into a complicated mess for me to be able to understand using this approach.
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.
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 accelerationsGravity 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.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?
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.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.
There is large amounts everywhere. enough energy converges and suddenly e-p pairs start popping in and out of existence. Its been observed already.Supposing anti-matter is this other componentAre 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.
...quantum mechanical ...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.
It's turning into a complicated mess for me to be able to understand using this approach.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.
(...)
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.
Maxwell Vindicated, blogpost by John Newell.. 6/2/2014
(...)
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.
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....quantum mechanical ...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.
It's turning into a complicated mess for me to be able to understand using this approach.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....quantum mechanical ...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.
It's turning into a complicated mess for me to be able to understand using this approach.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/
I mostly just wanted to express my suggestion (just a suggestion) to treat the electric and magnetic fields as a single "electromagnetic field" instead.
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."
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.@Monomorphic:
The two temperature sensors for the draft enclosure will be added tomorrow.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).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.
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
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”.
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 ;DQuote from: Lev Borisovich OkunThe 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.
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.
Meberbs -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.
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.
...
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.
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.
Meberbs -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.
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.
...
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.
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.
So your reaction to being proven wrong on technical grounds is to make up lies about the person you are talking with?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[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.
The blankets and insulation help remove internal convection currents, as it thermally insulates the chamber.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. ....
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.
Was Monomorphic playing very loud music during the experiments and had big woofers directed at the experiment?
The blankets and insulation help remove internal convection currents, as it thermally insulates the chamber.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. ....
It is not clear why you think the noise wasQuotemore 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? ...
...
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.
Meberbs -What you showed here is correlation, not causation, and I never disputed correlation.
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.
Meaning it would be fruitful to heat the container to predicted outside surface temperature i.e. ~55C0.
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.
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
Flip the switch already!!!
Meberbs -What you showed here is correlation, not causation, and I never disputed correlation.
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.
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.
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?
I've never seen the pendulum this steady....
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 :)
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
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....quantum mechanical ...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.
It's turning into a complicated mess for me to be able to understand using this approach.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/
I mostly just wanted to express my suggestion (just a suggestion) to treat the electric and magnetic fields as a single "electromagnetic field" instead.
...
The obvious solution is to engineer an EM drive that has enough force to make these effects small in comparison. ;)
...
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.
The obvious solution is to engineer an EM drive that has enough force to make these effects small in comparison. ;)
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
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.
....What the hell are they saying?
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)
https://www.crazynauka.pl/explory-2017-znamy-juz-zwyciezcow-tego-konkursu-naukowego/
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.
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.
The last image also shows the interior of the EM drive. The internal alu surface doesn't look to be highly polished...
The main body of their EM drive seems to be an existing , commercial available piece.
https://www.crazynauka.pl/explory-2017-znamy-juz-zwyciezcow-tego-konkursu-naukowego/QuoteJakub 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.
18-year-old microwave engineNo, this is not about 18-year-old engine, it's actually about 18 y.o. GUYS, which is kind of amazing
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?
https://www.crazynauka.pl/explory-2017-znamy-juz-zwyciezcow-tego-konkursu-naukowego/QuoteJakub 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 BTWQuote18-year-old microwave engineNo, this is not about 18-year-old engine, it's actually about 18 y.o. GUYS, which is kind of amazing
That's great!https://www.crazynauka.pl/explory-2017-znamy-juz-zwyciezcow-tego-konkursu-naukowego/QuoteJakub 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 BTWQuote18-year-old microwave engineNo, 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.
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.
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 :) ?
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.
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 Phil,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
...
...
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.
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.
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2017/10/20/naar-de-final-frontier-en-verder-13593597-a1578054There is no paywall there as far as I can see. Here is the google translated link:
[yes, paywall, sorry]
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.
While these low cost VNAs are useful to find resonance, I would not trust them much further.
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 :)
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 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.
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"
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
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.
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.
Using the table dimensions with TE01x mode at 2.4097GHz, the small end is below cutoff diameter. 2.4496GHz is the lower cutoff freq.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.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).
Is your actual beef with the EMDrive in general or with the EMDrive as described by TT?
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'.
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.
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).QuoteI 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.
...This thread is about the EM Drive.
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.
Is your actual beef with the EMDrive in general or with the EMDrive as described by TT?
...This thread is about the EM Drive.
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.
You wrote (addressed to meberbs)QuoteIs 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
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!
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 ]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)
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.
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)!
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.
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.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.
Again, in a Cassimir effect one has 2 plates separated and being able to move separatelyNo, 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"?
Jose et al....
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)
Is there some possibility of a Maxwell's Demon here?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.
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)
Is there some possibility of a Maxwell's Demon here?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.
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)
But, besides the theoretical reasons, there is not a single reproducible experiment where someone has been able to extract energy from the Quantum Vacuum.Is there some possibility of a Maxwell's Demon here?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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
Is there some possibility of a Maxwell's Demon here?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.
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)
(https://image.slidesharecdn.com/zeropointenergyandvacuumfluctuationseffects-13066047365942-phpapp01-110528124948-phpapp01/95/zero-point-energy-and-vacuum-fluctuations-effects-4-728.jpg?cb=1306587118)
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?
(...)
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?
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.
Meberbs -The math does not specify cause and effect, only correlation.
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.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)
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.
Meberbs -The math does not specify cause and effect, only correlation.
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.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.
But, besides the theoretical reasons, there is not a single reproducible experiment where someone has been able to extract energy from the Quantum Vacuum.
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.
Is there some possibility of a Maxwell's Demon here?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.
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)
But, besides the theoretical reasons, there is not a single reproducible experiment where someone has been able to extract energy from the Quantum Vacuum.Is there some possibility of a Maxwell's Demon here?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.
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)
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.
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...
But, besides the theoretical reasons, there is not a single reproducible experiment where someone has been able to extract energy from the Quantum Vacuum.Is there some possibility of a Maxwell's Demon here?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.
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)
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.
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...
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 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.
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.
...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".
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...
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.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)
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.
...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".
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...
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.
...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)
You jet engine example would only apply if the operation of an EmDrive consumes in some manner the atmosphere within and around it...
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.
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.
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.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)
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-relativityQuoteGravitational 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.
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).
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.
...It may change in your PV model, but not in Einstein's General Relativity (if the only difference is potential gravitational energy). :)
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.
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....It may change in your PV model, but not in Einstein's General Relativity. :)
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.
Is there some possibility of a Maxwell's Demon here?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.
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)
(...)
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.
...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)
You jet engine example would only apply if the operation of an EmDrive consumes in some manner the atmosphere within and around it...
(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."
...
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.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.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.
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.
...It may change in your PV model, but not in Einstein's General Relativity (if the only difference is potential gravitational energy). :)
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). :)
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.
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.
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
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
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.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).
Roger has explained this many times, such as in this attachment.
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
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.
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.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).
Roger has explained this many times, such as in this attachment.
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?
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.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.
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.
...Nowadays, the consensus is that the behavior at Schwarzschild radius is not a true mathematical singularity. The only true singularity is at r=0.
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.
...
...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.
The singularity at r=0 is quite frankly, irrelevant for all practical "engineering" purposes.
...
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
100 W/4 GHz dummy load from ebayPeter,
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
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.
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.
Apparently your model still has the singularity at r=0?
...
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 RelativityQuotethat 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.
...
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.
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.
100 W/4 GHz dummy load from ebayPeter,
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
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.
....When discussing "vacuum" we have to clearly define and agree on what one means by "vacuum".
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.
...
100 W/4 GHz dummy load from ebayPeter
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
I am guessing you haven't studied calculus, that is the incorrect way to take a derivative.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.
100 W/4 GHz dummy load from ebayPeter,
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
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.
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)
100 W/4 GHz dummy load from ebayPeter,
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
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?
{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].
...Look at the equations (the math, instead of the words) you posted: Schwarzschild is using what is presently known as spherical coordinates
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.
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):
...
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 ?
....
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)
...
Nothing is perfect. This type of connectors can cause reflections and small amount of impedance mismatch. ;)100 W/4 GHz dummy load from ebayPeter,
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
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?
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
....
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
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).
...But (http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/2015-ModPhysLettA.pdf) the spatial coordinate transformation of the central singularity starts with the preamble:
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).
...
Now, let us focus on the space part of Schwarzschild’s line element, limited to {r, ϕ} coordinate(Eq. 9).
We have to deal with 4D spacetime, not 3D spacetime, which is just a didactic image of such geometric structure.
...But (http://www.jp-petit.org/papers/cosmo/2015-ModPhysLettA.pdf) the spatial coordinate transformation of the central singularity starts with the preamble:
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).
...QuoteNow, let us focus on the space part of Schwarzschild’s line element, limited to {r, ϕ} coordinate(Eq. 9).
and eventually recognize thatQuoteWe 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.
...It is a very interesting discussion, thank you :) , all part of:
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.
...
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 vacuum. According 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.
...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.
"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!"
I am guessing you haven't studied calculus, that is the incorrect way to take a derivative.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.
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.
....
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).QuoteTheir 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.QuoteThere 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.
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)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)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.
From either perspective, it appears that you did not read our posts since you are still using the equation that we demonstrated was wrong.
I am guessing you haven't studied calculus, that is the incorrect way to take a derivative.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.
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.
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 calculation of the work needed to be done on the mass to achieve the dV change is correct.
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!
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.
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.
So far I know of 4 P-P drive typesThere 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.
...
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:The first equation only works in the initial rest frame of the object. I have already demonstrated that fact.
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.
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.
The last gravitational and luminal observations of merging neutron stars falsified bigravity (https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.06394 & https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.07785).
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.
...
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...)
....
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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?
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.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.
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.
I have attached his book here...
"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.
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.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.
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...
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.
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?
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.
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'.
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.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?
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.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.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.
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.
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.
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.
For those wishing to run the resonance numbers, here are the, as manufactured, internal cavity dimensions
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
...
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, Shell!Bless your heart Aero... Thanks.
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,
ShellIt'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... ::)
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 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.
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.
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
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.
Thanks.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,
ShellIt'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?
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.
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)
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.
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)QuoteProof 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.
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).
this site seems to have been updated
any views on what Richard Banduric proposes?
http://electricspacecraft.org/
I respect Greg Egan, and I am familiar with the quoted paper. In this case the statement - quotingYou 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 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†
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. :-[
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
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
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.Wonderful progress!
I would still like to improve the heat sink on the main amplifier. :-[
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.
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
KJamie - 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.
Herman,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
Same here Herman. FEKO just didn't allow Jamie to see all the options to couple into the frustum.KJamie - 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.
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
Shell - Concur absolutely - good discussion! Thanks!Herman,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
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
In order to minimize bandwidth and maximize information content, when quoting, one can use an ellipsis (...) to indicate the clipped material.
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 - 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
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.
Is there a workshop/conference concerning the EM drive going on shortly? I remember Jamie was trying to finish in time to present.
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
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.
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.Dr. Rodal,Maybe I'm totally off target but ... what if one modulates the signal injected into the cavity? I mean ... using different waveformsNot 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
Was this already experimented?
(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)
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 respect Greg Egan, and I am familiar with the quoted paper. In this case the statement - quotingYou 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 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†
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)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. **
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.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: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.
"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.
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.
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: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.
"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.The temperature data says nothing about a "reflection coefficient." It does say something about distribution of fields and field strength.
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?
@meberbsIf you are not wrong, why did you not answer any of my objections to your statements?
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.As long as people post wrong information I will respond with corrections so that those here interested in learning something can do so.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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: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.
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
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.
(...)Rodal,
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
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.
...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. ...
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/S1875389211005797QuoteAbstract
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.
...
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?'
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/S1875389211005797QuoteAbstract
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?
...
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.
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
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
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).
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.ThatOtherGuy, I am not randomly
...
throwing very interesting ideas on the table, that just appeared in my mind.
ThatOtherGuy, I am not randomlydoes 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 momentQuotethrowing 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)
ThatOtherGuy, I am not randomlydoes 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 momentQuotethrowing 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.
...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
...Quotethrowing 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]
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.
...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.
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.
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.
[conceptual image of an early version of Monomorphic's drive shown with the direction of the measured force at the university, for visualization purposes]
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.
...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.
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.
...No.
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.
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)
...No.
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.
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.
...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!
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)
...
They have much better Q's: 40,000 to 500,000 vs. less than 50 then. ...
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.
...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.
No side wall injection ! No waveguide used this time !!!!!!!!!!!!
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.
...
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?
...
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.
...
...
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?
...
They reported measuring the existence of the perpendicular force with several eigenmodes, which they can do by varying the eigenfrequency....
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?
Dr. Rodal,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.
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.
...
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?
Dr. Rodal,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.
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.
Dr. Rodal,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.
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.
Hi Jose,
That is one way to do it.
Dr. Rodal,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.
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.
Hi Jose,
That is one way to do it.
Hi Phil,
Do you imply there are other ways?
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!Dr. Rodal,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.
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.
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.
Dr. Rodal,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.
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.
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.Dr. Rodal,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.
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.
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.)
...
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. :)
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!Dr. Rodal,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.
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.
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.
...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 ;)
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?
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 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 ;)
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?
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 questionQuoteDoes 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.
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.Dr. Rodal,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.
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.
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.)
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.
...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.
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?
....
Will be interesting to see the full test rig and understand why he decided to build a Roberval Balance.
...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.
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?
....
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: TheTravellerWill 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.
...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.
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?
....
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: TheTravellerWill 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?
...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.
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?
....
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: TheTravellerWill 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?
...
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.
...
...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.
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?
....
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: TheTravellerWill 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?
...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
...Paul,
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,
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.
...
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 :)
...TU Dresden reported achieving Q from 40,000 to 500,000, according to my recollection (will have to wait for video to confirm)
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
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....
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.
...Paul,
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.
...
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 :)
...TU Dresden reported achieving Q from 40,000 to 500,000
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....
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.
...
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
...Paul,
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.
...
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.
{…}
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).
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.
TU Dresden reported achieving Q from 40,000 to 500,000
<<I would be very interested in how this Q was measured.>>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.
...
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.
...
To get a higher loaded Q from experimental measurements, pay attention to the coupling factor!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.
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.
...can any of you tell whether Tajmar used dielectrics in any of his recent experiments?NO!
Thanks, Peter. ...
...
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.
...
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
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.
...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.
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
There are 2 very major difference in EmDrive torsion arm test rigs.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.
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.
There are 2 very major difference in EmDrive torsion arm test rigs.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.
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.
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) :)
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.
...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.
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.
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.
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 difficult to understand?Two things are difficult to understand:
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."
Hi PN,
Please read:
http://www.emdrive.com/EmDriveForceMeasurement.pdf
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.
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."
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. :)
This may be a dumb question from a layperson here in the peanut gallery, but I can't help wondering...This is an excellent question. Do not feel that "you are a layperson in the peanut gallery."
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
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. :)
This may be a dumb question from a layperson here in the peanut gallery, but I can't help wondering...This is an excellent question. Do not feel that "you are you are a layperson in the peanut gallery."
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 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...
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
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...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."
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. :)
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.
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."
In each successful case, the EmDrive force data has been superimposed on an increasing or decreasing background force, generated by the test equipment itself.
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.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:QuoteIn 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 Chinese EM Drive that reportedly is being tested in space
I don't have any further information than has been discussed in this forum. That's why I was careful to writeThe 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 ?
The Chinese EM Drive that reportedly is being tested in space
Furthermore, if my recollection is correct, I seem to recall Potomac Neuron writing that the test in space was not an unqualified success.
Posted yesterday. It discusses Dr. White's (NASA) theory of the Quantum Vacuum and the EM Drive at about 1:47 ...
Says "Sorry Internet"
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?
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: ...
The discussion about Shawyer's explanation would be easier to follow if it could be done with people posting: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.
(http://slideplayer.com/2871663/10/images/29/D%E2%80%99Alembert%E2%80%99s+Principle.jpg)
...A funny quote on so-called "fictitious forces" (which indeed the D'Alembert inertial forces are)
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.
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!’”
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.
PotomacNeuron,
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,
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.
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.
(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.
(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. :)
...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. ;)
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.What are you saying here?
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.
...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 for your reply.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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
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 ;)
...
Rodal,One unit of cow-power appears to be equivalent to 100 watts.
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
Don't let it be said that there was no progress in 2017 ;D ;D
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
PotomacNeuron,
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.
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.
...
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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"?
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).
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?
(...)
There is no NET charge dipole across a bar magnet.
(...)
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?
(...)
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...
Ya,
(...)
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.
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.
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.
What we do have is a lot of interesting theoretical discussion and tantalising glimpses of what could be..
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.
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!
...
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.
You thank me too quickly WT,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.
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.As WarpTech said, what paradox?
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?
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...
We have Noether's theorem now which is a basis for conservation laws.
Math and physics are intimately related but they are not and never will be the same. Also the theorem does have limits.
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
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.
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.
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?
...
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?-Schrodinger's cat is simply a misunderstanding of quantum mechanics.
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.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.
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.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?
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.
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.
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
Could you be more precise as which portion of the spectrum you're thinking of?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?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.
Shell
Could you be more precise as which portion of the spectrum you're thinking of?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.
Shell
(...)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.
The highest res I have. The attached is 4k x 4k.Could you be more precise as which portion of the spectrum you're thinking of?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.
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.
What argument are you claiming I made for you?(...)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 ;)
Could you be more precise as which portion of the spectrum you're thinking of?
Shell
(...)Thanks Shell,The highest res I have. The attached is 4k x 4k.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
:)
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.
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.
You may begin to question the reality of photons yourself.-The photoelectric effect
No meberbs, I do not.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?
WarpTech,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.
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:
Could you detail how you arrived at your second solution for my equation?While this was directed at WarpTech, I can answer this.
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
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.)
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 1QuoteThe smooth and growing deviation from theMight 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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It is safe to say that nobody understands 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.
You are in good company. As physicist Richard Feynman stated;QuoteIt 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.
WarpTech,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;QuoteIt 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.
(...)
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
WarpTech,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;QuoteIt 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.
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?
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;QuoteIt 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.
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.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.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.
Thanks meberbs, and WarpTech to,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.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.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.
Something related to WarpTech's equations aboveHow 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 isQuote from: https://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/9909/9909037.pdfPolarizable-Vacuum (PV) representation of general relativityso as an object falls into a gravity well undergoing a change in acceleration is mass changes also.
H. E. Puthoff
m(K) = m_o*K^(3/2)
“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.”
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.
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?
Your mileage may be relativistic,That's a 10 pointer!
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.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.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 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
...
.... 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.
.... 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.
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
I think it would be more appropriate to use a boat as a test vehicle in a static pool..... 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.
.... 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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.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
How about the Polish guys? Are they still having positive results?
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
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!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg)
Is that a modified version of EM Drive?
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
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
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.
I already have my conclusions: artefacts all the way.And this forum is still interesting for you to follow?
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!
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!
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?
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)?
It is common practice in politics.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!
Sources say the satellite, which carries the emdrive of Chen yue, has been changing its orbit for a year.
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.
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.
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.”
Sources say the satellite, which carries the emdrive of Chen yue, has been changing its orbit for a year.
Indeed it is. But I hope that's not what we're devolving into.It is common practice in politics.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!
QuoteThe 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/
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 ...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.
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.There is of course a way to test all theories.
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.
The Mach effect has been verified by three different labs in countries other than the US.
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.
Correct, because this is the way that Hathaway wants to be quoted: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.
"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/
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 ...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?
At what point does it become cheaper to attempt a cubesat test instead of building a better terrestrial test setup?
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.
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?
How about something very simple, powered by a LiPo battery, that does an experiment *inside* the ISS?
Probably best to stick with a cubesat by comparison.
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...
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.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.
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.
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.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.
...
Expensive, but worth it. Can we start a cost-estimation?
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?...
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?
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.
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.
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?)I do too. However....
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?...
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.
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。。
ref: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576517317356I think most people (certainly myself) were taught the instrumentalist view of Quantum Mechanics as expressed by the quote from David Mermin,
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.
Shut up and calculate
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?...
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.
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。。
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?...
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.
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。。
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.Bob,
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." ;)
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.
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"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 :)
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
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.
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..
Another couple of points...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
Rodal, if you will forgive a philosophical reply,
(...)
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 !!! )
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.
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
AbstractQuoteThe 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
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
...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)
Is this negative mass as in an Alcubbier drive or is it using negative mass to describe some other phenomenon?
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.
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.)
Quote from: SteveD link=topic=42978.msg1769764#msg1769764 date1515564065...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)
Is this negative mass as in an Alcubbier drive or is it using negative mass to describe some other phenomenon?QuoteIn 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:QuoteThe 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.
Another couple of points...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
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.
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.
(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.
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.
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!!!!
Ahead BOB factor 5, Engage.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... ;)
(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.
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?Interesting article and comments following article.
So this is yet another way to get negative mass/energy whether just apparent or really real.
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. :-\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?Interesting article and comments following article.
So this is yet another way to get negative mass/energy whether just apparent or really real.
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. :-\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?Interesting article and comments following article.
So this is yet another way to get negative mass/energy whether just apparent or really real.
No posts for three days in this thread - hmmm - or did I miss a switch to a new thread??
graybeardsyseng
Guys and Gals,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. :-\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?Interesting article and comments following article.
So this is yet another way to get negative mass/energy whether just apparent or really real.
No posts for three days in this thread - hmmm - or did I miss a switch to a new thread??
graybeardsyseng
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!
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!
I believe they will be in Philadelphia in May.
A public conference?
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.A public conference?
It is a competition: https://www.crazynauka.pl/explory-2017-znamy-juz-zwyciezcow-tego-konkursu-naukowego/
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."
...
The principle of the EmDrive engine does not violate the laws of physics. The secrets of his work were explained by Chinese scientists.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."
...
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."
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*
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?
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.
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...
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 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 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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.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.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.
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=0,26QuoteA 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!
.....
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.
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
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
SSI to begin releasing videos of the 2017 Advanced Propulsion WorkshopThanks 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.
http://ssi.org/advanced-propulsion-workshop-2017/QuoteLast 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
SSI to begin releasing videos of the 2017 Advanced Propulsion Workshop
http://ssi.org/advanced-propulsion-workshop-2017/QuoteLast 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
.....
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.
SSI to begin releasing videos of the 2017 Advanced Propulsion Workshop
http://ssi.org/advanced-propulsion-workshop-2017/QuoteLast 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
Agreed, very pessimistic. Your last point seems only a small ray of hope.
...
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.
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
The Navy Research Lab's presentation has been posted:
The Navy Research Lab's presentation has been posted:Hello ! Can you tell me the conclusion of the us naval laboratory?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnJ0_9MRcDU
The Navy Research Lab's presentation has been posted:Hello ! Can you tell me the conclusion of the us naval laboratory?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnJ0_9MRcDU
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 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.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.
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.
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?
...
...
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.
... 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 ;)
The Navy Research Lab's presentation has been posted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnJ0_9MRcDU
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 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.
(...)
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.
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, this is a real thrust, and I talked to professor Yang recently, and she still believes in the results.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.
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.
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.
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.
(...)
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.
(...)
The Navy Research Lab's presentation has been posted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnJ0_9MRcDU
Sorry guys but I've been busy, missed you all.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...
...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.
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.
...
...DC in grounding loops may be a direction to investigate. Also there are DC inside of amplifiers and other components.
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??
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.
...
...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.
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.
...
Thanks PN....DC in grounding loops may be a direction to investigate. Also there are DC inside of amplifiers and other components.
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??Quote3. 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 17Quote...
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.
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
DC in grounding loops may be a direction to investigate. Also there are DC inside of amplifiers and other components.
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.
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!
Hello, can you take a screenshot? I can't see video. Thank you very much
Hello, can you take a screenshot? I can't see video. Thank you very muchoyzw, is there an online video service similar to YouTube available in China? If so we could post the video there.
Hello, can you take a screenshot? I can't see video. Thank you very muchoyzw, is there an online video service similar to YouTube available in China? If so we could post the video there.
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
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).Hello, can you take a screenshot? I can't see video. Thank you very muchoyzw, 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.
Yes! For example:http://www.youku.com/, https://www.bilibili.com/Hello, can you take a screenshot? I can't see video. Thank you very muchoyzw, is there an online video service similar to YouTube available in China? If so we could post the video there.
We are also frustrated and helpless.Hello, can you take a screenshot? I can't see video. Thank you very muchoyzw, 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.
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:Yes! For example:http://www.youku.com/, https://www.bilibili.com/Hello, can you take a screenshot? I can't see video. Thank you very muchoyzw, is there an online video service similar to YouTube available in China? If so we could post the video there.
Thank you very much for your help. I can see this video.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:Yes! For example:http://www.youku.com/, https://www.bilibili.com/Hello, can you take a screenshot? I can't see video. Thank you very muchoyzw, is there an online video service similar to YouTube available in China? If so we could post the video there.
http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMzQyNTgyNTk3Ng==.html?spm=a2h3j.8428770.3416059.1
Is there any chance of reviving the discussion of explanations for emdrive thrust, should it prove true?Magnetic monopolesI 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.
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
...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.
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.
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)).
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!
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.
give rise to unfounded generalizationsThis 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.
... 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.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)
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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)
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.
Collect and compress the air molecules to a level where thruster ignition could take place.
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).
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.
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:
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)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)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).
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.
I am beginning the process of automating the experiment using LabView.
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.
Other questions have answers in my essays.
No, actually they aren't answered there.
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 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.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.
Concerning gravitational waves then in my essay it is said: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.
«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."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.
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.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.
I propose to be tolerant of all explanations of the facts.
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.Hello, your experiment progress is encouraging. Now, what is the microwave power of this device? What is the Q value of this resonator?
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?
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.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.
I'm in Atlanta, USA. I would be happy to work with you. Please private message me for more info.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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Dear meberbs,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
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.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.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.)
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.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.)
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.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.
Mike McCullough's TEDx talk is finally on YT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnNKC82wUmYSo.
He specifically mentions the EMDrive.
Mike McCullough's TEDx talk is finally on YT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnNKC82wUmYSo.
He specifically mentions the EMDrive.
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?
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.
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.Other similarly sparse galaxies do not show this lack of dark matter, so explanations relying on it being a sparse galaxy are wrong.
But none of the ultra-diffuse galaxies discovered so far have been found to be lacking in dark matter.
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.
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.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.
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.
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)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.
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.
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2018_Phase_I_Phase_II/Mach_Effect_for_In_Space_Propulsion_Interstellar_Mission
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2018_Phase_I_Phase_II/Mach_Effect_for_In_Space_Propulsion_Interstellar_Mission
On that I'd agree.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.
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.
This hypothesis is seriously considered after LIGO measurements :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.
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.
This hypothesis is seriously considered after LIGO measurements :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.
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.
All,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,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.
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.
Interesting questions. Two facts: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.
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!)
You're very welcome.All,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.
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?
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?
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,
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)
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.
QuoteI 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
QuoteI 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).
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).
QuoteI 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).QuoteActually 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
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.
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.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.
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.
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)
Now I do not believe in any statement of physics and I immediately find alternative explanations.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.
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 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 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.
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."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.
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.
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.
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.
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! ;)
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
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.
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.
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 :-).
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.
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.
This seems a rather bold claim?
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/981910517806780417?s=20QuoteMike 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.
This seems a rather bold claim?
https://twitter.com/memcculloch/status/981910517806780417?s=20QuoteMike 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.
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.htmlThat 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.
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.htmlThat 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.
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.htmlThat 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.
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.htmlThat 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Question, is this a general theoretical discussion or does it have some real association with an EmDrive?
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.
«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.
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
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"Thiswas in the context of corona heating and the solar wind and has no relation to what you are discussing.
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
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.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.
...
For example, it is known that Chinese scientists have reached the greatest power/kilowatt, I think it is no accident.
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
...
Long term, I am very interested in designing and building a Sub-Micro Newton Rotary Thrust Stand that can rotate freely.
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 meberbsI 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.
It will be better if you give specific experiments, which in your opinion, contradict my explanations.
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: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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_GPS
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.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.
...
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
…
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.
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.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.
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.
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.Is it configured for TE013 or a different frequency? It looks from the pic slightly different than your frustum.
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.
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.33/5000Oyzw'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?
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.It is better to continue to use mirror polishing process to eliminate the wall scratches in the cavity.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
I notice from the schedule that Dr. Fearn is also on a panel late Friday.
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
Getting crowded in P-P (Propellant Less Propulsion) land:
EmDrive,
Q Thruster,
Cannae Drive,
WDrive,
Qi Drive,
MEGA Drive,
and now Dipole Drive.
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.
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.
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").
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.
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.
Getting crowded in P-P (Propellant Less Propulsion) land:
EmDrive,
Q Thruster,
Cannae Drive,
WDrive,
Qi Drive,
MEGA Drive,
and now Dipole Drive.
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 gaveAgain, you are prefacing a factually incorrect statement with "opinion."
«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».
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 resonanceNot 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").
For example, Memberbs saw on drawingsFirst, 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.
Since orbits are ellipses, not toroids, and non-toroidal shapes (spheres, oblate spheroids, etc.) are common, this statement is clearly wrong.
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.
At the same time, we read the definition of orbital resonance in WikipediaThat 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.)
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!»
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.
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.
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."
It's been a while Phil. Hope things are going well for you these days.
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.
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
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.
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."
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) ?
Will the liquid metal boil off at near vacuum?
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.
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.
The stuff is called "Galinstan", the mixture is liquid at room temperature and less dangerous than mercury...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?
Zubrin's Dipole Drive is a type of electromagnetic solar sail that accelerates protons.
Sonny White is talking right now.
...
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.
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:
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?
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)
The nationalistic approach is the right thing to do too. Humanity is not united yet. We're tribal, and it's not even wrong.
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.
The nationalistic approach is the right thing to do too. Humanity is not united yet. We're tribal, and it's not even wrong.
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.
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.
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.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?
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.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.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?
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.
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?
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...
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.
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 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.
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...
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.
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.
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.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?
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.
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.
Yes, that's right. Contrast is the best way to eliminate distractions.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".
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....
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.
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.
QuoteQuote 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
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?
It is more appropriate to use soft paraffin wax. Is the specific heat capacity of vaseline appropriate?
So that's good. In addition, a pure load replacement cavity is required to obtain the data of the comparison test.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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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?
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 :)
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.
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. :-\
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
QuoteAnd so it remains infuriatingly ambiguous. :-\
To me, it looked like a lean towards the negative, especially with the reference to earths magnetic field.
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.
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.
Thank you on reporting this Monomorphic. I hope for some interesting data. Can you share any details on their setup?
The accurate measurement techniques they are developing and ways to control various errors can have a variety of potential applications.
QuoteAnd so it remains infuriatingly ambiguous. :-\
To me, it looked like a lean towards the negative, especially with the reference to earths magnetic field.
QuoteAnd 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:QuoteThis 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:QuoteAt 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?
This again indicates that there must be some electromagnetic interaction or thermally induced center of mass shift that is masking any real thrust value.
Does this equally apply to both types of drive?
In short yes:QuoteThis 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.Not as far as I can tell (tried on multiple computers/networks).
The paper looks to be paywalled?
Does this equally apply to both types of drive?
In short yes:QuoteThis 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.Not as far as I can tell (tried on multiple computers/networks).
The paper looks to be paywalled?
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.
QuoteAnd so it remains infuriatingly ambiguous. :-\
To me, it looked like a lean towards the negative, especially with the reference to earths magnetic field.
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.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.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.
New PBS Spacetime episode on Noether's Theorem and The Symmetries of RealityWhile 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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04ERSb06dOg&
On the Anomalous Forces in Microwave Cavity-Magnetron SystemsMy 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.
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
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325177082_The_SpaceDrive_Project_-_First_Results_on_EMDrive_and_Mach-Effect_ThrustersL.A.,
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.
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.The paywall on White's paper is kind of steep ($120). Does anyone have a link to the PDF?
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?
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.
Paper is now being widely reported by those still interested on social media and general consensus is that’s that case closed.
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.
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?
QuoteAnd 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:QuoteThis 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:QuoteAt 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.
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:
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.
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.
Agreed Jamie!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.
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.
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.)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.
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.
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.
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°.
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?
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.
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).
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.
That analysis was with a dielectric at thr small end.
Tajmar did not use a dielectric.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.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.
My Best,
Shell
McCulloch's opinion of the media reaction to the Tajmar EmDrive test: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...”.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dd92hZAUwAA46OZ.jpg)
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.QuoteThis 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.
I am disappointed.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.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.
My Best,
Shell
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."
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.QuoteThis 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.
Forget your issues with TheTraveler, that is not the hot topic here.I am disappointed.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.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.
My Best,
Shell
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.
.......
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.QuoteI 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.QuoteThis 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.QuoteThis suggests Tajmar was exciting a resonant coupler and not a resonant cavity mode.
Resonant coupling to what?QuoteThus 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.QuoteI'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,
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.
You don't get to talk about "impossible real world result" when you are claiming conservation of momentum does not work........
A -55dB rtn loss from the S11 VNA scan represents a VSWR of 1.004:1 which is an impossible real world result.
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.
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.
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.)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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
...
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?
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.
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.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.
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.
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........
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........
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 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.
TT,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........
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 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".
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..)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.
.......
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?
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.
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... ???
I agree with your point of view. Prof. Paul and Prof. Yang Jie are more professional in radio frequency engineering.
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.
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?
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?
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.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.
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.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 magnetic (surrounding) magnetic field and the one generated by his system.
I volunteer to pilot the apparatus. If it can move my big butt we're halfway to Proxima... ;)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
Monomorphic
An isolation transformer as in the original experiment by Woodward is needed.
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.
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
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.
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
...
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.
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.
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.Phil, a quick calculation using my spreadsheet indicates that your rotary test rig will only rotate 137.5° with 11mN of thrust.
Force: min 11mN or 1gf
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 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.
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.Phil, a quick calculation using my spreadsheet indicates that your rotary test rig will only rotate 137.5° with 11mN of thrust.
Force: min 11mN or 1gf
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.
...
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.
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?
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.
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.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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.............
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.
Bd: 280mm
Sd: 150mm
Len: 308mm
Mode: TE013
Freq: 2.45GHz
Looks like TE214Bd: 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.
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.
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.
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。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。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.
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.
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)?
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.
Look we are talking about a min 12mN or 1.1g of force, or 120mN/kWrf, ie approx 100x what EW achieved.
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.
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.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.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)?
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
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.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.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)?
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.
You need to learn the difference between opinion and fact..........
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.
Care to show your experimental data?
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?
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.
And the facts I stated are facts. Tautologies are useless.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.
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 DarkActions 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.
It Is Time For The EmDrive To Come Out Of The Dark
Care to show your experimental data?
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.
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
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.
...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.
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.
Here is a sweep using the 1/4 wavelength stub. I will try the half-loop next.
X_Ray, would we call this mode at 2.456Ghz TE313?
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.
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.
However you should get the idea how this will come together and be a KISS thruster and KISS rotary test rig.
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?
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.
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.
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.......
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.......
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.......
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.
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
IMO, only modes worth pursuing with this dimensions are:
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
IMO, only modes worth pursuing with this dimensions are:
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.
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
Bd: 300mm
Sd: 180mm
Len: 280mm
Checked with Roger.
He calcs 2.2608Ghz in TE013.
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?
30/5000This 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.
Hi, Mr. Jamie, is it all right now? How is your experiment progressing?
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.
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"
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.
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
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.
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.
We did calculations based on the dimensions TT stated before he switched to others: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 mNFreq 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?
@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.
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.
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.What you just stated is a "theory" on how it works. Specifically an incorrect one that has been demonstrated nonsensical repeatedly.
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.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.
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.
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
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?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.
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?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?"
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.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.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.
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.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.
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
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.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.
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
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........
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.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.
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........
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.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.
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.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.
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
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?
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.
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?
...
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.
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.
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
nice picture, no data, and my patience for sawyer's flying cars has long expired.
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 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
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
My thought was to create a "force locked loop", rather than a phase locked loop
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.
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.
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.
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.A good idea, which can be implemented, but needs some serious consideration to do well.
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".
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.
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.
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.
The miniVNA tiny+ has shipped. Should take max 10 days to arrive.
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.
Nomenclature suggestion: Push To Talk is a little cryptic, describing an action rather than a source.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.
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...
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.
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
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.
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
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?
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?
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,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You do need a freq generator to drive the cavity coupler and another freq scanner to measure the output of the E field probe.
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.
The EmDrive NEEDS TO BE FREE to accelerate.
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... ::)
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.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.")
Either way CofE is conserved.
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.
AmpPwr?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.
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.
TT,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
.....
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.
.....
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?
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.
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.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."
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.
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.
TT,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
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!
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!
(...)Augmentor, are you suggesting that the gravitational field should be quantized? :o
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
(...)jay343,
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,
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...
Shawyers 2006 report gives results for vertical tests, but they are harder to measure than horizontal tests, maybe too hard at mN output.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.TT,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
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.There was something simple I was forgetting about this situation and this is it.
Google gravity tractor.
Funny moment to remember.
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.
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.
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.There was something simple I was forgetting about this situation and this is it.
Google gravity tractor.
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.
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.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.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.
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.
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.OK, but who gets to drive? :D
Best, Paul M.
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).
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.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.
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
dKE = (m * dV^2) / 2This equation is wrong. The correct equation is dKe =0.5*m*(v2^2 - v1^2)
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.There was something simple I was forgetting about this situation and this is it.
Google gravity tractor.
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.
dKE = (m * dV^2) / 2This 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.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.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.
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.
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.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.
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.
Velocity, momentum and kinetic energy are all variant between frames. There is no such thing as frame invariant expressions for them by definition.